Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

houstonmacgregor · 07-09-2010, 07:51 AM

Trying to decide between buying sigma 50-150 and the Tamron 70-200 ( both 2.8) as a walk around lens. Is the 70-200 too big/ heavy for that. Presently have and use as walk around the pentax 55-300 and love its range. Getting into weddings besides a variety of things ie deer in the park, buildings in small towns, whatever.

Adam · 07-09-2010, 09:45 AM

I would personally choose the 70-200, as IMO the 50-135 is too short. I think it's more of a question of preference, though, and if you're a fan of tele shots, then definitely go for the longer lens.

kytra · 07-09-2010, 10:09 AM

For weddings IMO you'll be better with the 50-135 since the 70-200 is too long for events like the weddings

houstonmacgregor · 07-09-2010, 11:09 AM

Nelected to add will also have the 18-50 by sigma or 17-50 by Tameron ( think I got the manufacturers and sizes right)..both 2.8

CFWhitman · 07-09-2010, 12:52 PM

So the three questions you have to ask yourself are:

1. Will I miss the gap between 50mm and 70mm if I get the longer lens?
I don't think that you would miss if very much, if at all (but it's really going to be your call). And having the gap also gives you the excuse to get something like a good 58mm prime to fill it in later on.

2. Will the extra weight and length of a 70-200mm lens be a problem?
The Sigma 50-150mm is 5.3" (135mm) long and weighs 1.7 lbs. (780g), while the Sigma 70-200mm is 7.3" (184mm) long and weighs 3 lbs. (1370g) and the Tamron 70-200mm is 7.6" (194mm) long and weighs 2.5 lbs. (1150g). I doubt that the extra length would be any problem, but it is a significant difference in weight. Personally, I don't think the difference in weight would stop me if I wanted the longer lens, but again, it's your call. (I wanted to add that you should be aware that even the smaller lens weighs significantly more than your Pentax 55-300mm.)

3. Will I miss the 150 to 200mm range if I buy the shorter lens?
That's hard to say. I definitely use my 80-200mm lens at 200mm a significant amount. I don't think it's too long for event photography as long as you have the complementary lens for focal lengths 50mm or less. At this point, I would miss the gap from 150mm to 200mm if I didn't have it. I'm not as certain that it would bother me if I had never had this covered with this lens. My gut says that I would miss it though. You always seem to run into situations where extra reach would be nice even if you've never had the extra reach in the past.

cabstar · 07-09-2010, 05:17 PM

Go for the 50-135mm, excellent IQ & colour, perfect portrait zoom.. If you need reach as much as 200mm then you can always crop

Pentaxor · 07-09-2010, 10:56 PM

personally, I would prefer the 55-300 even if it's slower. it's lightness, overall versatility and very good IQ makes up for it's slow AF and slow aperture.

but between faster and longer telephoto, I would choose the 50-150 over the 70-200. I made this choice due to flexibility, size, and weight considerations. the difference between 50 and 70 makes a lot of difference compared to 150 and 200.

houstonmacgregor · 07-10-2010, 11:22 AM

decided ( almost)on the sigma 18-50 and 50-135. Both with the hsm ( that scares me some). For the widlife and long shots will still have the pentax 55-300. And the pentax 16-4 as needed back up.

K-7 as main camera and K20 for the back up.

Also have a pentax F 50 1.7 when needed

So what am I missing??

kytra · 07-10-2010, 11:29 AM

what lights do you have?

houstonmacgregor · 07-10-2010, 12:17 PM

right now just the pentax a something 360. have a older flash from my PZ1 days that I figure can use off camera somehow. Otherwise open to suggestions.

mel · 07-10-2010, 12:33 PM

I have both (the Sigma version of the 70-200). And I find both indespensible. I really like the longer range of the 70-200 but I am gaga over the IQ of the 50-135. The 50-135 is definitely better for a walking around lens it's much lighter. I'm thinking that I need a 3rd body so I can just keep my three favorite lenses mounted on a body at all times.

Sometimes I find the 70-200 too close at the short end, but then again since the Sigma is a macro as well, I find I can focus from a closer distance than I can with the 50-135. Really it's a toss up and depends on your shooting style. I love having both.

tim71 · 07-10-2010, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Adam

I would personally choose the 70-200, as IMO the 50-135 is too short. I think it's more of a question of preference, though, and if you're a fan of tele shots, then definitely go for the longer lens.

