Swapping my Tamron 28-75 or DAL 55-300...will it be worthwile?

mkvlln · 02-18-2011, 07:15 PM

hi guys, I used the Tammy 28-75 and most of the time, it's at >50mm focal lengths, for portraiture. I was thinking of replacing it with a DAL 55-300mm. The extra reach will be helpful.

Will it be a worth it? I usually shoot at f/4 to make the best of sharpness as well as the removal of CA on the Tammy, so the "speed" from the big apertures do not matter much to me. Is the sharpness and CA control of the DAL 55-300mm good at the widest apertures?

And what about flaring...? Is it well-maintained? Personally I do not like the flare produced by the Tammy... I think I'm spoilt with the DA15, haha.

Thanks in advance!

dgaies · 02-18-2011, 07:25 PM

Most of the time I use my 28-75 it ends up at focal lengths above 50mm as well and usually shoot between f/2.8 and f/4. I also have the 55-300 and while it's a great lens, I don't think it would make a great substitute for the 28-75 for portraiture. Even if you only shot at f/4, the Tamron should pretty easily outperform the 55-300 at f/4. That said, if you want something with more reach, and really don't use the Tamron much below 50mm and f/4, then perhaps it would be worth a shot.

Jewelltrail · 02-18-2011, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by mkvlln

hi guys, I used the Tammy 28-75 and most of the time, it's at >50mm focal lengths, for portraiture. I was thinking of replacing it with a DAL 55-300mm. The extra reach will be helpful.

Will it be a worth it? I usually shoot at f/4 to make the best of sharpness as well as the removal of CA on the Tammy, so the "speed" from the big apertures do not matter much to me. Is the sharpness and CA control of the DAL 55-300mm good at the widest apertures?

And what about flaring...? Is it well-maintained? Personally I do not like the flare produced by the Tammy... I think I'm spoilt with the DA15, haha.

Thanks in advance!

My intial reaction is in alignment with Dgaies. However, I am not sure of what precisely you are asking. For example, are you thinking of switching 28-75 for 55-300 just for portraits? If so, then I think you should stay with the Tammy 28-75. But if you are switching for a longer focal length, that would be different & perhaps is a good move for you. If you were more precise in your goals, in this thread, it would be easier to guide you.

For example, why would you be concerned with flare while shooting portraits? I do not notice a flare problem with the 28-75, but I never shoot the Sun itself, like some people like to do with the 15mm--as you mention. But do not expect the 55-300 to have the flare resistance of the 15--no way. The 15 is special in that respect.

BTW, most shooters love big apertures for portraits--why do you not like them?

**twilhelm** · 02-18-2011, 10:14 PM

A little more information of your needed use would be nice.

I found myself in a similar situation not long ago. I bought the DA 55-300, and it performed up to task in the 100-250 range, where I needed it for a job.
But I also bought the 77 ltd for portraiture.

As good as the 55-300 is, I would never try to compare it (for portraiture) to my 77, or my K 55 1.8. The wide aperture makes for a much nicer portrait.

mkvlln · 02-18-2011, 10:56 PM

my reasoning of swapping the 28-75 for the 55-300 is that the extra focal length can create better depth, despite the smaller aperture hole.

akanarya · 02-19-2011, 02:19 AM

if you take portraitures, tammy replacement will be pentax 50-135 i think.

**Ash** · 02-19-2011, 04:57 AM

Or you can just go prime with a DA 70 or FA 77 for the best in portraiture, and even add more speed...

If you're just doing head & shoulder or half-body portraits you need nothing more (other than good lighting).

dgaies · 02-19-2011, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by mkvlln

my reasoning of swapping the 28-75 for the 55-300 is that the extra focal length can create better depth, despite the smaller aperture hole.

Originally posted by akanarya

if you take portraitures, tammy replacement will be pentax 50-135 i think.

Agreed. If you want a zoom with longer reach than the 28-75, I would consider the 50-135 over the 55-300.

