[Entropy]

It seems to not be possible to comment on frontpage articles, so:

1) Since the Sigma 70-200 non-OS is still in production and available, why was that lens not covered? It seems to be a good potential choice for those that don't want to pay for OS but want HSM. (However, I have heard indications that the OS lens may also have an improved optical formula - a comparison would have been nice to determine if it was worth the $600 price delta.) I think that unless the non-OS Sigma HSM is deficient optically, most would be willing to pay the $80 or so price delta from the Tamron to get HSM.

2) For many, a stabilized viewfinder image (which also means the AF system sees a stabilized target) is a significant benefit, not a detriment as far as the lens goes. In-lens OS is not completely redundant for this reason.

[crewl1]

Additional advantages to the Sigma non-OS version vs. the one reviewed:

Position of the zoom and focus rings is normal for Pentax users, ie zoom ring is closest to camera body (although manual focus ring direction is reversed.)

Weight is lower.

[blackcloudbrew]

I think this is a very good and balanced article. One can't really second guess why they chose this or that (conceivably just having access to the right lenses is one issue) and to me this mix seems about right.

I have the Tammy and love it. My comment is that it's a really good lens for landscape photography (as well as the other might be too). When used in that mode, on a tripod, with out much worry about AF speeds, the Tammy really performs very well. However, as this review was on the sport or action aspect of these lens, I just thought to point that out as well.

[mikeSF]

i enjoyed the article. Obviously a much larger selection of comparable zooms would have made for a better comparison, but any comparison between two or more lenses is valuable to someone who may not have the opportunity to use the lenses side by side before buying.

I only wish there had been some comparison of actual image quality in addition to features and specifications, as I would be curious to know if paying $500 more for the Sigma would get me a better image. I did recently purchase the Tamron and am so far thrilled with the value of this lens.

I am not interested in sports photography per se, so rapid AF is not a huge priority for me, but f/2.8 low light shooting is essential for my concert photos sans flash.

I hope to see other FLs compared in the future.

[imtheguy]

More love here for the article. What a huge jump in professional reviews over the last 6 months. I am in the market for a fast 70-200mm so for once I only had to read at PF.com instead other sites. Great job. No idea where Adam gets the time to author such things unless he has a minion of elves providing a lot of testing and analysis.

Regardless, I loved it. Way to go!

[RXrenesis8]

I have the tamron reviewed. The focus is rather annoying sometimes but the sharpness out-resolves my K-5's sensor! The only thing I would note is that the focus throw is about 1/5th of a turn from infinity to 1m, making manual focusing VERY touchy.


And yes, in a way Adam does have elf minions.

[bdery]

No idea where Adam gets the time to author such things unless he has a minion of elves providing a lot of testing and analysis.

A lot of us participated in building the reviews section, in part because we're nice people, in part because there's someone who's going to win a DA 18-135...