[apisto]

I have to completely disagree with that. A 50-135 is the perfect range for portraits on a cropped sensor. That's like saying 70-200 is a useless range on a full frame body.

I agree with this. It is the perfect zoom range for me. 50-70 is more useful to me on crop than 136-200. In fact, I have nothing in between my 50-135 and my DA300 and that has never been a frustration at all.

It all depends on what you are shooting, I guess.

Until recently I had both, and it typically broke down this way: If I was inside, I would shoot the 77, outside the 50-135.

[bdery]

50-135 would be the perfect focal elgnth for stuff like weddings. 77 would be a good lens for portraits.

given that the 50-135 civers the 77 focal length, and is regarded as a lengendary lens, and given that the 77 has pixie dust and is faster and more compact, the choice would boil down to size vs convenience.

[lkjr]

I rented both several months ago. As a beginner I liked the flexibility of of the 50-135 and if given an even choice I'd take it now. However, the 77 really rocks and it would be high on my list once I was more experienced.

[Fibo]

77mm.... I hate zoom ! Better quality, and no choice for the focal lenght is something less to think about Then you can shoot quickly !

[yasik]

50-135

[Duplo]

I never really came to like the DA*50-135, neither the results nor the build was as good as I wanted them.

The 77 is a wonderful lens.

That said, you have to choose what is right for you.

[v5planet]

It would be quite the pleasant torture to have the luxury of agonizing over this decision, methinks.

Personally, I think I would go with the FA 77, because I still need something fast in my K-mount kit, and since I am planning on buying the DFA 100 WR, the 50-135 might be too redundant for me.

If I weren't planning on getting the DFA 100 eventually, I think I'd choose the 50-135 over the 77 hands down because of the versatility and just invest in a fast 50.

[northcoastgreg]

Given that most of pics I take above 50mm are either macro or wildlife, I suspect that both these very fine lenses would be largely wasted on me. If I had to choose between them, I would take the 50-135, not because I think it would produce better photos (from everything I've seen and heard, the 77 has the better IQ), but because I might occasionally use the 50-135, whereas I have virtually no need for the 77 (for anything that I might need the 77, I would prefer to use my K 50/1.2). If I ever decide to dabble in DSLR video, the 50-135 might be useful for interviews, where being able to zoom in and out is almost a necessity.

[a a i b]

I have both the 50-135 and the 77.

77, no contest.

[eddie1960]

I have both the 50-135 and the 77.

77, no contest.

As I would expect. Primes almost always outperform zooms (even the old primes outperform most of the newer zooms)

[a a i b]

As I would expect. Primes almost always outperform zooms (even the old primes outperform most of the newer zooms)

The 50-135 is no slouch, mind. It's just that the 77 is so nice as a compact telephoto. I find the 50-135 a touch awkward ergonomically, especially with its lens hood; it almost demands to be mated with the battery grip. The 77 by contrast is stealthy.

[eddie1960]

one of the reasons i [prefer the primes is size. Fast AF Zooms are usually also quite large and heavy (i can't think of an exception to the rule actually) and then you add a grip for better balance and it becomes a huge and heavy piece of kit
More and more I'd rather carry a couple of primes and just the body rather than this idea. the 50-135 isn't the only unwieldy zoom, I've tried the Sigma 70-200 same thing

[wizofoz]

I too have both.

It's a tough choice, but I think I would come down on the side of the 50-135. Ideal portrait lens, not 'too' unwieldy as I always have a battery grip attached to my k-5, and just a little more flexible.

The bokeh of the 77 is superior though and as someone said above, take the grip off and it becomes almost a stealth lens.

Assuming I had won a raffle prize, I would probably choose the 50-135 by a whisker. (besides, its the far more expensive lens in this market, and if I were getting it for free....that would mean less to have fork out in the future)

[Eagle_Friends]

Both.
Each has it own use.

hey... that's not fair...

[Rondec]

77 because the 50-135mm has a pretty useless zoom range. If you want a tele zoom, get a 70-200mm IMO.

I don't understand this comment. On APS-C, I find the 50-135 to be a more useful zoom, as I find that I like being able to use the 50-75mm range more than I would the 135 to 200mm range.

As far as the initial question, a lot depends on what you are shooting. There are plenty of situations where you need the flexibility of shooting with a zoom lens. For instance, taking portraits of kids requires more speed than I can muster to zoom with my feet. On the other hand, the prime will give you faster speed, smaller size, better bokeh.