Tamron 70-200 to replace my DA*50-135?

NeverSatisfied · 03-15-2008, 08:28 PM

The new Tamron 70-200/2.8 looks good so far on paper. If it turns out to be a good performer, I'll be in line to buy one as well. But I'm afraid it would trump the DA* 50-135. LBA has cost me plenty in the last few months and I'd like to try and simplify my collection. So I might consider getting rid of the 50-135 in that case. Plus since the Tamron is a macro, I might dispense with my Sigma 70/2.8 macro too.
That would leave me with the 21/3.2 Ltd, FA50/1.4, and the DA*16-50, a Tamron 1.4xTC, and the aforementioned big Tamron. Does this sound like a sensible plan?

**Canada_Rockies** · 03-15-2008, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by NeverSatisfied

The new Tamron 70-200/2.8 looks good so far on paper. If it turns out to be a good performer, I'll be in line to buy one as well. But I'm afraid it would trump the DA* 50-135. LBA has cost me plenty in the last few months and I'd like to try and simplify my collection. So I might consider getting rid of the 50-135 in that case. Plus since the Tamron is a macro, I might dispense with my Sigma 70/2.8 macro too.
That would leave me with the 21/3.2 Ltd, FA50/1.4, and the DA*16-50, a Tamron 1.4xTC, and the aforementioned big Tamron. Does this sound like a sensible plan?

I would check carefully what Tamron specifies as a "macro" magnification on the zoom. Very few get any better than 1:3, and most less. The 70/2.8 true macro goes to 1:1, if I remember correctly. I have Pentax A 70-210, which is "macro" at 70 mm ( about 1:3) and it is not a macro lens by any means. That's why I still use my 30 year old 100/4 M lens.

NeverSatisfied · 03-15-2008, 09:38 PM

You are exactly right, after review of the Tamron specs it's 1:3. Kinda dashes the idea of getting rid of the Sigma.

bigben91682 · 03-16-2008, 01:44 PM

I was contemplating the same tactic, trade the 50-135 for the 70-200. I have good coverage up to 50, and don't think I will miss the 50-70 range to much...and it would simplify the bag a bit. The 50-135 is such a stellar performer that I think I will be hesitant to part with it. I think I will wait for a consensus on the overall quality of the Tamron before speculating about what decision I will make....(also considering the Sig with HSM..but bigger bucks).

loudbay · 03-16-2008, 02:32 PM

You guys are crazy talking about ditching the 50-135. It's such a nice lens... I think the Tamron 1.4x which will work with HSM and a DA* 200/2.8 is what I'll be doing. Oh heck I just reread and you already have the 1.4x.

**Canada_Rockies** · 03-16-2008, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by bigben91682

I was contemplating the same tactic, trade the 50-135 for the 70-200. I have good coverage up to 50, and don't think I will miss the 50-70 range to much...and it would simplify the bag a bit. The 50-135 is such a stellar performer that I think I will be hesitant to part with it. I think I will wait for a consensus on the overall quality of the Tamron before speculating about what decision I will make....(also considering the Sig with HSM..but bigger bucks).

I think I have solved my problem with this sort of decision. I bought a 1.7X Pentax AF converter from the marketplace. My 50-135/2.8 will also be an 85-229.5/4.8 when it arrives.

NeverSatisfied · 03-16-2008, 03:30 PM

Kinda hard to balance the desire to simplify vs. my constant LBA! Maybe a little premature to think about ditching the 50-135; I'm thinking that someday I might like to try doing weddings or similar events, and a humongous 70-200 would probably be a pain in the a$$ for that, whereas the 50-135 would probably be ideal. (Would any wedding-shooters concur?) But I still want a longer telephoto of some sort. Would've already owned a Sigma 100-300/f4 a while ago but the retailer couldn't produce. Now if I owned that there would be very little overlap and I'd certainly hang onto the 50-135. But those Sigmas are hard to find....

theedudenator · 03-16-2008, 03:40 PM

I used the older Tamron 80-200mm/2.8 or maybe 70-200mm?? Can't remember.
It was the AF version in Minolta A mount.

It was built very close to the Minolta 80-200mm/2.8 APO lens.

Wide open the minolta beat it on corner sharpness and the purple fringe problems on digital cameras.

Is the new tamron going to have in-lens motor?
It will weight more then the current pentax also...

I have used the following
Minolta 80-200mm/2.8 APO (Black and White versions)
Tokina 80-200mm/2.8 (Minolta A)
Tamron 80-200mm/2.8 (Minolta A)
Canon 70-200mm/2.8
Canon 70-200mm/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200mm/4.0
Sigma 70-210mm/2.8 HSM (Canon)
And now the pentax 50-135mm/2.8

The best one for me....