If I would have this problem, then I would be wanting something, that does not exist for many of us - only Canon has more than one version of 70-200/f4. This kind of lens would have a significant advantage in weight over any 70-200/f2,8. If longer reach is more important, then even Sigma 100-300/f4 can be an option, as it has almost the same weight as Sigma 70-200 (although being bigger). Tamron's 70-200 has the weight advantage but is mechanically inferior to Sigma.

I have a 50-135 and now I got Sigma 100-300/f4 in addition - mainly because of the advantages in IQ. But this 1400 g is a substantial piece of weight and good big backpack will become a necessary walkaround accessory. Now after some use it seems that 50-135 can be a good walkaround lens and 100-300 would be good for outdoor events. 70-200 can be a good compromise here, but it is still closer to this big 100-300 in size and weight than to 50-135.

Pentaxor · 07-10-2010, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by houstonmacgregor

decided ( almost)on the sigma 18-50 and 50-135. Both with the hsm ( that scares me some). For the widlife and long shots will still have the pentax 55-300. And the pentax 16-4 as needed back up.

K-7 as main camera and K20 for the back up.

Also have a pentax F 50 1.7 when needed

So what am I missing??

there's a new Sigma 17-50 that you might want to consider.

houstonmacgregor · 07-13-2010, 06:03 PM

may have changed my mind

sigma 24-70, sigma 70-200; my 16-45 for wide group shots with flash.

dmoon911 · 07-14-2010, 07:29 AM

Sound like a good combination... I'm thinking about adding the 28-75mm f2.8 to my 70-200mm f2.8 but both from Tamron. (I decided to stay away from hsm and sdm for now) Make sure you hold one of those 70-200mm in your hands before you buy it. It weighs a ton! I'm willing to accept the weight as a trade off for the range and constant 2.8, but some might not.

I have my first Limited lens on the way (da 40mm) so that might change everything? Good luck with your purchase.

07-09-2010, 07:51 AM	#1
houstonmacgregor Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 97	50-135mm vs 70-200mm Trying to decide between buying sigma 50-150 and the Tamron 70-200 ( both 2.8) as a walk around lens. Is the 70-200 too big/ heavy for that. Presently have and use as walk around the pentax 55-300 and love its range. Getting into weddings besides a variety of things ie deer in the park, buildings in small towns, whatever.

07-09-2010, 09:45 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,609	I would personally choose the 70-200, as IMO the 50-135 is too short. I think it's more of a question of preference, though, and if you're a fan of tele shots, then definitely go for the longer lens. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

07-09-2010, 12:52 PM	#5
CFWhitman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Upstate New York, US Photos: Albums Posts: 225	So the three questions you have to ask yourself are: 1. Will I miss the gap between 50mm and 70mm if I get the longer lens? I don't think that you would miss if very much, if at all (but it's really going to be your call). And having the gap also gives you the excuse to get something like a good 58mm prime to fill it in later on. 2. Will the extra weight and length of a 70-200mm lens be a problem? The Sigma 50-150mm is 5.3" (135mm) long and weighs 1.7 lbs. (780g), while the Sigma 70-200mm is 7.3" (184mm) long and weighs 3 lbs. (1370g) and the Tamron 70-200mm is 7.6" (194mm) long and weighs 2.5 lbs. (1150g). I doubt that the extra length would be any problem, but it is a significant difference in weight. Personally, I don't think the difference in weight would stop me if I wanted the longer lens, but again, it's your call. (I wanted to add that you should be aware that even the smaller lens weighs significantly more than your Pentax 55-300mm.) 3. Will I miss the 150 to 200mm range if I buy the shorter lens? That's hard to say. I definitely use my 80-200mm lens at 200mm a significant amount. I don't think it's too long for event photography as long as you have the complementary lens for focal lengths 50mm or less. At this point, I would miss the gap from 150mm to 200mm if I didn't have it. I'm not as certain that it would bother me if I had never had this covered with this lens. My gut says that I would miss it though. You always seem to run into situations where extra reach would be nice even if you've never had the extra reach in the past. Last edited by CFWhitman; 07-09-2010 at 12:59 PM.

