[JoepLX3]

Guess I open a different thread about the Pentax 50-135 vs Sigma 50-150, the 70-200 mm series are too heavy & big for me (having young kids).

[Ash]

Guess I open a different thread about the Pentax 50-135 vs Sigma 50-150, the 70-200 mm series are too heavy & big for me (having young kids).

Why? Are your kids the ones taking the photos.
Seriously though, the 70-200 may be significantly heavier and bulkier than the 50-135, but it's still quite easy to shoot with. It may not be the holiday or stealth lens you always wanted, but it does a great job with those fast-action shots (including kids!)

[JoepLX3]

Why? Are your kids the ones taking the photos.
Seriously though, the 70-200 may be significantly heavier and bulkier than the 50-135, but it's still quite easy to shoot with. It may not be the holiday or stealth lens you always wanted, but it does a great job with those fast-action shots (including kids!)

Are those 70-200 mm much better than 50-150 mm?

• Sigma APO 50-150 mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM, 780g = 575 Euro
• Sigma APO 70-200 mm F2.8 II EX DG Macro HSM, 1370g = 650 Euro
• Tamron 70-200 mm F2.8 Di LD [IF] Macro, 1150g = 600 Euro
• Pentax DA* 50-135 mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM, 685g = 800 Euro

[clark]

as far as I can tell the difference in field of view between 135 and 200 is hardly anything, a tiny crop would make up the difference, so with that in mind i decided not to bother with a 70-200 as 50-70 is a range i would use a lot for portraits, so the 50-135 takes my fancy, or the 50-150


try it yourself with your 55-300, take a photo at 135 and one at 200, there is no difference, i think you have to go out to at least 250 to get any serious range benefits over a 135mm

[Ash]

I'm not so sure about 135mm and 200mm FOVs being insignificantly different.
It matters particularly in concert/indoor stage shooting, since you can shoot 200mm at f/2.8 which permits better reach without the need to crop, which too is important to some, for the sake of print quality.

[gawan]

I considered a 70-200mm too, but ended up buying the DA 50-135mm. I like to use the 50-135 as a tele-ish street lens, good travelling lens too, coupled with 16-50mm (or rather with my 10-20mm and 35mm now-a-days).

50-135 is nicer to handle compared to any 70-200M I have hold in my hands. It has good reach, if you are not actually looking for a tele lens.

I also have Sigma 100-300mm which affected my decision not to go for a 70-200...

[kytra]

as far as I can tell the difference in field of view between 135 and 200 is hardly anything, a tiny crop would make up the difference, so with that in mind i decided not to bother with a 70-200 as 50-70 is a range i would use a lot for portraits, so the 50-135 takes my fancy, or the 50-150


try it yourself with your 55-300, take a photo at 135 and one at 200, there is no difference, i think you have to go out to at least 250 to get any serious range benefits over a 135mm

I have to disagree with you, the difference between 135 and 200 is 50% more magnification power which should count for something...

Attached Images

   

[clark]

I have to disagree with you, the difference between 135 and 200 is 50% more magnification power which should count for something...

i guess it depends on how far you are from your subject, I tend to work at close ranges so i'm using the telephoto end to fill the frame with the subject- there I find that the difference between 135 and 200 is not that much, but I guess at larger distances the difference becomes more apparent.

so with that in mind it's still the 50-135 for portrait work, and i'd probably look into something like the sigma 100-300 for longer range stuff- or slap a 2xTC on a pentax m 200mm for outdoor longrange, that would be a pretty compact setup




also i'm not really much of a printer, but when you've got 14 megapixels to spare you can crop by about 40% and still print out to A3

[Marc Sabatella]

It's all relative, but at what I'd call "close" range, a 200mm lens is useless unless I'm taking closeups of people's noses. 135mm is as long as I'd normally want for portraits, and that's pushing it. For concerts, 135mm is "usually" more than enough, and often still much - but I shoot mostly small clubs. Larger halls would have you more often wanting 200mm, but I'm usually happier shooting my tiny M135/3.5 and cropping than I would be lugging a 70-200/2.8 around. I don't even like using my M200/4 that much, although I do bring it with me to nighttime outdoor concerts from time to time. The even larger 50-135 is about as big as I could ever stomach using, and then only grudgingly. Others have no problems carrying a 70-200/2.8 with them everywhere.

[Ash]

It's all relative, but at what I'd call "close" range, a 200mm lens is useless unless I'm taking closeups of people's noses. 135mm is as long as I'd normally want for portraits, and that's pushing it. For concerts, 135mm is "usually" more than enough, and often still much - but I shoot mostly small clubs.

In those concerts I have shot, I have needed every mm of reach from my 70-200, even at times needing to use my 1.4x TC - the local auditorium is a big 1200 seater...

Others have no problems carrying a 70-200/2.8 with them everywhere.

Yep, that would be me.

[matam]

Here are two images taken with the Tamron 70-200 that show the difference in reach between 135mm and 200mm.
Distance from camera was about 2.5m / 8.2ft.
The Buddha head is as big as a child's head

135mm f2.8:


200mm f2.8:




And this is a comparsion between the 200mm and the 135mm (resized) 100% crop.

200mm 100% crop vs 135mm 136.6% crop

[clark]

i'm starting to get the feeling that my lens is not a true 200mm then, because there is nowhere near that amount of difference

i'll post up some pictures

ps. my lens is a 28-200, so I guess it probably isn't a true 200


but tbh when I was shooting a canon 550d with the 70-200 f4 there didn't seem to be that much difference either, at least not enough to warrant me buying a 135 and a 200mm prime

[benjikan]

I have the SDM 50-135 lens and i've always considered it a professional quality lens. I've had it for over a year now and no problems with SDM. according to benjikan who had his SDM motors replaced proactively, the new upgraded motors focus faster than previously. So i'm no longer concerned about failure, i'll just get the upgrade mod. This image quality from this zoom is as good as anything i've seen from Pentax primes - which is saying a lot. I've taken some head shots with the lens for play programs, and i thought the IQ was great for a portrait.

best wishes,

Yes, when Pentax replaced the AF motor in it and the 16-50, (neither had failed, but had them change them just in case), they told me that if was a completely newly designed motor.

[guillermovilas]

Here are two images taken with the Tamron 70-200 that show the difference in reach between 135mm and 200mm.
Distance from camera was about 2.5m / 8.2ft.
The Buddha head is as big as a child's head

135mm f2.8:


200mm f2.8:




And this is a comparsion between the 200mm and the 135mm (resized) 100% crop.

200mm 100% crop vs 135mm 136.6% crop

It's clear here that the crop of the 200mm is much much better

[guillermovilas]

This is a common contemplation in searching for a fast telephoto zoom.
Whichever way you go, you can't lose - both are exceptionally good lenses.
If you go Tamron, then be sure to test it out early so as not to come across the prevalent 'sticky aperture' problem - which is a repairable defect under warranty.

Just decide what focal length range you want and just go with that.

Say is this "sticky aperture problem" only on pentax mount ??? because i've asked around on a famous Nikon site and they never heard of any such issue , i've had contact with many owners and everything seems ok
By the way what do you mean with sticky aperture , i don't understand