Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

gut1kor · 08-24-2012, 12:17 PM

Hi,

I need a little bit of suggestion here. I am not into any wedding photography. I was impressed by the reviews on Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 lens and kind of wanting to purchase it. I don't have any f2.8 lens as of now and my main interest lies in wildlife and nature photography. But when I reviewed my old photographs 70% of them were shot at 300mm (FA 100-300mm f4.7-5.6 lens & Sigma 70-300mm). So I am not sure if my desire for this lens is out of a need or because of the reviews and images I have seen from this glass and at affordable price. Is this focal length suitable for me??? Will I be happy at 200mm with an f2.8 despite shooting most of the time at 300mm???

Guna

JinDesu · 08-24-2012, 12:24 PM

If I were you, I'd get a DA*300/FA*300 or a DA*60-250 or a Sigma 100-300 F4.

I adore my Tamron 70-200, but it's not meant for birding, as it is a bit short.

But any of the three suggestions above will provide you the reach you are used to, as well as the speed to shoot a stop better than your current lens, AND the quality wide open that your current lens can't achieve until perhaps F8 or F11 (or maybe not ever).

Venturi · 08-24-2012, 12:34 PM

Two ways to look at it:
200mm is 33% wider than 300mm, so your birds would be 1/3rd smaller in the frame.
300mm is 50% tighter than 200mm, so your birds would be twice as big in the frame.

**LaurenOE** · 08-24-2012, 12:51 PM

You asked - "Do I Really Need Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Lens?" - YES. I was on the fence before I bought it, but it's easily one of my favorite lenses. Sharp as a tack and f/2.8. What's not to like at around $760 NEW?

**MJL** · 08-24-2012, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by gut1kor

70-200mm f2.8 Lens

Zooms in this range are great for indoor sport/performance or portrait, and I love my Sigma 70-200/2.8. Judging from the subject in your photos here, I would say stay with the 250-300 mm range as the other Forums members already suggested.

reeftool · 08-24-2012, 01:02 PM

I don't need a 70-200/2.8 but I want one. I do a lot of tele shooting but having a fast mid range tele zoom is a handy thing. I currently am using MF primes to fill in the slot.

DSims · 08-24-2012, 01:22 PM - **1 Like**

Since over 2/3 of your shots are at 300mm, you should go with a 300mm or longer prime and forget the zoom. Lenses such as the Pentax DA*/FA*/F*300 or Tokina 300/2.8 or 400/5.6 are substantially better than what you have now at 300. You might even like the Pentax 560/5.6 that's due to be released later this year, although I fear its design may necessitate a higher price tag than many of us would prefer.

I've decided to forgo zoom at anything over 135mm. It sounds like you're an even stronger candidate for this approach than I am.

Not that the Tamron 70-200 isn't useful, but it sounds like a compromise that won't get you much closer (if any) to your objective.

kenafein · 08-24-2012, 01:27 PM

The 70-200 is an amazing lens, I wanted one for a long time, but I found I didn't end up using it as much as I thought I would. It's quite the beast. The guy I bought it from turned out some amazing birding shots with his Pentax 1.7x TC, but I think it's mostly for sport and event photography.

**Ash** · 08-24-2012, 01:35 PM

You don't need it. I also suggest a DA* 300 if the majority of your shots are at 300mm and you don't use telephoto focal lengths for anything else. However if you were to purchase a Tamron 70-200 as well as the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter then you'd effectively have 280mm of reach at a maximal effective aperture of f/4. Not as sharp as the DA* 300 at f/4 comparing it to the Tamron with the teleconverter, but if you 'needed' the range offered by a zoom lens this might be an acceptable compromise between the choices. I'd still go for the DA* 300 if you don't use the other focal lengths very much.

