Tamron 70-200 IQ vs 135 prime IQ

TOUGEFC · 08-23-2011, 07:35 PM

Ok guys, did a search and all I found was endless threads on the 70-200 vs other 70-200's etc...

Im trying to decide between the Tamron 70-200 or Pentax F/FA 135mm,
I know the pros and cons of each lens but how do they compare IQ wise?

I love my primes but I also like them to be fast , the FA 135mm is only f/2.8, if it was f/1.8 then I would already know what I'd pick!

Has anyone owned both lenses, and how do they compare IQ wise? Ive seen some awesome shots with the F/FA135 but also the shots Ive seen with the Tammy are just as impressive!

I dont care about the size differences/weight's between them or the AF speeds, Im very aware of those difference's.
I just want to know how they compare IQ wise.

Last edited by TOUGEFC; 08-23-2011 at 07:41 PM.

SpecialK · 08-23-2011, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

Has anyone owned both lenses, and how do they compare IQ wise? Ive seen some awesome shots with the F/FA135 but also the shots Ive seen with the Tammy are just as impressive!

You've answered the question :-)

TOUGEFC · 08-23-2011, 08:02 PM

But which one has the edge?

dgaies · 08-23-2011, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

But which one has the edge?

I'm pretty sure what SpecialK is trying to say is that they're both outstanding and it would be hard to quantify which actually has the edge. I've owned both, but I don't recall if I owned them at the same time. Regardless, I never did a side-by-side comparison if I did own them at the same time.

The bottom line is that whatever small differences exist in terms of IQ, the difference in size and AF speed is quite substantial and would almost always be the deciding factor (offset by the utility of the zoom range).

**Wormtographer** · 08-23-2011, 08:42 PM

I have both, but it's a bit hard to give you a definitive IQ side-by-side since I never carry both at the same time.

My immediate reaction to your question is to lean towards the impression that the FA135 is better than the Tamy by a good margin. I say this even though I have an exceptionally sharp 70-200 copy. However, it occurs to me that might (may, could) be more (in part) an issue of weight/size while shooting handheld--on a tripod the Tamy may compare better...just thinking out loud. Another difficulty is I don't often shoot the 70-200 at 135mm.

But having said all that equivocal stuff--without hesitation the FA135 renders impecable images that constantly and consistently leave me more than satisfied. IQ wise I'd say the FA wins at 135mm.

-W

jsherman999 · 08-23-2011, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

I'm pretty sure what SpecialK is trying to say is that they're both outstanding and it would be hard to quantify which actually has the edge. I've owned both, but I don't recall if I owned them at the same time. Regardless, I never did a side-by-side comparison if I did own them at the same time.

The bottom line is that whatever small differences exist in terms of IQ, the difference in size and AF speed is quite substantial and would almost always be the deciding factor (offset by the utility of the zoom range).

.

That's about what I was going to say. The Tamron is a stellar zoom, very good even wide-open, with great bokeh, and the FL range is extremely versatile... but it's 1330g vs. 375g for the FA. Over three times as heavy, 19cm vs 8cm long. It's a big honkin' lens compared to the FA 135, and it won't lock focus quite as quickly as well.

But it gives you 70-134 and 136-200mm.

Good luck deciding, but of course the real answer is.. get both.

.

twitch · 08-23-2011, 09:12 PM

I hope you don't mind me butting into your thread Simon, but it is on topic

I'm curious about the PF of the FA135 wide open. Anyone know how it compares with the Tammy, or perhaps with the FA77?

TOUGEFC · 08-23-2011, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

I'm pretty sure what SpecialK is trying to say is that they're both outstanding and it would be hard to quantify which actually has the edge. I've owned both, but I don't recall if I owned them at the same time. Regardless, I never did a side-by-side comparison if I did own them at the same time.

The bottom line is that whatever small differences exist in terms of IQ, the difference in size and AF speed is quite substantial and would almost always be the deciding factor (offset by the utility of the zoom range).

Yeah, you have me thinking again, by looking at your sig I can see which one you have and which you obviously sold

Originally posted by Wormtographer

I have both, but it's a bit hard to give you a definitive IQ side-by-side since I never carry both at the same time.

My immediate reaction to your question is to lean towards the impression that the FA135 is better than the Tamy by a good margin. I say this even though I have an exceptionally sharp 70-200 copy. However, it occurs to me that might (may, could) be more (in part) an issue of weight/size while shooting handheld--on a tripod the Tamy may compare better...just thinking out loud. Another difficulty is I don't often shoot the 70-200 at 135mm.

