Sigma 50-150 & DA* 50-135 Street Shootout

[heliphoto]

I'll guess it's the M135/3.5.

[farfisa]

Originally Posted by jsherman999

.

Was shooting another couple lenses at the MOA yesterday for a bit...


Take a wild guess what this first lens is.

Super Tak (non-SMC) 135mm / 3.5?

[jsherman999]

Originally Posted by farfisa

Super Tak (non-SMC) 135mm / 3.5?

Yup!

(did you cheat and look in the Takumar Club thread? )

Here's the main difference between this excellent lens and the DA* & Sigma
fancy-pants lenses - with the DA* and Sigma, you tend to machine-gun
all day long, getting lots of technically sharp/color/contrasty great images,
but composition and subject matter suffer. You might take 300 shots in an
hour, and end up with 250 keepers, but only 10 really pleasing shots.

With a lens like the Tak 135, you'll take 50 shots in an hour, end up with
40 keepers and 10 really pleasing shots.

In the end, you get those 10 shots - the Tak method just forces you
to use your brain, compositional skills and focus-light indicator more.

Sharpness/color/contrast, the Tak is right there with the other two. But
it cost me something like $60.


.

[farfisa]

Originally Posted by jsherman999

Yup!

(did you cheat and look in the Takumar Club thread? )



.

I did cheat, kinda, but time travel was not my method (my post was 5 minutes before yours ). I knew it had to be a 135mm, since it was the same location as the DA* 135 @135mm, and it was probably one that you had, so I did a search

(Not as easy as when you had them all in your sig!)

The 'wild guess' part was this one or the M 135mm.

A lot less conspicuous than the DA* or the Sigma--people would have no idea you'd be counting their eyelashes later. Your manual focus skills amaze me every time.

[OrenMc]

jsherman999, as far as the sigma 100-300 IQ goes you can look in my PPG signature and see that most are shot with this lens. Very sharp! As I will respond whenever the subject of this lens comes up. I need to utilize more of my other lenses though.

I am wondering though how the sigma 50-150 would do on a Pentax body? ( I hope I didn't read past this already posted thought )

BTW, thanks a bunch for the comparison as I know they take some time and skill.

[jsherman999]

Originally Posted by OrenMc

jsherman999, as far as the sigma 100-300 IQ goes you
can look in my PPG signature and see that most are shot with this lens. Very
sharp! As I will respond when ever the subject of this lens somes up.

I am wondering though how the sigma 50-150 would do on a Pentax body? ( I
hope I didn't read past this already posted thought )

BTW, thanks a bucnh for the comparison as I know they take some time and
skill.

Sigma's HSM is listed as a feature in the Pentax mount 50-150 at B&H - but
does it actually have HSM in the Pentax version, or does it rely on the screw
drive? I don't remember seeing a definitive answer for this.

On the D90, it's great. On Pentax, unless it has the full HSM working, I'd
go with the DA* 50-135 - which has just a slight edge optically, and doesn't
have FF issues up close wide-open.

Originally Posted by farfisa

I did cheat, kinda, but time travel was not my method
(my post was 5 minutes before yours ). I knew it had to be a 135mm, since
it was the same location as the DA* 135 @135mm, and it was probably one that
you had, so I did a search

(Not as easy as when you had them all in your sig!)

The 'wild guess' part was this one or the M 135mm.

A lot less conspicuous than the DA* or the Sigma--people would have no idea
you'd be counting their eyelashes later. Your manual focus skills amaze me
every time.

Thanks - I have practiced many hours at MF, and I think I've gotten pretty good.
It's easy to practice, because it's so fun - still the most enjoyable part of
photography for me. I have to give a lot of credit to the focus-indicator system
on the K20D, if I had to rely on my eyes alone I'd have given up MF a long
time ago.

(And I moved my equipment list to my profile, it's current)

[kenyee]

Originally Posted by jsherman999

Sigma's HSM is listed as a feature in the Pentax mount 50-150 at B&H - but
does it actually have HSM in the Pentax version, or does it rely on the screw drive?

