Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-28-2011, 04:51 AM   #31
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
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
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
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.
04-28-2011, 07:15 AM   #33
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, 08:54 AM   #34
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
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
the pic on the left definitely looks soft to me.
04-28-2011, 01:55 PM   #36
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
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
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Ruspast Quote
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
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Ruspast Quote
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
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by Ruspast Quote
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
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
the pic on the left definitely looks soft to me.
What picture on the left?
04-28-2011, 10:18 PM   #42
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
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
 
04-29-2011, 12:31 AM   #43
Senior Member
Ivor K Ecks's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 288
Just for a comparison. Here is a 100% crop from the Tamron 70-200 @200mm f2.8

04-29-2011, 01:15 AM   #44
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
Another 100% crop from the Sigma at 200mm f2.8, I didn't get this fast sports zoom to shoot garden gnomes!
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-x  Photo 
04-29-2011, 09:37 AM   #45
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
What picture on the left?
the one posted by Qiki entitled "-200mm-f2-8-6m-100%25-jpg"
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, church, iq, issues, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens, telephoto
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:56 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top