70-200mm Zoom Decision

**Ash** · 04-28-2011, 04:51 AM

200mm even on a crop sensor can sometimes be too wide for some instances in weddings, particularly when I'm doing more stealth work catching the people unawares and being more natural. So I also carry, and use, the Tamron 1.4x TC, which makes the 70-200 effectively a 100-280, and can be quite a virtue.

Unfortunately the 50-135 and Sigma 70-200 are not as amenable to TCs as the Tamron 70-200 is... yet.

dgaies · 04-28-2011, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Ash

200mm even on a crop sensor can sometimes be too wide for some instances in weddings, particularly when I'm doing more stealth work catching the people unawares and being more natural. So I also carry, and use, the Tamron 1.4x TC, which makes the 70-200 effectively a 100-280, and can be quite a virtue.

Unfortunately the 50-135 and Sigma 70-200 are not as amenable to TCs as the Tamron 70-200 is... yet.

That's a good point about the TC. The Tamron 70-200/2.8 works very well with the Tamron 1.4x. The DA*50-135 can also use the Tamron 1.4x, but the AF becomes more difficult to use, often not locking on the first try.

I personally would not consider the DA*50-135+1.4x a very good option if AF is a requirement whereas the AF of the Tamron 70-200/2.8+1.4x works fine so long as you have a decent amount of light.

Qiki · 04-28-2011, 07:15 AM

Was messing around with various lenses this evening and grabbed these images with the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 II APO DG EX Macro. Both are 100% crops of images captured at 200mm of a subject approx 6m away. One is F2.8, the other F8. Other than JPEG conversion, crop and resize, both are unedited. The difference in contrast/exposure is from the camera, not the lens. I know this because I also shot at other apertures and there were slight differences with each image (gaining/losing contrast) as the apertures decreased. The printer cartridge box in the foregroud was t test for FF, which doesn't seem to be occurring.

IMO, both images demonstrate acceptable results and I find it hard to see any real difference from F2.8 to F8. Maybe I just got lucky and found a good copy of the lens.

lkjr · 04-28-2011, 08:54 AM

The second pic looks sharper to me...especially in the wording...just mho

mikeSF · 04-28-2011, 08:56 AM

the pic on the left definitely looks soft to me.

Ruspast · 04-28-2011, 01:55 PM

Thanks to all of you who have responded to my posting. I cannot say that you have made my decision too much easier, though. I used to be a Canon user and had the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS lens. Then I switched to Nikon and had their 70-200 2.8 VR lens. It was quite easy to make a decision which lens to buy for the Canon and Nikon, albeit rather expensive. Pentax, in this regard, is more complicated and has no clear cut leader in mid-long telezooms.

Summarizing your comments, I would say the Tamron has the lead - it has the IQ and the reach and the people who have this lens like it (at the same time knowing and willing to live with it's limitations) and recommend it. The Pentax 50-135 has no detractors, but I am used to longer reach (I do understand the weight factor quite well). It is also true that many pros I know use full frame cameras and thus the Pentax 50-135 on an APS camera is equal in reach to their full frame Canon/Nikon 70-200. I plan to consult with at least one of them who specializes in church photography (BTW I am NOT a wedding photographer and the church where I am the staff photographer has no pews) in reagrds to the focal length. It seems the Sigma 70-200 has the best AF, but IQ/copy are of immense importance and are a "hit or miss." There were not too many fans of the Sigma among those of you who replied. So at this time I am more likely to risk buying either the Tamron (its price is about $750) and hoping it works, or the Pentax 50-135 (that runs about $850). With the latter I can either sell it if it doesn't work, or get a prime 200mm/300mm later.

Ruspast · 04-28-2011, 02:02 PM

PS Have any of you used the Tamron 70-200 with the K-5? If so, is there marked improvement with noise and AF?

dgaies · 04-28-2011, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Ruspast

PS Have any of you used the Tamron 70-200 with the K-5? If so, is there marked improvement with noise and AF?

I have, and I would say that subjectively the AF seems a bit faster, but I can't say for certain how much faster as I never formally tested it against an older body. As I recall, the noise level is about the same.

