2.8 tele zoom

zapp · 04-15-2012, 01:54 AM

I am in for a large apeture tele zoom - something in the 2.8/ 80-200 range. The options are quite limited in Pentax land. The FA 80-200 is discontinued for quite some time, but available used. There is Sigma, there is Tamron. Does anyone have an educated opinion on all three lenses. It looks like the Tamron would be a decent choice to go with until something better comes along.
50-135 plus DA 200 is not really an option. 2.8 is a must and wide open performance makes the difference.

Zav · 04-15-2012, 02:23 AM

I've never tried them myself but a friend of mine who has the 80-200 f2.8 Pentax keep on raving about the Tamron.

PePe · 04-15-2012, 02:40 AM

None of the three (Pentax, Sigma,Tamron) is a bad choice. For further details you may want to have a look in here Fast Sports Zoom Lenses for Pentax - 70-200mm Sigma & Tamron - PentaxForums.com

RonHendriks1966 · 04-15-2012, 03:27 AM

I have the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 EX DG OS HSM and that is a wonderful lens. I don't use f2.8 (a little soft to my likings) but I do use f3.2/f3.5 when needed and I love performance on f4.

Sandy Hancock · 04-15-2012, 04:40 AM - **1 Like**

I have been very pleased with the output from my Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 II HSM. Acceptable wide open, very fast focus and good handling for live music in some high-pressure shoots.
Some examples....

zapp · 04-15-2012, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by PePe

None of the three (Pentax, Sigma,Tamron) is a bad choice. For further details you may want to have a look in here Fast Sports Zoom Lenses for Pentax - 70-200mm Sigma & Tamron - PentaxForums.com

This actually was my impression looking at available reviews.
I probably need to find a copy of the FA 80-200 to get a feeling for it or settle for the Tamron although I can already see that I will not like some of its "cheap" features.

JinDesu · 04-15-2012, 05:19 AM

The Tamron 70-200 is the best bargain in the telezoom F2.8 series.
The Sigma 70-200 HSM version 2 (or whatever) is a very good lens that can replace the 50-135 in reach.
The Sigma 50-150 (don't think there's a HSM version) is a very good counterpart to the Tamron 70-200, but is shorter.
The Pentax 80-200 is heaver than the Tamron, has screw drive, is not weathersealed, but is still a Pentax * lens so it renders very well and has Pentax's great coatings.

If you want sharp and cheap nothing will beat the Tamron. If you want silent then you have to look between the Sigma and the DA*50-135. If you want a compromise of length with sharpness and cost (i.e. you want 50mm), then the Sigma 50-150 is your buddy. If you want a great lens that won't let you down, the FA*80-200 is worth the money.

I myself was deciding between the Tamron and the Pentax FA*80-200 and went with the Tamron because of price, but I have no doubts if I had the FA* I would be just as happy.

guppy350 · 04-15-2012, 06:40 AM

I have the Tammy and from experience I can say it produces some wonderful images. Optically it is great and the sharpness and bokeh at 2.8 are equally amazing; it's just the "things" surrounding the optics which aren't so amazing. The focusing works reasonably outdoors with bright sunlight but inside you'd be better to go manual. Also it does have quite a plasticy build but in my opinion it's a trade off for the great optics at that price. As JinDesu said it is a great bargain. I have used the newest Sigma and know hands down that the focusing is quieter, quicker and better but cannot comment on the optical quality as I only used it briefly. I haven't used the Pentax so cannot comment on it! Hope this has helped.
(N.B. the tamron also has a very useful macro setting which means you can get in surprisingly close!)

liukaitc · 04-15-2012, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by guppy350

but inside you'd be better to go manual.

is the tarmon focus really that awful at low light condition???

liukaitc · 04-15-2012, 06:53 AM

but remember the 70-200 is consider tele zoom in full frame land
so in aps-c field, the 50-135 can be consider tele zoom

GvilleRick · 04-15-2012, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by liukaitc

is the tarmon focus really that awful at low light condition???

