70-200 vs. 50-135 ?

Isnwm · 09-02-2012, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Tonto

My 2c....
#1 MY dream portrait combo on APSC would be a 24-70ish 2.8 and the 50-135 2.8. Reason is the tight portrait range is 50-135, a with 70-200 you will find your self changing to the other lens or stepping back a few in an event situation which isn't ideal.
#2 If your 24-105 is acceptably sharp then I believe the 70-200 would be your best bet. Note that both my choices have abit of FL overlap in-case of gear failure on the day.
#3 If you shoot abit of film and/or have any inclination to FF I think the 70-200 would be the choice (SORRY to mention but it is relevant ;p).

I like my 28-105, but I will eventually replace it with a constant 2.8. Probably the 28-75 Tammy. It's just going to get me by in the meantime. It does ok, for my needs right now. But I feel a little redundant having 90% of my focal length doubled over (50-105 coverage on both lenses). So essentially the 28-105 only covers 28-49 that the 50-135 can't. And the 50-135 only covers 106-135 that the other cant. I like the 28-75 a lot . But it just isnt a imperative for me to have right now. I can wait. But the 50-135 (which I ultimately decided to get over the 70-200), is pretty vital at this point, I think it covers all the the important ranges for a wedding and portraits.

Tonto · 09-02-2012, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Isnwm

But the 50-135 (which I ultimately decided to get over the 70-200), is pretty vital at this point, I think it covers all the the important ranges for a wedding and portraits.

Yup, apart from group shots and large establishment shots of venues the 50-135 will be stuck on the camera

**ramseybuckeye** · 09-02-2012, 06:46 AM

Have you run the Exposure Plot program and seen which focal lengths you use the most? (from before you sold off your lenses). That may tell you if you really need to cover 136-200. But, which one do you really want? If you don't buy the one you really want, you'll still want it. And you can always sell lenses as your needs change.

stormtech · 09-02-2012, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by JeremytheIndian

p.s. Tomorrow the DA* 50-135 will be down to $825 after instant rebate!

Or so everyone thought......Pentax started playing their games with pricing again.

Sept 1st with the rebates in force now, the 50-135 is now $1525

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-price-watch/197349-instant-rebates...ml#post2080515

bass3587 · 09-02-2012, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

Have you run the Exposure Plot program and seen which focal lengths you use the most? (

Do you have a link to this software. I ran a search and found a lot of different ones to download.

liukaitc · 09-02-2012, 10:34 AM

agree. 50-135 is a very good portrait lens. plus it is weather sealed. you can do some creative portrait in rainy days, beach and so on.
but the auto focus is kind slow..not very good for moving subject...

JeremytheIndian · 09-02-2012, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by stormtech

Or so everyone thought......Pentax started playing their games with pricing again.

Sept 1st with the rebates in force now, the 50-135 is now $1525

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-price-watch/197349-instant-rebates...ml#post2080515

Just saw it... I am crazy pissed. I was literally about to buy a DA* 50-135... not any more... nope.

slip · 09-02-2012, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

I shoot a Tamron 70-200. I enjoy using it, and I've used it for walking around (heavy, but I like long focal lengths), shooting low light sport events, portrait shooting (70-100mm is good for this), and occasional wildlife (squirrels, birds, etc).

Having used it, and having held a 50-135, I would go for the 50-135 now if I could. The 200mm reach is fantastic, but my shooting has generally been in the 70-135mm range. Added to that, I like the SDM on the 50-135, the WR of the 50-135, and the weight of the 50-135.

So if you aren't hunting for small animals, and your general use for this lens is going to be portrait and intimate events, the 50-135 is your better bet.

70-200 is more suited for midrange wildlife and sports.

Is the tammy 70-200 2.8 AF as slow as reviews tell me? They say the Tammy has superior optics compared to the sigma 70-200 2.8 but the sigma has the tammy beat hands down in autofocus speed?

not trying to high jack, just wondering.

thanks

randy

Isnwm · 09-02-2012, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by slip

Is the tammy 70-200 2.8 AF as slow as reviews tell me? They say the Tammy has superior optics compared to the sigma 70-200 2.8 but the sigma has the tammy beat hands down in autofocus speed?

not trying to high jack, just wondering.

thanks

randy

I was genuinely curious about this myself. I am really really tempted by the Sigma just bc of all the rants & raves I've read about the AF Speed. I read an article on the focus speed of the Sigma vs the Tammy. The sigma beat it by like half a second. The total times were like .94 vs .52 or something like that. I'm really curious how the 50-135 fares in that test.