02-18-2011, 07:15 PM	#1
mkvlln Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 122	Swapping my Tamron 28-75 or DAL 55-300...will it be worthwile? hi guys, I used the Tammy 28-75 and most of the time, it's at >50mm focal lengths, for portraiture. I was thinking of replacing it with a DAL 55-300mm. The extra reach will be helpful. Will it be a worth it? I usually shoot at f/4 to make the best of sharpness as well as the removal of CA on the Tammy, so the "speed" from the big apertures do not matter much to me. Is the sharpness and CA control of the DAL 55-300mm good at the widest apertures? And what about flaring...? Is it well-maintained? Personally I do not like the flare produced by the Tammy... I think I'm spoilt with the DA15, haha. Thanks in advance!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tripod collar for 55-300 DAL	stumpsitter	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	02-07-2011 07:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DAL 55-300 (US/CAN)	VaughnA	Sold Items	0	11-29-2010 07:08 PM
Nature try to shot the moon with k-x and DAL 55-300	kraijeck	Post Your Photos!	9	12-04-2009 06:27 AM
TESTED: Pentax 55-300 vs. Sigma 70-300 vs. Tamron 70-300	falconeye	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	05-14-2009 04:01 PM

02-18-2011, 07:25 PM	#2
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Most of the time I use my 28-75 it ends up at focal lengths above 50mm as well and usually shoot between f/2.8 and f/4. I also have the 55-300 and while it's a great lens, I don't think it would make a great substitute for the 28-75 for portraiture. Even if you only shot at f/4, the Tamron should pretty easily outperform the 55-300 at f/4. That said, if you want something with more reach, and really don't use the Tamron much below 50mm and f/4, then perhaps it would be worth a shot.

02-18-2011, 10:01 PM	#3
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Originally posted by mkvlln hi guys, I used the Tammy 28-75 and most of the time, it's at >50mm focal lengths, for portraiture. I was thinking of replacing it with a DAL 55-300mm. The extra reach will be helpful. Will it be a worth it? I usually shoot at f/4 to make the best of sharpness as well as the removal of CA on the Tammy, so the "speed" from the big apertures do not matter much to me. Is the sharpness and CA control of the DAL 55-300mm good at the widest apertures? And what about flaring...? Is it well-maintained? Personally I do not like the flare produced by the Tammy... I think I'm spoilt with the DA15, haha. Thanks in advance! My intial reaction is in alignment with Dgaies. However, I am not sure of what precisely you are asking. For example, are you thinking of switching 28-75 for 55-300 just for portraits? If so, then I think you should stay with the Tammy 28-75. But if you are switching for a longer focal length, that would be different & perhaps is a good move for you. If you were more precise in your goals, in this thread, it would be easier to guide you. For example, why would you be concerned with flare while shooting portraits? I do not notice a flare problem with the 28-75, but I never shoot the Sun itself, like some people like to do with the 15mm--as you mention. But do not expect the 55-300 to have the flare resistance of the 15--no way. The 15 is special in that respect. BTW, most shooters love big apertures for portraits--why do you not like them?

02-18-2011, 10:14 PM	#4
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	A little more information of your needed use would be nice. I found myself in a similar situation not long ago. I bought the DA 55-300, and it performed up to task in the 100-250 range, where I needed it for a job. But I also bought the 77 ltd for portraiture. As good as the 55-300 is, I would never try to compare it (for portraiture) to my 77, or my K 55 1.8. The wide aperture makes for a much nicer portrait.

02-18-2011, 10:56 PM	#5
mkvlln Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 122 Original Poster	my reasoning of swapping the 28-75 for the 55-300 is that the extra focal length can create better depth, despite the smaller aperture hole.

02-19-2011, 02:19 AM	#6
akanarya Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Çankırı, Turkey Posts: 210	if you take portraitures, tammy replacement will be pentax 50-135 i think.

02-19-2011, 04:57 AM	#7
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Or you can just go prime with a DA 70 or FA 77 for the best in portraiture, and even add more speed... If you're just doing head & shoulder or half-body portraits you need nothing more (other than good lighting).

02-19-2011, 06:25 AM	#8
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by mkvlln my reasoning of swapping the 28-75 for the 55-300 is that the extra focal length can create better depth, despite the smaller aperture hole. Originally posted by akanarya if you take portraitures, tammy replacement will be pentax 50-135 i think. Agreed. If you want a zoom with longer reach than the 28-75, I would consider the 50-135 over the 55-300.