AFAIK, it's real HSM, like their 70-200...

[jsherman999]

Several questions on dpreview and here regarding how these two lenses compare, thought I'd bump the thread.

[photogerald]

Originally Posted by jsherman999

Several questions on dpreview and here regarding how these two lenses compare, thought I'd bump the thread.

Thanks for this review. I've wondered about the Sigma 50-150 since it doesn't get mentioned that much in the Pentax circles. Judging from your review and photos, it seems like a good alternative to the DA*50-135.

I'm also considering the Tamron 70-200/2.8 - actually your review of that lens almost made me pull the trigger - but I'm being held back by size/weight concerns. How would you compare the Sigma 50-150 and Tamron 70-200 in their common range of 70-150?

Thanks,

Gerald

[jsherman999]

Originally Posted by photogerald

Thanks for this review. I've wondered about the Sigma 50-150 since it doesn't get mentioned that much in the Pentax circles. Judging from your review and photos, it seems like a good alternative to the DA*50-135.

I'm also considering the Tamron 70-200/2.8 - actually your review of that lens almost made me pull the trigger - but I'm being held back by size/weight concerns. How would you compare the Sigma 50-150 and Tamron 70-200 in their common range of 70-150?

Thanks,

Gerald

.

Gerald, very good question. Unfortunately I didn't own both together during a very long overlap...

In AF usage my copy of the Tamron 70-200 2.8 was a bit sharper in close-focus than this Sigma, due to the AF issues I talk about in the beginning of this thread.

They are very similar in IQ in the shared FL range beyond that issue, though - in other words, sharp enough for anyone, wonderful contrast. The Sigma on the D90 focuses faster than the Tamron did on my K20D, and the Sigma is much easier to carry.

If at all possible, try to shoot with both on the camera in a store or something to see how you like the handling - if the Tamron doesn't seem too big to you, I'd go with that. Having a sharp f/2.8 available at 200mm is a lot of fun.


.

[photogerald]

Originally Posted by jsherman999

.

Gerald, very good question. Unfortunately I didn't own both together during a very long overlap...

In AF usage my copy of the Tamron 70-200 2.8 was a bit sharper in close-focus than this Sigma, due to the AF issues I talk about in the beginning of this thread.

They are very similar in IQ in the shared FL range beyond that issue, though - in other words, sharp enough for anyone, wonderful contrast. The Sigma on the D90 focuses faster than the Tamron did on my K20D, and the Sigma is much easier to carry.

If at all possible, try to shoot with both on the camera in a store or something to see how you like the handling - if the Tamron doesn't seem too big to you, I'd go with that. Having a sharp f/2.8 available at 200mm is a lot of fun.
.

Hi jsherman, thanks for sharing your thoughts - I really appreciate it. I've been thinking this over these last few days and for me it comes down to the following:

In favour of the Tamron 70-200:
-better reach at long end
-lower price
-full-frame coverage ("future-proof")

In favour of the Sigma 50-150
-smaller size, lighter weight
-range at wide end is more useful than 200mm for me
-faster and quieter focusing (HSM)

Like you said the longer reach of the Tamron is nice, but at the 200mm end I'm covered by my FA*200/2.8, and I also have a Sigma EX 1.4x TC which I can use with it to get even more reach.

Actually, I think that price playing a big factor in my mind right now. The Tamron just seems like a steal at current prices. I feel that the Sigma should/could be priced lower - it's only $50 less than the Sigma EX 70-200, but I suspect that profits are much higher on the 50-150. Also the fact that if I do side with the Sigma, I'm thinking I might as well pay the extra $70 or so and get the DA*50-135. Though a certain issue with that lens makes me hesitant right now.

Size/weight is a factor but I don't think I would find the Tamron to be too unwieldy - it's a lightweight compared to the FA*80-200 that I tried.

So yeah, I'm still a bit confused as to what to choose, but fortunately we're entering the "low-season" for my photography so I have a bit of time to figure things out. Besides I still have my small collection of primes to play around with.

Thanks again!