**ramseybuckeye** · 09-02-2012, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by bass3587

Do you have a link to this software. I ran a search and found a lot of different ones to download.

Download via C-Net

G and T · 09-02-2012, 06:34 PM

I have owned a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and sold it with-in 6 months after 3 HSM issues. I have since replaced it with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 which has now given me 2 years of faultless service. Yes the AF is noisy and slower than the Sigma but it is far more accurate, locking on focus with-out all of the focus hunting that the Sigma was prone to. The biggest difference though is the IQ, the Tamron is optically one of the most impressive zooms I have ever used, up to 180mm it is hard to beat it with a bag of primes.
Glenn

liukaitc · 09-02-2012, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Isnwm

I was genuinely curious about this myself. I am really really tempted by the Sigma just bc of all the rants & raves I've read about the AF Speed. I read an article on the focus speed of the Sigma vs the Tammy. The sigma beat it by like half a second. The total times were like .94 vs .52 or something like that. I'm really curious how the 50-135 fares in that test.

50-135 is about 1 and half second to run back and forth

bass3587 · 09-02-2012, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

Download via C-Net

Thanks

joe.penn · 09-02-2012, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by slip

Is the tammy 70-200 2.8 AF as slow as reviews tell me? They say the Tammy has superior optics compared to the sigma 70-200 2.8 but the sigma

Who is "they"? I have had all three of the lenses discussed here [Sig 70~200, Pen 50~135, Tam 70~200] with the Tamron being one of my quickest "in and out" of the arsenal lenses - it is a good piece but the absence of HSM/USM/SDM did it in for me, with it being screw drive AF there is no "quick shift focus" and you can't use "CIF" with this lens, huge deal buster for the type of shooting I do. The sharpness of the Tamron is pretty good, not as good as the Sigma 70~200 OS FLD though. The 50~135 is the real deal if you are looking for a zoom type portrait lens, IMO it is the best zoom type portrait lens offered by pentax; if you have to get the extra range as in a 70~200 and you are not on a tight budget, the Sigma OS FLD is the best option...

Isnwm · 09-02-2012, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by joe.penn

Who is "they"? I have had all three of the lenses discussed here [Sig 70~200, Pen 50~135, Tam 70~200] with the Tamron being one of my quickest "in and out" of the arsenal lenses - it is a good piece but the absence of HSM/USM/SDM did it in for me, with it being screw drive AF there is no "quick shift focus" and you can't use "CIF" with this lens, huge deal buster for the type of shooting I do. The sharpness of the Tamron is pretty good, not as good as the Sigma 70~200 OS FLD though. The 50~135 is the real deal if you are looking for a zoom type portrait lens, IMO it is the best zoom type portrait lens offered by pentax; if you have to get the extra range as in a 70~200 and you are not on a tight budget, the Sigma OS FLD is the best option...

Have you ever shot any type of action stuff with your Pwntax 50-135 ? I'm curious to know how well it would perform @ a little league baseball/football game, or even a high school football game, if I were on the sideline, shooting the action from the side. (not from the end zones like the pros w/ their super zoom expensive lenses). That's my only concern. Length & focus speed. Say the teams were playing from the right hash mark (closest side of the field to me), if I held the camera up and had it pre focused or a great QB throw picture, or the RB running around the corner towards me... Is this expecting too much from the SDM focus ? I am constantly seeing online that the HSM sigma AF just blows the doors off the competition in AF speed. But at what cost ? How much of a dropoff on IQ is there ?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FA* 80-200 or DA* 60-250 or DA* 50-135+ Tamron 70-200/2.8	malakola	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	11-09-2013 06:31 AM
For Sale - Sold: DA* 16-50mm/2.8, 50-135/2.8, 200/2.8, 300/4, DA 12-24/4, 18-50, 50-200, K10D	Albert Siegel	Sold Items	15	08-14-2010 08:51 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
For Sale - Sold: M 50/f1.4, Takumar 135/f2.5, Super Tak 28/f3.5, Tokina 80-200/f2.8, M 80-200/f	loudbay	Sold Items	11	03-07-2008 04:53 PM

