[slip]

why isn't a mid range 2.8 like the 50-135 pentax lens more popular? was looking for a similar older auto focus and it just doesn't seem like there is one out there.
50-135 seems to be the most suitable range for portraits... If I look at something like a 70-200 2.8 they seem to be a big long and heavy.
anyone feel the same?
Is there an auto focus that would fit this range without selling my family?

thanks

[Adam]

IMO, because it's neither wide enough nor long enough. A 17-50 or 28-70 is a better walkaround, while a 70-200mm is a better telephoto. I have the 50-135mm but I've only had it with me on one trip.

[slip]

IMO, because it's neither wide enough nor long enough. A 17-50 or 28-70 is a better walkaround, while a 70-200mm is a better telephoto. I have the 50-135mm but I've only had it with me on one trip.

If you were doing more casual portraits or weddings would you get that lens out more often?

thanks

[Lowell Goudge]

I have to agree with both Adam and Slip. As a travel lens it does not cut it, but I can see it for weddings

[jsherman999]

It's the same 'length' a 70-200 2.8 was on film, though. I remember the halycon days of 2008, before people started writing about SDM problems, everyone seemed to love this lens, be saving for it, singing it's praises.... To this day I think it may be optically the best zoom I've shot.

Hopefully Ricoh can work with Tokina again to come out with an updated version with an SDM replacement drive. IMO the 50-135 deserves better.

[jsherman999]

I have to agree with both Adam and Slip. As a travel lens it does not cut it, but I can see it for weddings

It's a little big for a travel lens maybe... or maybe not, depending on your idea of 'big'.

The focal length is fine for a lot of travel opportunities, IMO:

50mm:



135mm:






But I think it really shines as a portrait lens, or kid-chaser:

[drougge]

As has been hinted, but hardly stated clearly, the reason you don't find old ones is because it's supposed to be a replacement for 70-200 lenses from before we lost half our sensor (film) area. Not that I understand why 50-135 wasn't considered a desirable range on "full frame", but there you have it, same reason we don't have 35-90 zooms made for APS-C.

[AOShep]

I use the 50-135 for almost everything. Partly because it is the best I have. There are times I do want more on either end of the focal length and will eventually add a fast wide and super tele. I have used this lens for portraits, a wedding, indoor and outdoor sports, and wildlife. If I can have only one quality lens, this is the one.

[JinDesu]

I would have gotten it if the Tamron 70-200 wasn't cheaper. Unfortunately, the Tamron 70-200 is cheaper.

[dadipentak]

I've seen great shots with the DA 50-135/2.8 but got the Sigma 50-150/2.8 instead: longer, not SDM, better warranty.

[slip]

It's a little big for a travel lens maybe... or maybe not, depending on your idea of 'big'.

The focal length is fine for a lot of travel opportunities, IMO:

50mm:



135mm:






But I think it really shines as a portrait lens, or kid-chaser:

these photos are outstanding! awesome lighting , great subjects, nice and sharp... can't ask for much better!

thanks for sharing, got to go, have to rob a bank for k5 and a 50-135

post more if you have them

[rvannatta]

why isn't a mid range 2.8 like the 50-135 pentax lens more popular? was looking for a similar older auto focus and it just doesn't seem like there is one out there.
50-135 seems to be the most suitable range for portraits... If I look at something like a 70-200 2.8 they seem to be a big long and heavy.
anyone feel the same?
Is there an auto focus that would fit this range without selling my family?

thanks

it's a really nice lens. I've got one, but -- I usually have a DA*16-50 on my camera, but right after I got it I tossed it in the camera bag
just 'in case'. --- It turned out that the 'just in case' was a herd of elk about 50 yards away staring at me:
<click photo to expand>


the good IQ made the photo usable, but I had to crop it a lot more than I like. I now carry a DA 60-250 in my bag. If I had had it instead
the photo would have been outstanding instead of usable as I wouldn't have needed to crop it in photoshop.

On the other hand, my daughter who shoots school year book sports shots, has found the 50-135 a very useful lens. The speed helps in the
twilight hours of school sports, and the objects of the photos are at a predictible range.

[RioRico]

why isn't a mid range 2.8 like the 50-135 pentax lens more popular? was looking for a similar older auto focus and it just doesn't seem like there is one out there.
50-135 seems to be the most suitable range for portraits... If I look at something like a 70-200 2.8 they seem to be a big long and heavy.
anyone feel the same?
Is there an auto focus that would fit this range without selling my family?

I don't have the DA50-135 and I probably wouldn't buy one unless I got a BIG inheritance. C'mon and DIE, somebody! But yes, it's a great range for people-shooting. My favorite portraiture zoom is a heavy old M42 Sears-Tokina 55-135/3.5 that cost all of US$8 shipped. It's a great range for everything from half-body to close-facial shots. Especially of soon-to-be-deceased relatives with generous wills. But I digress.

Too bad slightly slower constant-aperture midrange zooms don't have a market now. You can either spend a pile on an f/2.8, or pay less for less desirable glass like a DA18-135. I guess you'll have to sell your family. I have a grandson I'm trying to trade for a set of Limiteds. Any takers? He's only a little hyperactive.

[Lloydy]

I don't have the DA50-135 and I probably wouldn't buy one unless I got a BIG inheritance. C'mon and DIE, somebody! But yes, it's a great range for people-shooting. My favorite portraiture zoom is a heavy old M42 Sears-Tokina 55-135/3.5 that cost all of US$8 shipped. It's a great range for everything from half-body to close-facial shots. Especially of soon-to-be-deceased relatives with generous wills. But I digress.

Too bad slightly slower constant-aperture midrange zooms don't have a market now. You can either spend a pile on an f/2.8, or pay less for less desirable glass like a DA18-135. I guess you'll have to sell your family. I have a grandson I'm trying to trade for a set of Limiteds. Any takers? He's only a little hyperactive.

I love my old Vivitar S1 24-48 f3.8, it's just about the most versatile lens I've used. But it's MF which some people don't want, for AF I like my F Series 35-70 f3.5/4.5 which is another very versatile lens with excellent IQ.

[hoanpham]

Tamron 28-75/2.8, DA*50-135, FA50 is my standard kit for a photo session.
DA50-135 had been with me on every events like weddings, school shoots, etc, but not without flashes.