Is this Tamron lens a good deal?

[wmmk]

Hi all!
I was at the local Helix camera store today and they had a Tamron (I believe it was Di series) 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 for $79. The guy I talked to said it'd been in a warehouse for almost 7 years, but seriously, who cares? I believe it was originally $329. Should I go for this or get a 50-20mm f3.6-5.6 for $250? I'll try it out in the store next weekend with my K100D, but just wanted to all of you first.
Thanks for the advice,
wmmk

 

[compuwar]

Hi all!
I was at the local Helix camera store today and they had a Tamron (I believe it was Di series) 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 for $79. The guy I talked to said it'd been in a warehouse for almost 7 years, but seriously, who cares? I believe it was originally $329. Should I go for this or get a 50-20mm f3.6-5.6 for $250? I'll try it out in the store next weekend with my K100D, but just wanted to all of you first.
Thanks for the advice,
wmmk

I don't have direct experience with either lens, but this post looked all lonely...

In general (and there are some great exceptions, like the Sigma 50-500mm, but they're rare) the longer the zoom range, the more compromises have to be made in the optical formula for a lens. For lenses that are in the same price category you'll usually see better and more even coverage at the wide end with the shorter zoom range.

 

[coldrain]

While not amazing, the 28-200 Tamron and Sigma lenses were not all that bad. But do not expect amazing results, digital SLRs are a bit more demanding lenswise than flim SLRs were, you are more likely to be disturbed by a lens' shortcomings. But for 75$, who cares? That is a very low price, and for that price it is worthwhile to pick it up and use it as walk around lens (although of course it does miss wide angle on your APS-C crop factor camera).

 

[wmmk]

ok, according to dan the camera man it's:
It is a Tamron AF28-200mm Super f/3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical (IF)
Model 571DP
anyway, turns out it was actually $349, not $329, and some places even charged $400+ for it...
It apparently also still sells for around $200 online
I know that 80 bucks is a good deal, but I can spend more, it's just that the original MSRP makes this jump out. If it's not going to be worthwhile, I might as well just save up my money and get a pentax DA 50-200mm f/3.5-5.6 later. Anyway, I'll say this:
Are the optics as good as those in the pentax 18-55mm kit lense? I know that that is not exactly a premium piece of glass, but it does what I need it to and I've taken some really beautiful (IMO) pictures with it, and after, the most import part of a camera is behind the viewfinder, which I think a lot of us tend to forget

 

[coldrain]

The 28-200 Tamron will perform quite decently in the 28-90mm range, probably comparable to the 18-55 kitlens. But above that it will get softer, and probably very soft at 200mm. Digital SLRs make us a lot more critical with lenses, and lenses that were fine on a film camera are a bit of a let down on a DSLR.
The Pentax/Sigma/Tamron 50/55-200 mm lenses will do a better job in the long end than that 28-200 tamron, on your Pentax.

 

[wmmk]

The 28-200 Tamron will perform quite decently in the 28-90mm range, probably comparable to the 18-55 kitlens. But above that it will get softer, and probably very soft at 200mm. Digital SLRs make us a lot more critical with lenses, and lenses that were fine on a film camera are a bit of a let down on a DSLR.
The Pentax/Sigma/Tamron 50/55-200 mm lenses will do a better job in the long end than that 28-200 tamron, on your Pentax.

dang, I just bought it, as it seemed OK in the store. well, I'll shoot some with it and see if I need to return.