09-02-2012, 05:49 AM	#16
Isnwm Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 98 Original Poster	Originally posted by Tonto My 2c.... #1 MY dream portrait combo on APSC would be a 24-70ish 2.8 and the 50-135 2.8. Reason is the tight portrait range is 50-135, a with 70-200 you will find your self changing to the other lens or stepping back a few in an event situation which isn't ideal. #2 If your 24-105 is acceptably sharp then I believe the 70-200 would be your best bet. Note that both my choices have abit of FL overlap in-case of gear failure on the day. #3 If you shoot abit of film and/or have any inclination to FF I think the 70-200 would be the choice (SORRY to mention but it is relevant ;p). I like my 28-105, but I will eventually replace it with a constant 2.8. Probably the 28-75 Tammy. It's just going to get me by in the meantime. It does ok, for my needs right now. But I feel a little redundant having 90% of my focal length doubled over (50-105 coverage on both lenses). So essentially the 28-105 only covers 28-49 that the 50-135 can't. And the 50-135 only covers 106-135 that the other cant. I like the 28-75 a lot . But it just isnt a imperative for me to have right now. I can wait. But the 50-135 (which I ultimately decided to get over the 70-200), is pretty vital at this point, I think it covers all the the important ranges for a wedding and portraits.

09-02-2012, 05:59 AM	#17
Tonto Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wellington Posts: 969	Originally posted by Isnwm But the 50-135 (which I ultimately decided to get over the 70-200), is pretty vital at this point, I think it covers all the the important ranges for a wedding and portraits. Yup, apart from group shots and large establishment shots of venues the 50-135 will be stuck on the camera

09-02-2012, 06:46 AM	#18
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,295	Have you run the Exposure Plot program and seen which focal lengths you use the most? (from before you sold off your lenses). That may tell you if you really need to cover 136-200. But, which one do you really want? If you don't buy the one you really want, you'll still want it. And you can always sell lenses as your needs change.

09-02-2012, 06:53 AM	#19
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	Originally posted by JeremytheIndian *p.s. Tomorrow the DA 50-135 will be down to $825 after instant rebate!** Or so everyone thought......Pentax started playing their games with pricing again. Sept 1st with the rebates in force now, the 50-135 is now $1525 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-price-watch/197349-instant-rebates...ml#post2080515

09-02-2012, 09:18 AM	#20
bass3587 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 517	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye Have you run the Exposure Plot program and seen which focal lengths you use the most? ( Do you have a link to this software. I ran a search and found a lot of different ones to download.

09-02-2012, 10:34 AM	#21
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	agree. 50-135 is a very good portrait lens. plus it is weather sealed. you can do some creative portrait in rainy days, beach and so on. but the auto focus is kind slow..not very good for moving subject...

09-02-2012, 11:08 AM	#22
JeremytheIndian Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Central North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 121	Originally posted by stormtech Or so everyone thought......Pentax started playing their games with pricing again. Sept 1st with the rebates in force now, the 50-135 is now $1525 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-price-watch/197349-instant-rebates...ml#post2080515 Just saw it... I am crazy pissed. I was literally about to buy a DA* 50-135... not any more... nope.

09-02-2012, 11:46 AM	#23
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	Originally posted by JinDesu I shoot a Tamron 70-200. I enjoy using it, and I've used it for walking around (heavy, but I like long focal lengths), shooting low light sport events, portrait shooting (70-100mm is good for this), and occasional wildlife (squirrels, birds, etc). Having used it, and having held a 50-135, I would go for the 50-135 now if I could. The 200mm reach is fantastic, but my shooting has generally been in the 70-135mm range. Added to that, I like the SDM on the 50-135, the WR of the 50-135, and the weight of the 50-135. So if you aren't hunting for small animals, and your general use for this lens is going to be portrait and intimate events, the 50-135 is your better bet. 70-200 is more suited for midrange wildlife and sports. Is the tammy 70-200 2.8 AF as slow as reviews tell me? They say the Tammy has superior optics compared to the sigma 70-200 2.8 but the sigma has the tammy beat hands down in autofocus speed? not trying to high jack, just wondering. thanks randy

09-02-2012, 12:22 PM	#24
Isnwm Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 98 Original Poster	Originally posted by slip Is the tammy 70-200 2.8 AF as slow as reviews tell me? They say the Tammy has superior optics compared to the sigma 70-200 2.8 but the sigma has the tammy beat hands down in autofocus speed? not trying to high jack, just wondering. thanks randy I was genuinely curious about this myself. I am really really tempted by the Sigma just bc of all the rants & raves I've read about the AF Speed. I read an article on the focus speed of the Sigma vs the Tammy. The sigma beat it by like half a second. The total times were like .94 vs .52 or something like that. I'm really curious how the 50-135 fares in that test.