I haven't found it to be that bad. Granted I have not used it much in lower light conditions, mainly for outdoor sports. I did use it a couple of days ago to shoot a play. I was interested in seeing how it would work. Normally I used my DA* 50-135 for plays due to the silent focusing. The Tammy worked great and was not that loud. I did manually focus at first to get it close. Photos are at SimpleViewer Gallery

guppy350 · 04-15-2012, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by liukaitc

is the tarmon focus really that awful at low light condition???

If you have a good amount of natural light coming in the focusing is good but in artificial light my Tamron (with my K-5) finds it quite hard to focus quickly and effectively. But saying that it can have it's moments: one time it may focus very quickly in almost no light, and other times it will just go from infinity to macro and back again without attempting to focus properly. I'm just trying to say that it is some-what unreliable in terms of AF (indoors). BUT, on the plus the manual focus ring IMO is very nice to use (and very big). It is more of a stills and portrait lens- if you need fast focusing for rapid-action wildlife i'd get the Sigma. Outside for general sports and wildlife it's quite good but not for shooting Hummingbirds in flight (especially indoors!!!!!

)

**Ash** · 04-15-2012, 07:22 AM

I made a comparison between the Tamron and Sigma some time ago and concluded that the Tamron boasted the best value for money, based on an excellent IQ - just about as good as the Pentax FA* 80-200 - and price - cheaper than the Sigma.

JinDesu · 04-15-2012, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by liukaitc

is the tarmon focus really that awful at low light condition???

Not that I noticed on my k-x, so on a k-5 should be much better. I'll post some seriously low light shots later tonight when I get home. It's not great for sports, but it will lock focus pretty well in low light. I'm talking ISO 2000, F2.8, 1/30s.

Mareket · 04-15-2012, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

I have been very pleased with the output from my Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 II HSM. Acceptable wide open, very fast focus and good handling for live music in some high-pressure shoots.
Some examples....

Is pic number three the Meshuggah singer?

04-15-2012, 01:54 AM	#1
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,385	2.8 tele zoom I am in for a large apeture tele zoom - something in the 2.8/ 80-200 range. The options are quite limited in Pentax land. The FA 80-200 is discontinued for quite some time, but available used. There is Sigma, there is Tamron. Does anyone have an educated opinion on all three lenses. It looks like the Tamron would be a decent choice to go with until something better comes along. 50-135 plus DA 200 is not really an option. 2.8 is a must and wide open performance makes the difference.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tele zoom for motor sports	Dudley	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	10-04-2011 10:55 PM
Tele Zoom Comparative IQ Question	raymeedc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	05-06-2011 03:21 PM
Newbie question - Prime f1.4/1.8 or small tele zoom f2.8	Pretender	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-08-2010 05:12 AM
manual focus tele zoom	jkglogau	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-06-2009 09:02 AM
Wide & Tele Zoom Lens	ugaarguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-26-2007 09:47 PM

04-15-2012, 02:23 AM	#2
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	I've never tried them myself but a friend of mine who has the 80-200 f2.8 Pentax keep on raving about the Tamron.

04-15-2012, 02:40 AM	#3
PePe Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Helsinki, Finland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 597	None of the three (Pentax, Sigma,Tamron) is a bad choice. For further details you may want to have a look in here Fast Sports Zoom Lenses for Pentax - 70-200mm Sigma & Tamron - PentaxForums.com

04-15-2012, 03:27 AM	#4
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	I have the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 EX DG OS HSM and that is a wonderful lens. I don't use f2.8 (a little soft to my likings) but I do use f3.2/f3.5 when needed and I love performance on f4.

04-15-2012, 05:09 AM	#6
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,385 Original Poster	Originally posted by PePe None of the three (Pentax, Sigma,Tamron) is a bad choice. For further details you may want to have a look in here Fast Sports Zoom Lenses for Pentax - 70-200mm Sigma & Tamron - PentaxForums.com This actually was my impression looking at available reviews. I probably need to find a copy of the FA 80-200 to get a feeling for it or settle for the Tamron although I can already see that I will not like some of its "cheap" features.