But having said all that equivocal stuff--without hesitation the FA135 renders impecable images that constantly and consistently leave me more than satisfied. IQ wise I'd say the FA wins at 135mm.

-W

Thanks for your input, I did suspect that the FA135 has the edge.

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

That's about what I was going to say. The Tamron is a stellar zoom, very good even wide-open, with great bokeh, and the FL range is extremely versatile... but it's 1330g vs. 375g for the FA. Over three times as heavy, 19cm vs 8cm long. It's a big honkin' lens compared to the FA 135, and it won't lock focus quite as quickly as well.

But it gives you 70-134 and 136-200mm.

Good luck deciding, but of course the real answer is.. get both.

.

Thanks Jay, my wife wont be too happy if I get both!

Although I would be

Originally posted by twitch

I hope you don't mind me butting into your thread Simon, but it is on topic

I'm curious about the PF of the FA135 wide open. Anyone know how it compares with the Tammy, or perhaps with the FA77?

All good mate, I would like to hear it as well....

DanielT74 · 08-23-2011, 09:32 PM

I wouldn't swear to it, but I think my K 135/2.5 is a tat better than the Tammy 70-200/2.8 although I have not compared them side by side.

and a 100% crop:

Of course it is a hell of a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper too.

I can try and run a quick test in the next few days.

yeatzee · 08-23-2011, 09:36 PM

I dont know about the FA, but my F focuses EXTREMELY fast

Great lens I absolutely adore mine.

dgaies · 08-23-2011, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by yeatzee

I dont know about the FA, but my F focuses EXTREMELY fast

Great lens I absolutely adore mine.

The FA135 focuses very fast as well (and I suspect is equal in terms of AF speed with the almost identical F135).

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

Yeah, you have me thinking again, by looking at your sig I can see which one you have and which you obviously sold

I wouldn't read too much into the lenses I have at any given moment. They change almost daily (and if not daily, certainly weekly

).

The fact that I don't have the Tamron 70-200 any more really has nothing to do with the FA135. I went through quite a few fast/long zooms trying to figure out which ones I wanted to keep. This included the Sigma 70-200/2.8, Sigma 100-300/4, Tamron 70-200/2.8, FA*80-200/2.8, DA*50-135/2.8 and DA*60-250/4. In the end I kept the pair of DA* zooms and sold the rest (not all at once, it was a progressive accumulation and sell-off). In truth, with the other fast primes I have, I could probably ditch the 50-135 as well and just go with the 60-250. That said, the Tamron 70-200 is outstanding optically and isn't that far off from the range of the 60-250 (plus it's a stop faster). On the down side, the AF is a bit nosier and the build isn't quite as good (IMO).

But this isn't about the 60-250 vs 70-200

As I said before, and as other have eluded to, the choice between the 135 and 70-200 is much more about prime vs zoom (size vs versatility) than subtle differences in IQ (or even differences in PF in high contrast situations).

Perhaps the real question is how upset will your wife be if you get both and will she be over it in a couple days (or are we talking months/years).

TOUGEFC · 08-23-2011, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by DanielT74

I wouldn't swear to it, but I think my K 135/2.5 is a tat better than the Tammy 70-200/2.8 although I have not compared them side by side.

and a 100% crop:

Of course it is a hell of a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper too.

I can try and run a quick test in the next few days.

Looks pretty sharp, I did consider that lens but I would prefer AF and the benefits of metering for the sake of the camera and HSS.

Originally posted by yeatzee

I dont know about the FA, but my F focuses EXTREMELY fast

Great lens I absolutely adore mine.

Ive heard that a fair bit but never seen it to know exactly how quick, and there are no vids on youtube regarding its speedy AF.
Speedy AF is nice but it has to be accurate as well.
The 70-200 looks alot faster on the K-7 than it does compared to other bodys-
[YT]http://youtu.be/CEef4PbgmUo[/YT]

Originally posted by dgaies

The FA135 focuses very fast as well (and I suspect is equal in terms of AF speed with the almost identical F135).

I wouldn't read too much into the lenses I have at any given moment. They change almost daily (and if not daily, certainly weekly

).