09-02-2012, 03:02 PM	#25
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,295	Originally posted by bass3587 Do you have a link to this software. I ran a search and found a lot of different ones to download. Download via C-Net

09-02-2012, 06:34 PM	#26
G and T Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Langwarrin Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 382	I have owned a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and sold it with-in 6 months after 3 HSM issues. I have since replaced it with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 which has now given me 2 years of faultless service. Yes the AF is noisy and slower than the Sigma but it is far more accurate, locking on focus with-out all of the focus hunting that the Sigma was prone to. The biggest difference though is the IQ, the Tamron is optically one of the most impressive zooms I have ever used, up to 180mm it is hard to beat it with a bag of primes. Glenn

09-02-2012, 06:56 PM	#27
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	Originally posted by Isnwm I was genuinely curious about this myself. I am really really tempted by the Sigma just bc of all the rants & raves I've read about the AF Speed. I read an article on the focus speed of the Sigma vs the Tammy. The sigma beat it by like half a second. The total times were like .94 vs .52 or something like that. I'm really curious how the 50-135 fares in that test. 50-135 is about 1 and half second to run back and forth

09-02-2012, 08:31 PM	#28
bass3587 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 517	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye Download via C-Net Thanks

09-02-2012, 09:41 PM	#29
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by slip Is the tammy 70-200 2.8 AF as slow as reviews tell me? They say the Tammy has superior optics compared to the sigma 70-200 2.8 but the sigma Who is "they"? I have had all three of the lenses discussed here [Sig 70~200, Pen 50~135, Tam 70~200] with the Tamron being one of my quickest "in and out" of the arsenal lenses - it is a good piece but the absence of HSM/USM/SDM did it in for me, with it being screw drive AF there is no "quick shift focus" and you can't use "CIF" with this lens, huge deal buster for the type of shooting I do. The sharpness of the Tamron is pretty good, not as good as the Sigma 70~200 OS FLD though. The 50~135 is the real deal if you are looking for a zoom type portrait lens, IMO it is the best zoom type portrait lens offered by pentax; if you have to get the extra range as in a 70~200 and you are not on a tight budget, the Sigma OS FLD is the best option...

09-02-2012, 09:59 PM	#30
Isnwm Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 98 Original Poster	Originally posted by joe.penn Who is "they"? I have had all three of the lenses discussed here [Sig 70~200, Pen 50~135, Tam 70~200] with the Tamron being one of my quickest "in and out" of the arsenal lenses - it is a good piece but the absence of HSM/USM/SDM did it in for me, with it being screw drive AF there is no "quick shift focus" and you can't use "CIF" with this lens, huge deal buster for the type of shooting I do. The sharpness of the Tamron is pretty good, not as good as the Sigma 70~200 OS FLD though. The 50~135 is the real deal if you are looking for a zoom type portrait lens, IMO it is the best zoom type portrait lens offered by pentax; if you have to get the extra range as in a 70~200 and you are not on a tight budget, the Sigma OS FLD is the best option... Have you ever shot any type of action stuff with your Pwntax 50-135 ? I'm curious to know how well it would perform @ a little league baseball/football game, or even a high school football game, if I were on the sideline, shooting the action from the side. (not from the end zones like the pros w/ their super zoom expensive lenses). That's my only concern. Length & focus speed. Say the teams were playing from the right hash mark (closest side of the field to me), if I held the camera up and had it pre focused or a great QB throw picture, or the RB running around the corner towards me... Is this expecting too much from the SDM focus ? I am constantly seeing online that the HSM sigma AF just blows the doors off the competition in AF speed. But at what cost ? How much of a dropoff on IQ is there ?