Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di vs. Pentax 60-250mm f4

<p>I got my mind set on the Pentax 60-250mm F4 but I looked at some reviews on the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro and that lens gives the Pentax a good run for the money image quality wise. Not only that, its about 1/3+ cheaper. I plan to use either lens for weddings which is why the f2.8 on the Tamron seems like a better choice, but usually you get what you pay for. Anybody has experience with any or both of these lenses ? </p>

<p>If I were shooting weddings I would go with the f/2.8 lens rather than f/4. Also, if you think there might be a K-1 in your future, the 60-250 is designated for APS-C, not full frame. My personal set up for theater photography includes K3 and K5 bodies, a Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 and a Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 which is no longer made, unfortunately. The Pentax 50-135 is easily hand holdable for me; the Tokina lives on a tripod due to the increased weight. The Tokina is excellent optically, in my experience, although it focuses to just 6 feet, which is my only minor complaint about it. My experience with Tamron lenses is limited to a 28-75 f/2.8 which has been excellent optically and mechanically over 10 years of regular use, so I wouldn't worry about Tamron quality if the lens fits your needs.</p>

<p>Harry, As you have probably researched already, there are a slew of of reviews on this lens (some are the VC version , (Vibration Control) which doesn't mean much on the Pentax with built-in body stabilization:<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/tamron-70-200-2p8-c16<br>

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/tamron/70-200mm-f2.8-di-vc-usd-sp/review/<br>

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron_SP_70-200mm_f2-8_Di_VC_USD/<br>

http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_70-200_2-8_VC_USD_review.html</p>

<p>But this guy, Ed Thomas, is a wedding photographer too with a folksy approach. He sometimes meanders a bit but he does tell it like it is. On YouTube. Take a peek:</p>

<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctopOqYl-oI</p>

<p>Wayne Campbell</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Tamron will be louder to focus which might matter for your intended use. But the FF argument is a good one as-is the speed. <br>

I have the 60-250 and it's very nice and when zoomed in to 100mm+ I get plenty of background separation and the IQ is great. It's very quiet too. I chose it for WR over the alternatives because I shoot outdoors in the mountains a lot. <br>

I have rented the Tamron and liked everything about it except that it was kind of loud.<br>

So you just need to prioritize those traits to decide. Both are good lenses. </p>

<p>Very good advice, thank you. I'm also looking at the 50-135mm f2.8 which is the true FF equivalent of a 70-200mm on an ASPC. From some of the pictures taken by Matt with that lens, it is a good lens if not great. What I like about the Tamron is the extremely accurate color coming out of that lens, the images have that pop, but the noise and slow AF might be a deal breaker. </p>

<p>I've been extremely happy with my 50-135--recently, while on an important out of town commercial assignment my 100 macro quit stopping down when I needed f/11, not f/2.8 for DOF for product shots. I had the 50-135 for back up and the results were excellent, within a whisker of the sharpness of the superb 100 macro. Wide open for theater shooting, it also performs well. If you're looking for the FF equivalent of a 70-200, it would be an excellent choice.</p>

<p>I own a copy of the old Tamron 80-200mm f/2.8 LD Adaptall-2 zoom, which I love, and, according to a few pieces I've read, this new AF wonder is even better. If that is really true, then I'd have to say, go with the Tamron, absolutely, because my old manual-focus Tamron is simply an amazing lens.</p>

<p>The Pentax 60-250 F4 works superbly on the K1. I've just returned one from rental. Vignetting is significant upwards of 250mm but manually controllable in PP. The example I rented was tack sharp and as good or better than my Canon L 70-200 F4 from a few years back. One poster commented about louder, it's dead silent in focusing. I'm assuming spell check changed it from longer to focus. I didn't have a problem at all with focus, although I could tell it was marginally slower than my previous Canon lens.</p>

<p>To what Charles said I would add the 55-300mm also works fine on the K-1 with very light vignetting, also fixable in PP. There was some softness at the extreme edges but in the telephoto range who looks at the extreme edges? More disturbing was the amount of purple fringing at the edges in long telephoto range. Unfortunately the K-1 doesn't allow you to make in-camera chromatic aberration or vignetting corrections on this lens, possibly because it recognizes that it is an APS-C lens. Still, I was pleasantly surprised by the overall sharpness and usability. Plus, it's waterproofed.</p>