04-15-2012, 05:19 AM	#7
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	The Tamron 70-200 is the best bargain in the telezoom F2.8 series. The Sigma 70-200 HSM version 2 (or whatever) is a very good lens that can replace the 50-135 in reach. The Sigma 50-150 (don't think there's a HSM version) is a very good counterpart to the Tamron 70-200, but is shorter. The Pentax 80-200 is heaver than the Tamron, has screw drive, is not weathersealed, but is still a Pentax * lens so it renders very well and has Pentax's great coatings. If you want sharp and cheap nothing will beat the Tamron. If you want silent then you have to look between the Sigma and the DA50-135. If you want a compromise of length with sharpness and cost (i.e. you want 50mm), then the Sigma 50-150 is your buddy. If you want a great lens that won't let you down, the FA80-200 is worth the money. I myself was deciding between the Tamron and the Pentax FA80-200 and went with the Tamron because of price, but I have no doubts if I had the FA I would be just as happy.

04-15-2012, 06:40 AM	#8
guppy350 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: guernsey Photos: Albums Posts: 40	I have the Tammy and from experience I can say it produces some wonderful images. Optically it is great and the sharpness and bokeh at 2.8 are equally amazing; it's just the "things" surrounding the optics which aren't so amazing. The focusing works reasonably outdoors with bright sunlight but inside you'd be better to go manual. Also it does have quite a plasticy build but in my opinion it's a trade off for the great optics at that price. As JinDesu said it is a great bargain. I have used the newest Sigma and know hands down that the focusing is quieter, quicker and better but cannot comment on the optical quality as I only used it briefly. I haven't used the Pentax so cannot comment on it! Hope this has helped. (N.B. the tamron also has a very useful macro setting which means you can get in surprisingly close!)

04-15-2012, 06:51 AM	#9
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	Originally posted by guppy350 but inside you'd be better to go manual. is the tarmon focus really that awful at low light condition???

04-15-2012, 06:53 AM	#10
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	but remember the 70-200 is consider tele zoom in full frame land so in aps-c field, the 50-135 can be consider tele zoom

04-15-2012, 07:01 AM	#11
GvilleRick Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,690	Originally posted by liukaitc is the tarmon focus really that awful at low light condition??? I haven't found it to be that bad. Granted I have not used it much in lower light conditions, mainly for outdoor sports. I did use it a couple of days ago to shoot a play. I was interested in seeing how it would work. Normally I used my DA* 50-135 for plays due to the silent focusing. The Tammy worked great and was not that loud. I did manually focus at first to get it close. Photos are at SimpleViewer Gallery

04-15-2012, 07:18 AM	#12
guppy350 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: guernsey Photos: Albums Posts: 40	Originally posted by liukaitc is the tarmon focus really that awful at low light condition??? If you have a good amount of natural light coming in the focusing is good but in artificial light my Tamron (with my K-5) finds it quite hard to focus quickly and effectively. But saying that it can have it's moments: one time it may focus very quickly in almost no light, and other times it will just go from infinity to macro and back again without attempting to focus properly. I'm just trying to say that it is some-what unreliable in terms of AF (indoors). BUT, on the plus the manual focus ring IMO is very nice to use (and very big). It is more of a stills and portrait lens- if you need fast focusing for rapid-action wildlife i'd get the Sigma. Outside for general sports and wildlife it's quite good but not for shooting Hummingbirds in flight (especially indoors!!!!! )

04-15-2012, 07:22 AM	#13
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I made a comparison between the Tamron and Sigma some time ago and concluded that the Tamron boasted the best value for money, based on an excellent IQ - just about as good as the Pentax FA* 80-200 - and price - cheaper than the Sigma.

04-15-2012, 07:37 AM	#14
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by liukaitc is the tarmon focus really that awful at low light condition??? Not that I noticed on my k-x, so on a k-5 should be much better. I'll post some seriously low light shots later tonight when I get home. It's not great for sports, but it will lock focus pretty well in low light. I'm talking ISO 2000, F2.8, 1/30s.

04-15-2012, 08:41 AM	#15
Mareket Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Chester Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 719	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock I have been very pleased with the output from my Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 II HSM. Acceptable wide open, very fast focus and good handling for live music in some high-pressure shoots. Some examples.... Is pic number three the Meshuggah singer?