Winder · 04-28-2011, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Ruspast

Summarizing your comments, I would say the Tamron has the lead - it has the IQ and the reach and the people who have this lens like it (at the same time knowing and willing to live with it's limitations) and recommend it. The Pentax 50-135 has no detractors, but I am used to longer reach (I do understand the weight factor quite well). It is also true that many pros I know use full frame cameras and thus the Pentax 50-135 on an APS camera is equal in reach to their full frame Canon/Nikon 70-200. I plan to consult with at least one of them who specializes in church photography (BTW I am NOT a wedding photographer and the church where I am the staff photographer has no pews) in reagrds to the focal length. It seems the Sigma 70-200 has the best AF, but IQ/copy are of immense importance and are a "hit or miss." There were not too many fans of the Sigma among those of you who replied. So at this time I am more likely to risk buying either the Tamron (its price is about $750) and hoping it works, or the Pentax 50-135 (that runs about $850). With the latter I can either sell it if it doesn't work, or get a prime 200mm/300mm later.

I believe Tamron has a 6 year warranty, so if the lens is not acceptable send it to them and have them bring it into spec. For the money I would go Tamron.

If speed and money are not an issue the Pentax 60-250 f/4 is an excellent lens. This would be my second choice as the IQ is excellent and you get a bit more reach, but it is only an F/4 lens...... and it costs 2x as much as the Tamron.

Tamron looks pretty damn good.

**Ash** · 04-28-2011, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Ruspast

PS Have any of you used the Tamron 70-200 with the K-5? If so, is there marked improvement with noise and AF?

That's a yes from me on both accounts. It's not a huge improvement in speed, and noise is no different to me, but where it matters (low light), it performs better. This is what I have the lens for and thus enough of a reason to seek a body with improved AF alogrithms.

selar · 04-28-2011, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by mikeSF

the pic on the left definitely looks soft to me.

What picture on the left?

selar · 04-28-2011, 10:18 PM

100% centre crop from Sigma 70-200 HSM II @ 200mm f2.8. Not too bad I thought for a lens thats supposed to suck at this focal length and aperture.

Ivor K Ecks · 04-29-2011, 12:31 AM

Just for a comparison. Here is a 100% crop from the Tamron 70-200 @200mm f2.8

selar · 04-29-2011, 01:15 AM

Another 100% crop from the Sigma at 200mm f2.8, I didn't get this fast sports zoom to shoot garden gnomes!

mikeSF · 04-29-2011, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by selar

What picture on the left?

the one posted by Qiki entitled "-200mm-f2-8-6m-100%25-jpg"

04-28-2011, 07:15 AM	#33
Qiki Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 57	Was messing around with various lenses this evening and grabbed these images with the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 II APO DG EX Macro. Both are 100% crops of images captured at 200mm of a subject approx 6m away. One is F2.8, the other F8. Other than JPEG conversion, crop and resize, both are unedited. The difference in contrast/exposure is from the camera, not the lens. I know this because I also shot at other apertures and there were slight differences with each image (gaining/losing contrast) as the apertures decreased. The printer cartridge box in the foregroud was t test for FF, which doesn't seem to be occurring. IMO, both images demonstrate acceptable results and I find it hard to see any real difference from F2.8 to F8. Maybe I just got lucky and found a good copy of the lens. Attached Images

04-28-2011, 10:18 PM	#42
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	100% centre crop from Sigma 70-200 HSM II @ 200mm f2.8. Not too bad I thought for a lens thats supposed to suck at this focal length and aperture. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Takumar-A Zoom 1:4 70-200mm	Kitty	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	01-06-2011 02:35 AM
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:4 70-200mm	Curbster54	Sold Items	3	12-02-2009 05:55 PM
Decision Sigma 70 -200 or Pentax SMC FA*star 80-200mm/f2.8 ED IF Lens	campdog	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	10-29-2009 10:28 PM

04-28-2011, 04:51 AM	#31
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	200mm even on a crop sensor can sometimes be too wide for some instances in weddings, particularly when I'm doing more stealth work catching the people unawares and being more natural. So I also carry, and use, the Tamron 1.4x TC, which makes the 70-200 effectively a 100-280, and can be quite a virtue. Unfortunately the 50-135 and Sigma 70-200 are not as amenable to TCs as the Tamron 70-200 is... yet.

04-28-2011, 05:40 AM	#32
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Ash 200mm even on a crop sensor can sometimes be too wide for some instances in weddings, particularly when I'm doing more stealth work catching the people unawares and being more natural. So I also carry, and use, the Tamron 1.4x TC, which makes the 70-200 effectively a 100-280, and can be quite a virtue. Unfortunately the 50-135 and Sigma 70-200 are not as amenable to TCs as the Tamron 70-200 is... yet. That's a good point about the TC. The Tamron 70-200/2.8 works very well with the Tamron 1.4x. The DA50-135 can also use the Tamron 1.4x, but the AF becomes more difficult to use, often not locking on the first try. I personally would not* consider the DA*50-135+1.4x a very good option if AF is a requirement whereas the AF of the Tamron 70-200/2.8+1.4x works fine so long as you have a decent amount of light.

