[EricT]

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

You say that you are shooting mostly close-ups. Many lenses which are internal focusing(IF) have what's known as focus breathing. This means that when the lens focuses at a close subject, the focal length becomes shorter. If you try again with a 135mm prime and a 200mm prime, you'll see the much larger differences with close-ups as well.

[darrenleow]

I had the DA* 50-135 before, but the niggling worry of SDM failure led to me to frequently reconsider keeping it. I also felt like I needed more reach for the sports and events that I shoot in college. I'd think that shooting full-body portraits at 200mm f/2.8 would give really nice backgrounds too.

When a great deal for a Tamron 70-200 came along, I immediately bought it and the DA* 50-135 was quickly sold. I haven't heard from the buyer since so I don't know if the SDM has failed on him yet.. I didn't have enough time with both lenses on hand to do a proper side-by-side comparison, but I haven't noticed any decline in optical performance in the field going from the DA* to the Tamron.

The screw-drive autofocus on the Tamron seems faster than the SDM, though it's less discreet. However, the AF whir has not given me any trouble even in concerts. Focus clutch is fiddly and engages with a loud clack.

However, the Tamron 70-200 is noticeably longer (especially with the deeper hood and tripod collar attached) and even though it's the lightest of the 70-200s it's still a great deal heavier than the DA*.

Lastly, the DA* has a much nicer zoom operation. It feels silky smooth when you turn the zoom ring. On the other hand, the Tamron turns as easily but just feels a bit rough.

I managed to get a photo of the two lenses together before I packed and shipped the DA*. On the whole, no regrets at all and I don't miss the DA* one bit, but that's just me.

[pcarfan]

I don't know whether either one of them will be much sharper than the 55-300, check some reviews and make sure before buying any. If you want a faster lens, both could suffice, and only you know what focal length is better for you.

I prefer the rendering of the 50-135 by a huge margin, but really don't want any SDM lenses so haven't gotten one.

[Ash]

It's more than just sharpness, as the DA 55-300 really excels in that area.
There's sharpness at f/2.8-f/4, which the DA 55-300 can't do at any focal length in the 70-200 range.
Then there's the X-factor aspects: 3D effect, microcontrast and colour rendition - all I believe in the 70-200 to be a step above the 55-300.

Both excellent lenses, just in different leagues.

[clark]

You say that you are shooting mostly close-ups. Many lenses which are internal focusing(IF) have what's known as focus breathing. This means that when the lens focuses at a close subject, the focal length becomes shorter. If you try again with a 135mm prime and a 200mm prime, you'll see the much larger differences with close-ups as well.

yep, that'll be why then- thanks for clearing that up

[matam]

Clark, you should see the same difference between 135mm and 200mm with yours lens since the tammy is IF and subject distance was the same. (i could post two shoot at MFD to see if the difference become less)

To be honest the exif report 130mm but zoom position was alligned with the 135 marking on the barrel of the lens, and by compairing with the image i got from my FA 135 f2.8 (another IF lens) framing looks the same to me.

[pcarfan]

It's more than just sharpness, as the DA 55-300 really excels in that area.
There's sharpness at f/2.8-f/4, which the DA 55-300 can't do at any focal length in the 70-200 range.
Then there's the X-factor aspects: 3D effect, microcontrast and colour rendition - all I believe in the 70-200 to be a step above the 55-300.

Both excellent lenses, just in different leagues.

Ash, I presume you are responding to my comment on sharpness....I was just responding to what OP wanted out of his new lens.

................ I'm looking to change my 55-300mm f/4-5.8 for something much sharper...................:

But, I agree with most of what you say....but, I would'nt say in a differnet league with these lenses, but that's open to interpretation based on the definiton of a league in reagrds to lenses, so I guess I am cool with your conclusion

[SpecialK]

However, the Tamron 70-200 is noticeably longer (especially with the deeper hood and tripod collar attached) and even though it's the lightest of the 70-200s it's still a great deal heavier than the DA*.

Lastly, the DA* has a much nicer zoom operation. It feels silky smooth when you turn the zoom ring. On the other hand, the Tamron turns as easily but just feels a bit rough.

My 70-200 has a very smooth zoom operation and I sometimes use just my thumb. I also think the weight helps with stability as you have to overcome inertia. I do park it on a monopod for the most part because of a shoulder problem, though.

[guillermovilas]

So now that i have a fantastic opportunety to buy a 50-135mm for a bargain price , there is some other guy who wants to sell he's Tamron 70-200mm for a good price too , they would both cost me the same.

What should i do now ?? i wanted a 50-135mm and later add a 200mm or 300mm for long reach but now for much cheaper i could just buy both the Pentax and the Tamron i therefore have a 50-200mm f/2.8 reach with a TC 1.4 converter possibility to reach 280mm f/4.

These 2 lenses together would cost me €875 , when you think that they cost new : Pentax = €920 Tamron = €670 together = €1590.



Off course all this comes down to money , the best you can get for the best price otherwise i would buy all new :

50-135mm f/2.8

200mm f/2.8

300mm f/2.8

[matam]

if the price is the same i'd go without thinking too much with the Pentax (assuming the lens is in a good and working condition).
You could resell it if you don't like or need the extra reach and since was a "bargain" price you should also manage to buy the tamron and end with some extra money in your pocket

[Tommot1965]

Hi Bertbert

Interesting that you should say this, as I’m contemplating getting a tamron 70-200 and the only thing putting me off at the moment is the reported slow AF performance.
After realising that the lens comes in two different variates, one with and one without the onboard Af motor..it led me to do some research to see if the screw driven AF {for pentax} was faster than the motor driven type..

heres a question I posted in another thread....could you guys that own the 70-200 Tamron comment on these finding ?


" Originally posted by Tommot1965
I managed to try a Nikon D90 with the lens today in a local shop...but thought the focusing was extremely slow.....but after some youtubing Ive found vids there that are testing the speed of the pentax K7 and the tamron 70-200 from infinity and its closest focusing distance and back again..Im pleased to note that on the k7 its about .8 of a second to do this..but the nikon mount takes 1.8 secs...quite a bit different , the nikon test bodies were D700 and a D300

anyone care to comment on theirs ?"

Well, I find the autofocus faster on my Tamron 70-200/2.8 than on my Pentax DA* 50-135, using the K7 body at least. I guess you hear a lot about the slow autofocus on the Tamron because usually when tested it is not on the Pentax mount, meaning the lens have a built in focus motor that is not especially good.

I find the AF quite quick on the Tamron, of course not as fast as some small FA/DA primes, but fast enough in most cases.

[Mr. B]

As I said on the other Tammy 70-200 thread... The focus is faster than the 50-135's SDM

No need to worry