**blackcloudbrew** · 08-24-2012, 01:47 PM

I want to jump in here and offer my $0.02 as well but I have to agree with many of the responses already stated. The Tammy 70-200 is a wonderful lens and until I got the DA*50-135 it really filled a gap in my quality medium tele line up. I like constant aperture zooms and will get them, if I can afford them. (The DA*50-135 is not a substitute for the Tammy, it just has a more comfortable working range for me for a lot of things.) I think that it's (the Tammy) image quality is a lot better than the FA 100-300 and I 'think' it's even better than the DA 55-300, which for me, is the best of the XX-300 zooms that I've owned. However, it does sound too short for your needs. Best of luck on your decisions.

hypervel · 08-24-2012, 02:09 PM

Got kids?

**crewl1** · 08-24-2012, 02:18 PM

*echo above*

If your main interest is in wildlife and nature, skip the 70-200 and go for a DA*300 instead.

SpecialK · 08-24-2012, 02:27 PM

Is 300 enough? If your lenses went to 400 or 500, would most of your shots be there instead?

I love my 70-200 but not so much at airshows, which is the mechanized equivalent of birding :-)

treebeard · 08-24-2012, 02:46 PM

I have had several 70-200's and a few 300's over the years. My main use for the 70-200's has been sports and events. The 300's I used for some football, birding and wildlife. I think the 70-200 is a very versatile lens, especially if you get the right 1.7x to go with it.

Docrwm · 08-24-2012, 04:06 PM

I just took the Tamron 70-200/2.8 off my K-5 after shooting off the pier outside our room. I have the 55-300 too but the Tamron is sharper. I was not able to get the sea birds the way I like with only 200mm. Much as I like my Tamron 70-200, it's just not a birding lens IMHO. Perhaps either a 300 prime or a zoom in the 150-500 range instead?

08-24-2012, 12:17 PM	#1
gut1kor Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Bangalore Photos: Albums Posts: 176	Do I Really Need Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Lens? Hi, I need a little bit of suggestion here. I am not into any wedding photography. I was impressed by the reviews on Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 lens and kind of wanting to purchase it. I don't have any f2.8 lens as of now and my main interest lies in wildlife and nature photography. But when I reviewed my old photographs 70% of them were shot at 300mm (FA 100-300mm f4.7-5.6 lens & Sigma 70-300mm). So I am not sure if my desire for this lens is out of a need or because of the reviews and images I have seen from this glass and at affordable price. Is this focal length suitable for me??? Will I be happy at 200mm with an f2.8 despite shooting most of the time at 300mm??? Guna

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens for Pentax	manishved	Sold Items	12	08-13-2012 08:03 AM
Issues with Tamron 70-200mm Macro lens at 200mm f2.8, just purchased, please help!	AH11	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	04-03-2012 05:32 AM
Another which lens thread ....da 50-135mm or tamron 70-200mm?	janstew	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	03-20-2011 04:05 AM
Which Travel Lens? Sigma or Tamron 18-200mm	scarr2k	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	11-10-2010 04:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro AF Lens (Worldwide)	raybird	Sold Items	2	09-23-2010 05:10 AM

08-24-2012, 12:24 PM	#2
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	If I were you, I'd get a DA300/FA300 or a DA*60-250 or a Sigma 100-300 F4. I adore my Tamron 70-200, but it's not meant for birding, as it is a bit short. But any of the three suggestions above will provide you the reach you are used to, as well as the speed to shoot a stop better than your current lens, AND the quality wide open that your current lens can't achieve until perhaps F8 or F11 (or maybe not ever).

08-24-2012, 12:34 PM	#3
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	Two ways to look at it: 200mm is 33% wider than 300mm, so your birds would be 1/3rd smaller in the frame. 300mm is 50% tighter than 200mm, so your birds would be twice as big in the frame.

08-24-2012, 12:51 PM	#4
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	You asked - "Do I Really Need Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Lens?" - YES. I was on the fence before I bought it, but it's easily one of my favorite lenses. Sharp as a tack and f/2.8. What's not to like at around $760 NEW?