The fact that I don't have the Tamron 70-200 any more really has nothing to do with the FA135. I went through quite a few fast/long zooms trying to figure out which ones I wanted to keep. This included the Sigma 70-200/2.8, Sigma 100-300/4, Tamron 70-200/2.8, FA*80-200/2.8, DA*50-135/2.8 and DA*60-250/4. In the end I kept the pair of DA* zooms and sold the rest (not all at once, it was a progressive accumulation and sell-off). In truth, with the other fast primes I have, I could probably ditch the 50-135 as well and just go with the 60-250. That said, the Tamron 70-200 is outstanding optically and isn't that far off from the range of the 60-250 (plus it's a stop faster). On the down side, the AF is a bit nosier and the build isn't quite as good (IMO).

But this isn't about the 60-250 vs 70-200

As I said before, and as other have eluded to, the choice between the 135 and 70-200 is much more about prime vs zoom (size vs versatility) than subtle differences in IQ (or even differences in PF in high contrast situations).

Perhaps the real question is how upset will your wife be if you get both and will she be over it in a couple days (or are we talking months/years).

Ok fair enough,
I mostly want the 135mm and up range, but more so 135mm.
Im sure she will get over it in a few days

DanielT74 · 08-23-2011, 11:18 PM

You want AF, so this suggestion is totally irrelevant, but.... if you were suddenly feeling adventurous, you should try the Leica 80-200/4 which is meant to be an incredible lens on par with Leica primes and this is saying a lot. It would probably set you back ~$1000 and would be stop down metering etc, but it would be fun! I hope to compare it to the Tammy one day...

yeatzee · 08-23-2011, 11:24 PM

Its accurate as well no need to worry about that

TOUGEFC · 08-23-2011, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by DanielT74

You want AF, so this suggestion is totally irrelevant, but.... if you were suddenly feeling adventurous, you should try the Leica 80-200/4 which is meant to be an incredible lens on par with Leica primes and this is saying a lot. It would probably set you back ~$1000 and would be stop down metering etc, but it would be fun! I hope to compare it to the Tammy one day...

Sounds like a fun lens, but not the lens Im looking for with the lack of AF/Metering/f/2.8 speed.

But lets us how it goes if you get it

08-23-2011, 07:35 PM	#1
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Tamron 70-200 IQ vs 135 prime IQ Ok guys, did a search and all I found was endless threads on the 70-200 vs other 70-200's etc... Im trying to decide between the Tamron 70-200 or Pentax F/FA 135mm, I know the pros and cons of each lens but how do they compare IQ wise? I love my primes but I also like them to be fast , the FA 135mm is only f/2.8, if it was f/1.8 then I would already know what I'd pick! Has anyone owned both lenses, and how do they compare IQ wise? Ive seen some awesome shots with the F/FA135 but also the shots Ive seen with the Tammy are just as impressive! I dont care about the size differences/weight's between them or the AF speeds, Im very aware of those difference's. I just want to know how they compare IQ wise. Last edited by TOUGEFC; 08-23-2011 at 07:41 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA* 50-135 -vs- Tamron 70-200 f/2.8	Oscar1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-25-2010 09:06 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tokina 80-200/2.8 KA; K 135/2.5; M 200/4; Tamron 70-150/2.8 soft	thomasxie	Sold Items	6	02-26-2010 11:08 AM
First Telephoto Prime - 135/3.5 or 200/4?	macke	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	12-04-2009 10:42 AM
Tamron 70-200 or Pentax 50-135 in sharpness	LeDave	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	11-15-2009 09:53 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA* 50-135/Tamron XR 18-200 LD Di II Macro	Fl_Gulfer	Sold Items	9	10-05-2009 06:52 PM

08-23-2011, 07:55 PM	#2
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Originally posted by TOUGEFC Has anyone owned both lenses, and how do they compare IQ wise? Ive seen some awesome shots with the F/FA135 but also the shots Ive seen with the Tammy are just as impressive! You've answered the question :-)

08-23-2011, 08:02 PM	#3
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561 Original Poster	But which one has the edge?

08-23-2011, 08:09 PM	#4
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by TOUGEFC But which one has the edge? I'm pretty sure what SpecialK is trying to say is that they're both outstanding and it would be hard to quantify which actually has the edge. I've owned both, but I don't recall if I owned them at the same time. Regardless, I never did a side-by-side comparison if I did own them at the same time. The bottom line is that whatever small differences exist in terms of IQ, the difference in size and AF speed is quite substantial and would almost always be the deciding factor (offset by the utility of the zoom range).

