[selar]

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.

I see from your signature that you still use 2 film bodies, so I don't have to highlight to you the advantages of having a 200f2.8 option with full frame, that both the Sigma and Tamron offer.

I'm also cheesed off with Pentax with the issues I am facing with my DA*16-50, plus also the seeming inability or lack of focus on correcting CAs in their DA range. If they are making lenses designed for digital, shouldn't one of the design objectives be to correct issues caused by digital?

[Canada_Rockies]

I see from your signature that you still use 2 film bodies, so I don't have to highlight to you the advantages of having a 200f2.8 option with full frame, that both the Sigma and Tamron offer.

I'm also cheesed off with Pentax with the issues I am facing with my DA*16-50, plus also the seeming inability or lack of focus on correcting CAs in their DA range. If they are making lenses designed for digital, shouldn't one of the design objectives be to correct issues caused by digital?

True enough, but the 50-135 is for the K10D only. I never did collect enough cash for the 80-200/2.8 while it was still available. I was, myself, disappointed with the CA and PF with the 16-50, but did get a good one, so the QC problems didn't come after me. DxO have finally a program module that corrects all the errors with the 16-50, so by PP with DxO first, I have no CA, PF, vignetting or distortion with the lens.

[jgredline]

Of all the lenses I own, that 50-135 is my sharpest and frankly the best lens I own...I love it...

[Wethphotography]

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....

I have shot several weddings with the DA* 16-50 and 50-135 on K10d and find them to be almost the perfect combination of focal length and size/weight. (Once you get a good copy of each. )
I will though add the DA 200 when funds allow for those times I need the extra reach.
This link features photos taken with these lenses: Erl Houston Photography- powered by SmugMug
This link features photos from an event that I photographed: Erl Houston Photography- powered by SmugMug All taken with either DA*16-50 or 50-135.

[Canada_Rockies]

I have shot several weddings with the DA* 16-50 and 50-135 on K10d and find them to be almost the perfect combination of focal length and size/weight. (Once you get a good copy of each. )
I will though add the DA 200 when funds allow for those times I need the extra reach.
This link features photos taken with these lenses: Erl Houston Photography- powered by SmugMug
This link features photos from an event that I photographed: Erl Houston Photography- powered by SmugMug All taken with either DA*16-50 or 50-135.

I went the other way on focal length for now, with the 12-24 Pentax. It is a really lovable lens. There are a few shots from a few days ago on my Flickr site (in my sig).

[SpecialK]

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

How many true macro shots have you taken/plan to take?

[roentarre]

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.

Most tele could do 1:4 or 1:3 macro (I would rather call it close up really). I doubt it warrants itself to be a "macro" lens.

Da* 50-135 f2.8 is an outstanding zoom. Since you already had this zoom, I doubt any other zooms around this focal range could be any better than the one you already owned.

The truth is that you are not getting a great zoom you really want until you know what you are trying to photograph.

For wild life shots, 200mm is not getting you much reach at all.

For unorthodox street photography, going behind 135mm loses the impact in most shots.

A lot of people buy zooms for convinience. For wedding or event photography, Da* 50-135 is more than enough as that is the usual focal range used.

If the intention is just to cover the focal range from 14mm to 300mm, you would be dissapointed with whatever lenses you are buying.

[selar]

With 80-200 f2.8 you can do sports and you can also do portraits, gives you more flexibility. With 50-135 you have less reach.

[NeverSatisfied]

Many good comments and questions! How many macro shots? In my film days I made great use of a Vivitar Series One 90/2.5 macro. Getting into the DSLRs I thought it would be fun again. But since I bought the Sigma around December I'm embarrased to say that I've used it for exactly - zero - macro shots! (Although Michigan in winter is not exactly what I'd call a target-rich environment!) Maybe come spring through fall I'll get more use out of it.
Yes, I was looking for more reach for wildlife shots, and so you are right in that a 70-200 would not be adequate, especially for birds. Thank you for helping me re-evaluate my needs / wishes! I'll probably start looking for the big Sigma again but that whole "supply" issue (and the unscrupulous retailers who'll gladly hold your money while you wait and wonder), burns me on that one.

[jms698]

What about the DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM? That is due to be released in July 2008. Not quite as fast as the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, but SDM, weather sealed and (presumably) a little less heavy.

[VHDEL]

It's a shame Sigma have not released the 120-300 F2.8 HSM
It would compliment the current DA* line up without to much overlap.

I would like a 70-200 F2.8, but the more I think about it the less I want it.
Too big and heavy for party's a social gathering.
The DA* 50-135 is almost perfect for this.

Cheers

[gkopeliadis]

...Everything about the lens just blows me away everytime I look at a photo taken with it.

SMC-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM
Excellent lens in sharpness but:

What about Chromatic aberation? It's quite visible at both ends of the zoom range in mine, especialy at f 2.8 through 4.

The lens is realy bad in flaring ... Imposible to take a desent photograph with the sun near the frame, even with the hood, not to mension with the sun IN the frame. Try to take of photo of the moon some day .... The κιτ DA 18-55mm is much better in this aspect.

Astigmatism could be better on night shots of a city!

Is that my copy of the lens or ... ?

I'm thinking replacing it with Sigma 50-150mm if I can get a sample for a week or so for testing!

[superfuzzy]

What about the DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM? That is due to be released in July 2008. Not quite as fast as the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, but SDM, weather sealed and (presumably) a little less heavy.

What is the expected street price of the DA* 60-250mm F4? Constant f4 used with a k20d may be acceptable, but still not 2.8

[jgredline]

What about the DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM? That is due to be released in July 2008. Not quite as fast as the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, but SDM, weather sealed and (presumably) a little less heavy.

Yep, this is what I am waiting for.

[Fl_Gulfer]

So what is considered good Macro 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, ect ect.? You guys need to eplain what you guys are talking about to all the people that read these forums but are affaid to ask questions. Thanks