Pentax 50-135mm/2.8 (weight, focus speed and image quality)
Canon 70-200mm/2.8 IS (Focus speed and IS)
Minolta 80-200mm/2.8 HS (image quality!!)

gawan · 03-16-2008, 03:53 PM

I have been thinking this a lot too. I have at the moment thinking of complementing my *16-50 with the *50-135 and not have gaps! And when I can afford it buy the Sigma 100-300 f/4 . So I would have reasonably fast and quality lenses from 16-300 with these.

In this strategy I would have fast SDM from 16-135.

Using my 1.4x TC with 70-200 would give me up to 280 and ca. f/4, but with thew Sigma 100-300 f/4 I would have a little more with f/4. In this strategy there is no room for a 70-200, UNLESS I cannot afford both Sigma 100-300 and *50-135. In that case I could seriously consider Tamron 70-200, but it would then be a compromize, IMO.

What do you think of this strategy? I don't think of DA*200 to be as an alternative for this.

Duh_Vinci · 03-16-2008, 04:07 PM

Well, been thinking about it too, but leaning toward Sigma EX 70-200 F2.8 HSM Since I sent my "dud" 50-135mm back to B&H, I have not re-ordered it (focusing problems at all focal lengths).

I like to get out and shoot concerts, mostly like the smaller clubs. Been using K100D with Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, where I can handle higher ISO (and it is fantastic), and 50mm f1.4 on K10D.

But what I'm thinking, 70-200mm f2.8 would be a nice addition, but I really miss USM/HSM, so that is why I'm leaning toward Sigma at the moment, not Tamron. Fast and silent AF is sooooo nice, to me - it is worth extra $100 over Tamron... And since I already ordered Sigma 1.4x TC to go with Sigma 100-300mm F4, it would complement Sigma 70-200mm nicely (if needed)

Regards,
D

loudbay · 03-16-2008, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by gawan

What do you think of this strategy? I don't think of DA*200 to be as an alternative for this.

With the 1.4x and 50-135, You're at 70-189 f/4. I think that's actually pretty reasonable to retain the 50-135 image quality and SDM albeit losing a stop of light. For me, if I ever feel the lost speed hurt, I think the DA* 200 would work with a bit of foot work, retain weather sealing and SDM, and turn into a nice 280 f/4 with your converter.

Man I need a janatorial job at night to buy more lenses... Well maybe something other than that, but still...

Cheers, Matt

McD · 03-16-2008, 06:39 PM

I have only owned the 50-135 for a few weeks now but couldnt see my self getting rid of it ever. Everything about the lens just blows me away everytime I look at a photo taken with it.

jgredline · 03-16-2008, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by loudbay

You guys are crazy talking about ditching the 50-135. It's such a nice lens... I think the Tamron 1.4x which will work with HSM and a DA* 200/2.8 is what I'll be doing. Oh heck I just reread and you already have the 1.4x.

Exactly my thoughts...well said..

selar · 03-16-2008, 07:57 PM

-50-135 is a weird focal length, I can't see what I'd do with a lens of that focal length. The 50-135 in Nikon is also a great lens, but not popular, because users can't identify with that focal range.
-Using a TC means not only in a loss of light, it also means reduced resolution, as in effect the TC is acting like a magnifying glass - magnifying the image resolved by the original lens, thus decreasing the lines of resolution per inch.
-There is also the inconvenience of using a TC to consider, by using a non HSM TC, you effectively lose HSM.
-With the 1.7x AF convertor, you not only lose HSM but also AF, relying instead on the limited AF range of the 1.7x
-To obtain best quality, you need a matched TC, matched to the lens - the 2 optical systems must work in sync to avoid aberrations, otherwise you can end up with overcorrected aberrations.

So great though the 50-135 may be, my requirement is for a 80-200 f2.8 lens, thus there are 3 alternatives:
FA* 80-200 f2.8
Sigma
Tamron

FA* is ridiculously over priced due to hype/collectors.
Sigma offers HSM but will not AF on non-HSM bodies.
Tamron - unknown IQ.

Just have to wait and see.

**Canada_Rockies** · 03-16-2008, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by selar

-50-135 is a weird focal length, I can't see what I'd do with a lens of that focal length.

50-135 is the digital equivalent to 70-200 on film. Not weird at all in my book. I love this lens. It is great for portraiture, it is fast, the image quality is exceptional.

