Lens comparison P 50-200 vs S 18-50 and S 70-300

SpecialK · 03-21-2007, 09:41 PM

In another thread that I can't find now, someone asked if there could not be a "lens comparison" between, essentially, all the lenses that come up in discussion. Well, I can't do them all, but I do have 3 that pop up a lot in posts.

I'm out of upload space, so I have to give these links. All shots are at f8 and are cropped from about the central 1/8th of the image.

The first is the Sigma 18-50 f 2.8 EX DC ($375) versus Pentax 50-200 ($229 - 50 rebate) at 50mm:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q...Tests/50ps.jpg

Next is the Pentax 50-200 vs Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro ($229 or so) at about 100mm (focus was on the truck mirror):

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q...ests/Ps100.jpg

Last is the same pair at about 200mm:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q...ests/ps200.jpg

**Adam** · 03-21-2007, 10:28 PM

For the last two, is the photo on top taken with the 50-200mm? It seems slightly sharper than the bottom photo. Thanks for sharing!

darkstorm82 · 03-22-2007, 03:18 AM

are you sure about the 229$ price of the da50-200?
seems very high since i bought mine 188$ CDN (162$ USD) without any rebate
Camera Canada - Canada's dot.com for Cameras

roy · 03-22-2007, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by darkstorm82

are you sure about the 229$ price of the da50-200?
seems very high since i bought mine 188$ CDN (162$ USD) without any rebate
Camera Canada - Canada's dot.com for Cameras

wow, that's cheaper than with the rebate.

FotoPete · 03-22-2007, 09:21 AM

I couldn't pick out any big sharpness difference between the pentax and the sigma telephoto lens but I found the Pentax to be delivering more contrast

SpecialK · 03-22-2007, 08:13 PM

The Pentax lenses are on top for all pairs. I've seen the 50-200 for as low as $209 at Adorama.

I did not notice a whole lot of difference in the test , though the Sigma 18-50 seem sharpest in real use.

Denis · 03-22-2007, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by darkstorm82

are you sure about the 229$ price of the da50-200?
seems very high since i bought mine 188$ CDN (162$ USD) without any rebate
Camera Canada - Canada's dot.com for Cameras

I paid $199.99 CDN + 7% tax at London Drugs with no rebate last December. In Quebec for you that would be plus 15% tax which put both within a couple of dollars.

darkstorm82 · 03-23-2007, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Denis

I paid $199.99 CDN + 7% tax at London Drugs with no rebate last December. In Quebec for you that would be plus 15% tax which put both within a couple of dollars.

I bought it online from camera canada, so its located in ontario,
only had to pay 6% fed tax, but 15$ shipping extra..
216$ total, very good price for what the lens is!
(186$ USD shipped at my door)

teogin · 11-03-2007, 05:04 PM

I think tha Sigma or Tamron solution is much better than pentax:
1.They are FF lenses, so not dark areas at the edges.
2.Compatibility with past, current and future bodies
3.Better macro capabilities.
4.Better built quality.

I most like Tamron but I voted Sigma cause I 've read a lot about this awarded lens by Sigma.

OniFactor · 12-18-2007, 11:38 PM

have you tested the sig 55-200, against the pentax? that one has caught my eye..

Chako · 12-19-2007, 04:14 AM

Wow. That Sigma sure gives washed out colours doesn't it?

Shogo · 11-20-2008, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Chako

Wow. That Sigma sure gives washed out colours doesn't it?

Yeah. I wonder if it would be noticeable after putting it into photoshop and fixing it up.

**Marc Sabatella** · 11-20-2008, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by teogin

I think tha Sigma or Tamron solution is much better than pentax:
1.They are FF lenses, so not dark areas at the edges.
2.Compatibility with past, current and future bodies
3.Better macro capabilities.
4.Better built quality.

Well, OK, but you did you look at the pictures? I'm sure someone else might get different results - you'd want to be sure to take several shots with focus bracketing and different types of subjects - before really drawing conclusions. But based on these, the image quality of the Pentax is *much* better. Plus it focuses faster, is smaller and lighter, and gives you the 50-70 range which I personally find more useful than 200-300. As for macro, neither 70-300 does true macro - only 1:2 or so. A $40 Raynox closeup adapter on the 50-200 will do far better than that.

Sure, if you intend to use FF bodies, you would probably be willing to sacrifice something for that. But I have no intention of abandoning APS-C.

audiobomber · 11-20-2008, 11:31 AM

I preferred the Pentax in each case. It's odd that the 50-200mm has such a bad rep.

Alfisti · 11-20-2008, 11:33 AM

The pictures say what I have been saying for 2 years, the 50-200 may not be the sharpest lens in the world but colour and contrast are fantastic.

Even the 18-250 shows the same result, just as sharp as the 50-200 but the mid tones are a mess, almost as if the glass has less dynamic range ... that is absurd but it feels like that is case when reviewing files.