08-24-2012, 12:54 PM	#5
MJL Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: The Canadian WetCoast Photos: Albums Posts: 384	Originally posted by gut1kor 70-200mm f2.8 Lens Zooms in this range are great for indoor sport/performance or portrait, and I love my Sigma 70-200/2.8. Judging from the subject in your photos here, I would say stay with the 250-300 mm range as the other Forums members already suggested.

08-24-2012, 01:02 PM	#6
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	I don't need a 70-200/2.8 but I want one. I do a lot of tele shooting but having a fast mid range tele zoom is a handy thing. I currently am using MF primes to fill in the slot.

08-24-2012, 01:22 PM - 1 Like	#7
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Since over 2/3 of your shots are at 300mm, you should go with a 300mm or longer prime and forget the zoom. Lenses such as the Pentax DA/FA/F*300 or Tokina 300/2.8 or 400/5.6 are substantially better than what you have now at 300. You might even like the Pentax 560/5.6 that's due to be released later this year, although I fear its design may necessitate a higher price tag than many of us would prefer. I've decided to forgo zoom at anything over 135mm. It sounds like you're an even stronger candidate for this approach than I am. Not that the Tamron 70-200 isn't useful, but it sounds like a compromise that won't get you much closer (if any) to your objective.

08-24-2012, 01:27 PM	#8
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	The 70-200 is an amazing lens, I wanted one for a long time, but I found I didn't end up using it as much as I thought I would. It's quite the beast. The guy I bought it from turned out some amazing birding shots with his Pentax 1.7x TC, but I think it's mostly for sport and event photography.

08-24-2012, 01:35 PM	#9
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	You don't need it. I also suggest a DA* 300 if the majority of your shots are at 300mm and you don't use telephoto focal lengths for anything else. However if you were to purchase a Tamron 70-200 as well as the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter then you'd effectively have 280mm of reach at a maximal effective aperture of f/4. Not as sharp as the DA* 300 at f/4 comparing it to the Tamron with the teleconverter, but if you 'needed' the range offered by a zoom lens this might be an acceptable compromise between the choices. I'd still go for the DA* 300 if you don't use the other focal lengths very much.

08-24-2012, 01:47 PM	#10
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,461	I want to jump in here and offer my $0.02 as well but I have to agree with many of the responses already stated. The Tammy 70-200 is a wonderful lens and until I got the DA50-135 it really filled a gap in my quality medium tele line up. I like constant aperture zooms and will get them, if I can afford them. (The DA50-135 is not a substitute for the Tammy, it just has a more comfortable working range for me for a lot of things.) I think that it's (the Tammy) image quality is a lot better than the FA 100-300 and I 'think' it's even better than the DA 55-300, which for me, is the best of the XX-300 zooms that I've owned. However, it does sound too short for your needs. Best of luck on your decisions.

08-24-2012, 02:09 PM	#11
hypervel Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 27	Got kids?

08-24-2012, 02:18 PM	#12
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	echo above If your main interest is in wildlife and nature, skip the 70-200 and go for a DA*300 instead.

08-24-2012, 02:27 PM	#13
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	Is 300 enough? If your lenses went to 400 or 500, would most of your shots be there instead? I love my 70-200 but not so much at airshows, which is the mechanized equivalent of birding :-)

08-24-2012, 02:46 PM	#14
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793	I have had several 70-200's and a few 300's over the years. My main use for the 70-200's has been sports and events. The 300's I used for some football, birding and wildlife. I think the 70-200 is a very versatile lens, especially if you get the right 1.7x to go with it.

08-24-2012, 04:06 PM	#15
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	I just took the Tamron 70-200/2.8 off my K-5 after shooting off the pier outside our room. I have the 55-300 too but the Tamron is sharper. I was not able to get the sea birds the way I like with only 200mm. Much as I like my Tamron 70-200, it's just not a birding lens IMHO. Perhaps either a 300 prime or a zoom in the 150-500 range instead?