Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-15-2008, 08:28 PM   #1
Site Supporter
NeverSatisfied's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Posts: 666
Tamron 70-200 to replace my DA*50-135?

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?

03-15-2008, 09:22 PM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,450
QuoteOriginally posted by NeverSatisfied Quote
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
Site Supporter
NeverSatisfied's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Posts: 666
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
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 731
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
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
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,450
QuoteOriginally posted by bigben91682 Quote
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
Site Supporter
NeverSatisfied's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Posts: 666
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
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
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Helsinki
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,407
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.
03-16-2008, 04:07 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Duh_Vinci's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,285
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 114
QuoteOriginally posted by gawan Quote
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
03-16-2008, 06:39 PM   #12
McD
Senior Member
McD's Avatar

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
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
QuoteOriginally posted by loudbay Quote
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
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
-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
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,450
QuoteOriginally posted by selar Quote
-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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, macro, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top