03-15-2008, 08:28 PM	#1
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688	*Tamron 70-200 to replace my DA50-135?** The new Tamron 70-200/2.8 looks good so far on paper. If it turns out to be a good performer, I'll be in line to buy one as well. But I'm afraid it would trump the DA* 50-135. LBA has cost me plenty in the last few months and I'd like to try and simplify my collection. So I might consider getting rid of the 50-135 in that case. Plus since the Tamron is a macro, I might dispense with my Sigma 70/2.8 macro too. That would leave me with the 21/3.2 Ltd, FA50/1.4, and the DA*16-50, a Tamron 1.4xTC, and the aforementioned big Tamron. Does this sound like a sensible plan?

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: 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
DA*50-135 vs Tamron 70-200	KFrog	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	01-21-2009 09:48 PM

03-15-2008, 09:22 PM	#2
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by NeverSatisfied The new Tamron 70-200/2.8 looks good so far on paper. If it turns out to be a good performer, I'll be in line to buy one as well. But I'm afraid it would trump the DA* 50-135. LBA has cost me plenty in the last few months and I'd like to try and simplify my collection. So I might consider getting rid of the 50-135 in that case. Plus since the Tamron is a macro, I might dispense with my Sigma 70/2.8 macro too. That would leave me with the 21/3.2 Ltd, FA50/1.4, and the DA*16-50, a Tamron 1.4xTC, and the aforementioned big Tamron. Does this sound like a sensible plan? I would check carefully what Tamron specifies as a "macro" magnification on the zoom. Very few get any better than 1:3, and most less. The 70/2.8 true macro goes to 1:1, if I remember correctly. I have Pentax A 70-210, which is "macro" at 70 mm ( about 1:3) and it is not a macro lens by any means. That's why I still use my 30 year old 100/4 M lens.

03-15-2008, 09:38 PM	#3
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688 Original Poster	You are exactly right, after review of the Tamron specs it's 1:3. Kinda dashes the idea of getting rid of the Sigma.

03-16-2008, 01:44 PM	#4
bigben91682 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 728	I was contemplating the same tactic, trade the 50-135 for the 70-200. I have good coverage up to 50, and don't think I will miss the 50-70 range to much...and it would simplify the bag a bit. The 50-135 is such a stellar performer that I think I will be hesitant to part with it. I think I will wait for a consensus on the overall quality of the Tamron before speculating about what decision I will make....(also considering the Sig with HSM..but bigger bucks).

03-16-2008, 02:32 PM	#5
loudbay Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 114	You guys are crazy talking about ditching the 50-135. It's such a nice lens... I think the Tamron 1.4x which will work with HSM and a DA* 200/2.8 is what I'll be doing. Oh heck I just reread and you already have the 1.4x.

03-16-2008, 02:46 PM	#6
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by bigben91682 I was contemplating the same tactic, trade the 50-135 for the 70-200. I have good coverage up to 50, and don't think I will miss the 50-70 range to much...and it would simplify the bag a bit. The 50-135 is such a stellar performer that I think I will be hesitant to part with it. I think I will wait for a consensus on the overall quality of the Tamron before speculating about what decision I will make....(also considering the Sig with HSM..but bigger bucks). I think I have solved my problem with this sort of decision. I bought a 1.7X Pentax AF converter from the marketplace. My 50-135/2.8 will also be an 85-229.5/4.8 when it arrives.

03-16-2008, 03:30 PM	#7
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688 Original Poster	Kinda hard to balance the desire to simplify vs. my constant LBA! Maybe a little premature to think about ditching the 50-135; I'm thinking that someday I might like to try doing weddings or similar events, and a humongous 70-200 would probably be a pain in the a$$ for that, whereas the 50-135 would probably be ideal. (Would any wedding-shooters concur?) But I still want a longer telephoto of some sort. Would've already owned a Sigma 100-300/f4 a while ago but the retailer couldn't produce. Now if I owned that there would be very little overlap and I'd certainly hang onto the 50-135. But those Sigmas are hard to find....

03-16-2008, 03:40 PM	#8
theedudenator Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 74	I used the older Tamron 80-200mm/2.8 or maybe 70-200mm?? Can't remember. It was the AF version in Minolta A mount. It was built very close to the Minolta 80-200mm/2.8 APO lens. Wide open the minolta beat it on corner sharpness and the purple fringe problems on digital cameras. Is the new tamron going to have in-lens motor? It will weight more then the current pentax also... I have used the following Minolta 80-200mm/2.8 APO (Black and White versions) Tokina 80-200mm/2.8 (Minolta A) Tamron 80-200mm/2.8 (Minolta A) Canon 70-200mm/2.8 Canon 70-200mm/2.8 IS Canon 70-200mm/4.0 Sigma 70-210mm/2.8 HSM (Canon) And now the pentax 50-135mm/2.8 The best one for me.... Pentax 50-135mm/2.8 (weight, focus speed and image quality) Canon 70-200mm/2.8 IS (Focus speed and IS) Minolta 80-200mm/2.8 HS (image quality!!)