07-10-2010, 01:38 PM	#12
tim71 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38	Originally posted by Adam I would personally choose the 70-200, as IMO the 50-135 is too short. I think it's more of a question of preference, though, and if you're a fan of tele shots, then definitely go for the longer lens. If I would have this problem, then I would be wanting something, that does not exist for many of us - only Canon has more than one version of 70-200/f4. This kind of lens would have a significant advantage in weight over any 70-200/f2,8. If longer reach is more important, then even Sigma 100-300/f4 can be an option, as it has almost the same weight as Sigma 70-200 (although being bigger). Tamron's 70-200 has the weight advantage but is mechanically inferior to Sigma. I have a 50-135 and now I got Sigma 100-300/f4 in addition - mainly because of the advantages in IQ. But this 1400 g is a substantial piece of weight and good big backpack will become a necessary walkaround accessory. Now after some use it seems that 50-135 can be a good walkaround lens and 100-300 would be good for outdoor events. 70-200 can be a good compromise here, but it is still closer to this big 100-300 in size and weight than to 50-135. Last edited by tim71; 07-10-2010 at 02:36 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Super Takumar 135mm & 200mm, Vivitar 135mm, SMC 28mm	MSM	Sold Items	24	06-13-2010 09:55 PM
50-135mm or 70-200mm	GLXLR	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	06-10-2009 03:30 AM
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 vs. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 vs Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8	nah	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	12-08-2008 01:03 AM
DA* 50-135mm or DA* 200mm	EAD Studios	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	08-30-2008 05:27 AM
For Sale - Sold: Make Offers: Haminex 135mm f/2.8, Sears 135mm f/2.8, Super Albinar 100-200mm f	inneyeseakay	Sold Items	1	06-23-2007 02:05 AM

07-09-2010, 10:09 AM	#3
kytra Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Bucharest Posts: 482	For weddings IMO you'll be better with the 50-135 since the 70-200 is too long for events like the weddings

07-09-2010, 11:09 AM	#4
houstonmacgregor Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 97 Original Poster	Nelected to add will also have the 18-50 by sigma or 17-50 by Tameron ( think I got the manufacturers and sizes right)..both 2.8

07-09-2010, 05:17 PM	#6
cabstar Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Grimsby UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 224	Go for the 50-135mm, excellent IQ & colour, perfect portrait zoom.. If you need reach as much as 200mm then you can always crop

07-09-2010, 10:56 PM	#7
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	personally, I would prefer the 55-300 even if it's slower. it's lightness, overall versatility and very good IQ makes up for it's slow AF and slow aperture. but between faster and longer telephoto, I would choose the 50-150 over the 70-200. I made this choice due to flexibility, size, and weight considerations. the difference between 50 and 70 makes a lot of difference compared to 150 and 200.

07-10-2010, 11:22 AM	#8
houstonmacgregor Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 97 Original Poster	decided ( almost)on the sigma 18-50 and 50-135. Both with the hsm ( that scares me some). For the widlife and long shots will still have the pentax 55-300. And the pentax 16-4 as needed back up. K-7 as main camera and K20 for the back up. Also have a pentax F 50 1.7 when needed So what am I missing??

07-10-2010, 11:29 AM	#9
kytra Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Bucharest Posts: 482	what lights do you have?

07-10-2010, 12:17 PM	#10
houstonmacgregor Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 97 Original Poster	right now just the pentax a something 360. have a older flash from my PZ1 days that I figure can use off camera somehow. Otherwise open to suggestions.

07-10-2010, 12:33 PM	#11
mel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,531	I have both (the Sigma version of the 70-200). And I find both indespensible. I really like the longer range of the 70-200 but I am gaga over the IQ of the 50-135. The 50-135 is definitely better for a walking around lens it's much lighter. I'm thinking that I need a 3rd body so I can just keep my three favorite lenses mounted on a body at all times. Sometimes I find the 70-200 too close at the short end, but then again since the Sigma is a macro as well, I find I can focus from a closer distance than I can with the 50-135. Really it's a toss up and depends on your shooting style. I love having both.

07-10-2010, 06:42 PM	#13
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by houstonmacgregor decided ( almost)on the sigma 18-50 and 50-135. Both with the hsm ( that scares me some). For the widlife and long shots will still have the pentax 55-300. And the pentax 16-4 as needed back up. K-7 as main camera and K20 for the back up. Also have a pentax F 50 1.7 when needed So what am I missing?? there's a new Sigma 17-50 that you might want to consider.

07-13-2010, 06:03 PM	#14
houstonmacgregor Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 97 Original Poster	may have changed my mind sigma 24-70, sigma 70-200; my 16-45 for wide group shots with flash.

07-14-2010, 07:29 AM	#15
dmoon911 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 76	Sound like a good combination... I'm thinking about adding the 28-75mm f2.8 to my 70-200mm f2.8 but both from Tamron. (I decided to stay away from hsm and sdm for now) Make sure you hold one of those 70-200mm in your hands before you buy it. It weighs a ton! I'm willing to accept the weight as a trade off for the range and constant 2.8, but some might not. I have my first Limited lens on the way (da 40mm) so that might change everything? Good luck with your purchase.

50-135mm vs 70-200mm

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!