[The Kurly One]

I was certain that I was after the 50-135, but its a range of 85 mm to 130mm, thats a 55mm difference in zoom range.

What I am trying to convince myself of is that the optical qualities of the DA* will outweigh the difference in reach that the 70-200mm gives.

But are the differences noticeable to the average user? I have no plans of turning pro or even a profit with my pics, I just want to attain the most for my money.

What should I do?! I want the lens more for my daughters ballet recital and at f/2.8 I can shoot at 1/250 at 800 ISO at this venue. With cropping for individual shots still be usable even if I have to do a 100% crop with the 50-135?

And I figure that the 50mm side of it will be kind of usable indoors still....

Argghhh, wish I could just get both but thats not in the cards right now!

The other thing is what do I do lens wise if I want to get a longer zoom, as far as I can tell there are no 135-250mm f 2.8 lenses?

The next thread I start will be in the wanted thread!!!!

[Jim Olson]

The range of the 50-135 is actually 75 to 203 which is 128mm
jim

[The Kurly One]

so that makes the 70-200 larger... 140-300... 160mm

[garethwebber]

Pick then both up. Which can you carry all day? 50-135 lighter ,Smaller and WR.

Also- how far are you from daughter doing ballet?

Is ballet the only use? 135 to 200 is not the most useful range. Can get good sports shots but birds require 300 plus.

G

[elho_cid]

Ignore the milimeters... Just focus on the angle of view it gives you. The perspective...
For me the 50-135 worked better on the cropped sensor. Actually there was a good reason why ranges like 70-210, 80-200 or 70-200 were so popular for 35mm film cameras. It just covers well the "mind" telephoto, angles of view that are easy to visualize.
On crop the 70-200 feels odd to me (yes I own one, albeit slower).
If you think you really need even longer zoom in f2,8 then yes, a 120-300/2,8 zoom exists.

[SpecialK]

At shorter focal lengths, the millimeters mean more, so the "difference in the difference" of millimeters between lenses is misleading.

At the top of the posts on this page is a link "Looking for a fast zoom..." that may help you.

[The Kurly One]

I know I read it! I guess I will just have to buy the 50-135.... if it doesnt meet my needs I won't lose any money on it...

but if I were to purchase a 70-200, which one...

[selar]

I want the lens more for my daughters ballet recital and at f/2.8 I can shoot at 1/250 at 800 ISO at this venue.

I have exactly the same requirement, the 50-135 serves admirably for this purpose.
I would get the 70-200 if I shot sports, but I don't. The 70-200s from Sigma and Tamron are quite large, and I'd have difficulty getting them into the ballet recital hall. The 50-135 is borderline as it is.

[ozzi-paul]

The 70-200 is equal to 105-300. I have the Sigma HSM version & its a pretty good lens, doesn't come off my camera to much. HSM makes a big difference on the K20D body, its way to slow in the AF department without it. Tamron have a 70-200 but I don't think it has a high speed focus motor.

[selar]

50-135 is plenty for ballet recitals. I have found you can always shoot from the wings from quite close to the stage.

[twitch]

50-70 to me is way more important than 135-200, and the size and weight of a 70-200 once I tried it on my camera was a huge turn off. If in future I "need" 200 f2.8, I'll be buying a DA*200 to complement my DA*50-135 and definitely not trading it for a 70-200.

[selar]

Agree with Twitch, Adams article about the sports zooms had me thinking long and hard about whether I should exchange my 50-135 for a 70-200, but in the end it was no. The 50-135 has everything, the 70-200s are all missing something or the other. If Pentax makes a 70-200 like the 50-135, I'll consider it.

[Class A]

Things to consider:

• Will the AF of the 50-135 be fast enough for you? This lens is known to be a relatively slow AF performer.
• Can you buy extended warranty for the 50-135? This lens is know to have (even repeated) SDM failures.

Can you use a monopod? If so, the added weight of a 70-200/2.8 shouldn't be problematic.

Do you have any way to test which focal range you'll need?

Also, you might want to consider buying a used lens. A used 70-200/2.8 should give you unrivalled value for money. The 50-135 is a gem optically, but with its current price tag, it isn't exactly a bargain.

As to which 70-200: I cannot speak from personal experience but from what I've read, I'd look into one of the Sigma 70-200s.

[psychdoc]

50-135 for dance = Yummy! Much lighter than any 70-200 too...

[The Kurly One]

What ISO were you shooting at? THey are great compositions, and the range looks fantastic!