03-16-2008, 03:53 PM	#9
gawan Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Helsinki Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,400	I have been thinking this a lot too. I have at the moment thinking of complementing my 16-50 with the 50-135 and not have gaps! And when I can afford it buy the Sigma 100-300 f/4 . So I would have reasonably fast and quality lenses from 16-300 with these. In this strategy I would have fast SDM from 16-135. Using my 1.4x TC with 70-200 would give me up to 280 and ca. f/4, but with thew Sigma 100-300 f/4 I would have a little more with f/4. In this strategy there is no room for a 70-200, UNLESS I cannot afford both Sigma 100-300 and 50-135. In that case I could seriously consider Tamron 70-200, but it would then be a compromize, IMO. What do you think of this strategy? I don't think of DA200 to be as an alternative for this.

03-16-2008, 04:07 PM	#10
Duh_Vinci Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,300	Well, been thinking about it too, but leaning toward Sigma EX 70-200 F2.8 HSM Since I sent my "dud" 50-135mm back to B&H, I have not re-ordered it (focusing problems at all focal lengths). I like to get out and shoot concerts, mostly like the smaller clubs. Been using K100D with Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, where I can handle higher ISO (and it is fantastic), and 50mm f1.4 on K10D. But what I'm thinking, 70-200mm f2.8 would be a nice addition, but I really miss USM/HSM, so that is why I'm leaning toward Sigma at the moment, not Tamron. Fast and silent AF is sooooo nice, to me - it is worth extra $100 over Tamron... And since I already ordered Sigma 1.4x TC to go with Sigma 100-300mm F4, it would complement Sigma 70-200mm nicely (if needed) Regards, D

03-16-2008, 04:20 PM	#11
loudbay Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 114	Originally posted by gawan What do you think of this strategy? I don't think of DA200 to be as an alternative for this. With the 1.4x and 50-135, You're at 70-189 f/4. I think that's actually pretty reasonable to retain the 50-135 image quality and SDM albeit losing a stop of light. For me, if I ever feel the lost speed hurt, I think the DA 200 would work with a bit of foot work, retain weather sealing and SDM, and turn into a nice 280 f/4 with your converter. Man I need a janatorial job at night to buy more lenses... Well maybe something other than that, but still... Cheers, Matt

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2008, 06:39 PM	#12
McD Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Bracebridge, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 134	I have only owned the 50-135 for a few weeks now but couldnt see my self getting rid of it ever. Everything about the lens just blows me away everytime I look at a photo taken with it.

03-16-2008, 07:06 PM	#13
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by loudbay You guys are crazy talking about ditching the 50-135. It's such a nice lens... I think the Tamron 1.4x which will work with HSM and a DA* 200/2.8 is what I'll be doing. Oh heck I just reread and you already have the 1.4x. Exactly my thoughts...well said..

03-16-2008, 07:57 PM	#14
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	-50-135 is a weird focal length, I can't see what I'd do with a lens of that focal length. The 50-135 in Nikon is also a great lens, but not popular, because users can't identify with that focal range. -Using a TC means not only in a loss of light, it also means reduced resolution, as in effect the TC is acting like a magnifying glass - magnifying the image resolved by the original lens, thus decreasing the lines of resolution per inch. -There is also the inconvenience of using a TC to consider, by using a non HSM TC, you effectively lose HSM. -With the 1.7x AF convertor, you not only lose HSM but also AF, relying instead on the limited AF range of the 1.7x -To obtain best quality, you need a matched TC, matched to the lens - the 2 optical systems must work in sync to avoid aberrations, otherwise you can end up with overcorrected aberrations. So great though the 50-135 may be, my requirement is for a 80-200 f2.8 lens, thus there are 3 alternatives: FA* 80-200 f2.8 Sigma Tamron FA* is ridiculously over priced due to hype/collectors. Sigma offers HSM but will not AF on non-HSM bodies. Tamron - unknown IQ. Just have to wait and see.

03-16-2008, 08:18 PM	#15
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by selar -50-135 is a weird focal length, I can't see what I'd do with a lens of that focal length. 50-135 is the digital equivalent to 70-200 on film. Not weird at all in my book. I love this lens. It is great for portraiture, it is fast, the image quality is exceptional.