08-23-2011, 08:42 PM	#5
Wormtographer Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: San Diego Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 166	I have both, but it's a bit hard to give you a definitive IQ side-by-side since I never carry both at the same time. My immediate reaction to your question is to lean towards the impression that the FA135 is better than the Tamy by a good margin. I say this even though I have an exceptionally sharp 70-200 copy. However, it occurs to me that might (may, could) be more (in part) an issue of weight/size while shooting handheld--on a tripod the Tamy may compare better...just thinking out loud. Another difficulty is I don't often shoot the 70-200 at 135mm. But having said all that equivocal stuff--without hesitation the FA135 renders impecable images that constantly and consistently leave me more than satisfied. IQ wise I'd say the FA wins at 135mm. -W

08-23-2011, 08:52 PM	#6
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by dgaies I'm pretty sure what SpecialK is trying to say is that they're both outstanding and it would be hard to quantify which actually has the edge. I've owned both, but I don't recall if I owned them at the same time. Regardless, I never did a side-by-side comparison if I did own them at the same time. The bottom line is that whatever small differences exist in terms of IQ, the difference in size and AF speed is quite substantial and would almost always be the deciding factor (offset by the utility of the zoom range). . That's about what I was going to say. The Tamron is a stellar zoom, very good even wide-open, with great bokeh, and the FL range is extremely versatile... but it's 1330g vs. 375g for the FA. Over three times as heavy, 19cm vs 8cm long. It's a big honkin' lens compared to the FA 135, and it won't lock focus quite as quickly as well. But it gives you 70-134 and 136-200mm. Good luck deciding, but of course the real answer is.. get both. .

08-23-2011, 09:12 PM	#7
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I hope you don't mind me butting into your thread Simon, but it is on topic I'm curious about the PF of the FA135 wide open. Anyone know how it compares with the Tammy, or perhaps with the FA77?

08-23-2011, 09:25 PM	#8
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561 Original Poster	Originally posted by dgaies I'm pretty sure what SpecialK is trying to say is that they're both outstanding and it would be hard to quantify which actually has the edge. I've owned both, but I don't recall if I owned them at the same time. Regardless, I never did a side-by-side comparison if I did own them at the same time. The bottom line is that whatever small differences exist in terms of IQ, the difference in size and AF speed is quite substantial and would almost always be the deciding factor (offset by the utility of the zoom range). Yeah, you have me thinking again, by looking at your sig I can see which one you have and which you obviously sold Originally posted by Wormtographer I have both, but it's a bit hard to give you a definitive IQ side-by-side since I never carry both at the same time. My immediate reaction to your question is to lean towards the impression that the FA135 is better than the Tamy by a good margin. I say this even though I have an exceptionally sharp 70-200 copy. However, it occurs to me that might (may, could) be more (in part) an issue of weight/size while shooting handheld--on a tripod the Tamy may compare better...just thinking out loud. Another difficulty is I don't often shoot the 70-200 at 135mm. But having said all that equivocal stuff--without hesitation the FA135 renders impecable images that constantly and consistently leave me more than satisfied. IQ wise I'd say the FA wins at 135mm. -W Thanks for your input, I did suspect that the FA135 has the edge. Originally posted by jsherman999 . That's about what I was going to say. The Tamron is a stellar zoom, very good even wide-open, with great bokeh, and the FL range is extremely versatile... but it's 1330g vs. 375g for the FA. Over three times as heavy, 19cm vs 8cm long. It's a big honkin' lens compared to the FA 135, and it won't lock focus quite as quickly as well. But it gives you 70-134 and 136-200mm. Good luck deciding, but of course the real answer is.. get both. . Thanks Jay, my wife wont be too happy if I get both! Although I would be Originally posted by twitch I hope you don't mind me butting into your thread Simon, but it is on topic I'm curious about the PF of the FA135 wide open. Anyone know how it compares with the Tammy, or perhaps with the FA77? All good mate, I would like to hear it as well....

08-23-2011, 09:32 PM	#9
DanielT74 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,377	I wouldn't swear to it, but I think my K 135/2.5 is a tat better than the Tammy 70-200/2.8 although I have not compared them side by side. and a 100% crop: Of course it is a hell of a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper too. I can try and run a quick test in the next few days.

08-23-2011, 09:36 PM	#10
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	I dont know about the FA, but my F focuses EXTREMELY fast Great lens I absolutely adore mine.