04-28-2011, 08:54 AM	#34
lkjr Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 60	The second pic looks sharper to me...especially in the wording...just mho

04-28-2011, 08:56 AM	#35
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	the pic on the left definitely looks soft to me.

04-28-2011, 01:55 PM	#36
Ruspast New Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 12 Original Poster	Thanks to all of you who have responded to my posting. I cannot say that you have made my decision too much easier, though. I used to be a Canon user and had the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS lens. Then I switched to Nikon and had their 70-200 2.8 VR lens. It was quite easy to make a decision which lens to buy for the Canon and Nikon, albeit rather expensive. Pentax, in this regard, is more complicated and has no clear cut leader in mid-long telezooms. Summarizing your comments, I would say the Tamron has the lead - it has the IQ and the reach and the people who have this lens like it (at the same time knowing and willing to live with it's limitations) and recommend it. The Pentax 50-135 has no detractors, but I am used to longer reach (I do understand the weight factor quite well). It is also true that many pros I know use full frame cameras and thus the Pentax 50-135 on an APS camera is equal in reach to their full frame Canon/Nikon 70-200. I plan to consult with at least one of them who specializes in church photography (BTW I am NOT a wedding photographer and the church where I am the staff photographer has no pews) in reagrds to the focal length. It seems the Sigma 70-200 has the best AF, but IQ/copy are of immense importance and are a "hit or miss." There were not too many fans of the Sigma among those of you who replied. So at this time I am more likely to risk buying either the Tamron (its price is about $750) and hoping it works, or the Pentax 50-135 (that runs about $850). With the latter I can either sell it if it doesn't work, or get a prime 200mm/300mm later.

04-28-2011, 02:02 PM	#37
Ruspast New Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 12 Original Poster	PS Have any of you used the Tamron 70-200 with the K-5? If so, is there marked improvement with noise and AF?

04-28-2011, 03:00 PM	#38
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Ruspast PS Have any of you used the Tamron 70-200 with the K-5? If so, is there marked improvement with noise and AF? I have, and I would say that subjectively the AF seems a bit faster, but I can't say for certain how much faster as I never formally tested it against an older body. As I recall, the noise level is about the same.

04-28-2011, 04:17 PM	#39
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Ruspast Summarizing your comments, I would say the Tamron has the lead - it has the IQ and the reach and the people who have this lens like it (at the same time knowing and willing to live with it's limitations) and recommend it. The Pentax 50-135 has no detractors, but I am used to longer reach (I do understand the weight factor quite well). It is also true that many pros I know use full frame cameras and thus the Pentax 50-135 on an APS camera is equal in reach to their full frame Canon/Nikon 70-200. I plan to consult with at least one of them who specializes in church photography (BTW I am NOT a wedding photographer and the church where I am the staff photographer has no pews) in reagrds to the focal length. It seems the Sigma 70-200 has the best AF, but IQ/copy are of immense importance and are a "hit or miss." There were not too many fans of the Sigma among those of you who replied. So at this time I am more likely to risk buying either the Tamron (its price is about $750) and hoping it works, or the Pentax 50-135 (that runs about $850). With the latter I can either sell it if it doesn't work, or get a prime 200mm/300mm later. I believe Tamron has a 6 year warranty, so if the lens is not acceptable send it to them and have them bring it into spec. For the money I would go Tamron. If speed and money are not an issue the Pentax 60-250 f/4 is an excellent lens. This would be my second choice as the IQ is excellent and you get a bit more reach, but it is only an F/4 lens...... and it costs 2x as much as the Tamron. Tamron looks pretty damn good.

04-28-2011, 04:33 PM	#40
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Ruspast PS Have any of you used the Tamron 70-200 with the K-5? If so, is there marked improvement with noise and AF? That's a yes from me on both accounts. It's not a huge improvement in speed, and noise is no different to me, but where it matters (low light), it performs better. This is what I have the lens for and thus enough of a reason to seek a body with improved AF alogrithms.

04-28-2011, 10:12 PM	#41
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by mikeSF the pic on the left definitely looks soft to me. What picture on the left?

04-29-2011, 12:31 AM	#43
Ivor K Ecks Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 294	Just for a comparison. Here is a 100% crop from the Tamron 70-200 @200mm f2.8

04-29-2011, 09:37 AM	#45
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Originally posted by selar What picture on the left? the one posted by Qiki entitled "-200mm-f2-8-6m-100%25-jpg"