an example of why the 50-135* doesn't suck

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Buddha Jones

The lens rocks the socks for sure. Between nostatics images and jsherms, I dont know if I wish I was at the falls more or that I had a family of my own to shoot. Both are great shots.

thanks for the props, but if you have a long enough lens you can shoot someone else's family and pretend they're your own

[jgredline]

Plain and simple. The DA*50-135 is one of the very best lenses ever made. I have yet to hear otherwise...and it is now affordable...

[synnyster]

Have to throw in my 2 cents. Test shot with my new DA* 50-135:

[Buddha Jones]

That bokey is just wickedly slick!!

Glad I own one.

[dantuyhoa]

Another test shot way back :

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

[jgredline]

[Canada_Rockies]

Here is a bit different shot with the 50-135, taken through my dining room window, just for the fun of it. The mountain is part of the Canadian Rockies, Balmer Ridge, which is being slowly eaten away by a coal mine - the main industry in this part of the world. The large white expanse is my next door neighbour's roof, and the lumpy bit is snow on my kitchen balcony. You can see the shadow of the mountain to the West across the mountain in the image.

Resized in Lightroom, no other processing.

[gkopeliadis]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Very tough conditions - odd light, ultra high contrast, and all the way at 135mm

Very Good Photo!

I tested the DA* 50-135 last month but decided not to buy it. Its a sharp, very well built, fast auto focusing lens with moderate aberrations (except wide open @110-135mm where chromatic aberration is easy visible). But Flaring is not well controlled (for my taste anyway).
Here are some quick and dirty samples comparing this lens with the cheap DA 18-55mm kit lens.
No scientific testing anyway and bad photos (compositions) for sure


1st photo DA 18-55 @ 55mm, f5,6
2nd photo DA* 50-135 @ 100mm, f 4
3rd photo DA* 50-135 @ 85mm, f 4
4th photo DA 18-55 @ 45mm, f5,6

[roentarre]

Wow, great shots everyone. This zoom certainly performs and I wonder what is the most commonly used focal length used by everyone?

[egordon99]

gkopeliadis - Did you have a UV Filter on the lens? That second photo with the greenish flair has "Bad UV Filter" written all over it.

Examples of the 50-135mm not sucking

[gkopeliadis]

Originally Posted by egordon99

gkopeliadis - Did you have a UV Filter on the lens? That second photo with the greenish flair has "Bad UV Filter" written all over it.

No filter of any kind
Plain lens!
Has anyone else shot similar shots? (in hope that the spesific piece was poor performing)

[Tom M]

Good work nostatic - By the way - Are you a Steely Dan fan?

[nostatic]

well, let's see...

Saw Steely Dan:

'93 - Greek Theater, LA
'94 - Mountain View, CA
'00 - Coors Amphitheater, San Diego (played on the side stage before the show as a hired-gun guitarist)
'03 - Coors Amphitheater, San Diego and Universal Amphitheater, LA
'06 - Verizon Amphitheater, Irvine

Missed the '96 tour and last year's tour. Yeah, I kinda like 'em

btw, I always use a high quality UV filter on all my lenses. B+W multicoated is my weapon of choice.

[jgredline]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I always use a high quality UV filter on all my lenses. B+W multicoated is my weapon of choice.

Same here...I use to complain about filters when I was using cheap ones...

[Jonson PL]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Very tough conditions - odd light, ultra high contrast, and all the way at 135mm

Beautiful image.
There was a discussion on another forum that the 50-135 might in time become a legendary lens, it does so much so well.


I love the lion shot too