08-23-2011, 09:39 PM	#11
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by yeatzee I dont know about the FA, but my F focuses EXTREMELY fast Great lens I absolutely adore mine. The FA135 focuses very fast as well (and I suspect is equal in terms of AF speed with the almost identical F135). Originally posted by TOUGEFC Yeah, you have me thinking again, by looking at your sig I can see which one you have and which you obviously sold I wouldn't read too much into the lenses I have at any given moment. They change almost daily (and if not daily, certainly weekly ). The fact that I don't have the Tamron 70-200 any more really has nothing to do with the FA135. I went through quite a few fast/long zooms trying to figure out which ones I wanted to keep. This included the Sigma 70-200/2.8, Sigma 100-300/4, Tamron 70-200/2.8, FA80-200/2.8, DA50-135/2.8 and DA60-250/4. In the end I kept the pair of DA zooms and sold the rest (not all at once, it was a progressive accumulation and sell-off). In truth, with the other fast primes I have, I could probably ditch the 50-135 as well and just go with the 60-250. That said, the Tamron 70-200 is outstanding optically and isn't that far off from the range of the 60-250 (plus it's a stop faster). On the down side, the AF is a bit nosier and the build isn't quite as good (IMO). But this isn't about the 60-250 vs 70-200 As I said before, and as other have eluded to, the choice between the 135 and 70-200 is much more about prime vs zoom (size vs versatility) than subtle differences in IQ (or even differences in PF in high contrast situations). Perhaps the real question is how upset will your wife be if you get both and will she be over it in a couple days (or are we talking months/years).

08-23-2011, 10:28 PM	#12
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561 Original Poster	Originally posted by DanielT74 I wouldn't swear to it, but I think my K 135/2.5 is a tat better than the Tammy 70-200/2.8 although I have not compared them side by side. and a 100% crop: Of course it is a hell of a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper too. I can try and run a quick test in the next few days. Looks pretty sharp, I did consider that lens but I would prefer AF and the benefits of metering for the sake of the camera and HSS. Originally posted by yeatzee I dont know about the FA, but my F focuses EXTREMELY fast Great lens I absolutely adore mine. Ive heard that a fair bit but never seen it to know exactly how quick, and there are no vids on youtube regarding its speedy AF. Speedy AF is nice but it has to be accurate as well. The 70-200 looks alot faster on the K-7 than it does compared to other bodys- [YT]http://youtu.be/CEef4PbgmUo[/YT] Originally posted by dgaies The FA135 focuses very fast as well (and I suspect is equal in terms of AF speed with the almost identical F135). I wouldn't read too much into the lenses I have at any given moment. They change almost daily (and if not daily, certainly weekly ). The fact that I don't have the Tamron 70-200 any more really has nothing to do with the FA135. I went through quite a few fast/long zooms trying to figure out which ones I wanted to keep. This included the Sigma 70-200/2.8, Sigma 100-300/4, Tamron 70-200/2.8, FA80-200/2.8, DA50-135/2.8 and DA60-250/4. In the end I kept the pair of DA zooms and sold the rest (not all at once, it was a progressive accumulation and sell-off). In truth, with the other fast primes I have, I could probably ditch the 50-135 as well and just go with the 60-250. That said, the Tamron 70-200 is outstanding optically and isn't that far off from the range of the 60-250 (plus it's a stop faster). On the down side, the AF is a bit nosier and the build isn't quite as good (IMO). But this isn't about the 60-250 vs 70-200 As I said before, and as other have eluded to, the choice between the 135 and 70-200 is much more about prime vs zoom (size vs versatility) than subtle differences in IQ (or even differences in PF in high contrast situations). Perhaps the real question is how upset will your wife be if you get both and will she be over it in a couple days (or are we talking months/years). Ok fair enough, I mostly want the 135mm and up range, but more so 135mm. Im sure she will get over it in a few days

08-23-2011, 11:18 PM	#13
DanielT74 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,377	You want AF, so this suggestion is totally irrelevant, but.... if you were suddenly feeling adventurous, you should try the Leica 80-200/4 which is meant to be an incredible lens on par with Leica primes and this is saying a lot. It would probably set you back ~$1000 and would be stop down metering etc, but it would be fun! I hope to compare it to the Tammy one day...

08-23-2011, 11:24 PM	#14
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Its accurate as well no need to worry about that

08-23-2011, 11:25 PM	#15
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561 Original Poster	Originally posted by DanielT74 You want AF, so this suggestion is totally irrelevant, but.... if you were suddenly feeling adventurous, you should try the Leica 80-200/4 which is meant to be an incredible lens on par with Leica primes and this is saying a lot. It would probably set you back ~$1000 and would be stop down metering etc, but it would be fun! I hope to compare it to the Tammy one day... Sounds like a fun lens, but not the lens Im looking for with the lack of AF/Metering/f/2.8 speed. But lets us how it goes if you get it