50-135 = 75-200 in full frame

hj630 · 12-15-2013, 07:29 AM

I just bought 50-135 and waiting for it to be delivered. I saw a lot of posts concerning this lens is too short. But if you think those who have fx dsl, isn't 70-200 the same as 50-135 on aps? I dont see too much people complaining about 70-200 being too short on fx. I think for people who wants to shoot birds or long distance objects, it would be better to get a dedicate lens more than 300mm. I think pentax use this range because they want to make a 70-200 equivalent on aps

Driline · 12-15-2013, 07:47 AM

I have the 50-135 for shooting portraits and outside sporting events. If I was shooting birds, the DA*300 would be the lens to get.

Ole · 12-15-2013, 07:56 AM

You're right on the mark with your comparison of the 50-135 with a 75-200 on full frame, which latter is considered a must-have by many.

normhead · 12-15-2013, 08:14 AM

I often carry my 18-135, and it's rare I take it off for a longer lens when out and about. Distressingly rare, I paid a lot of money for those longer lenses, and they weigh a lot. That being said, theDA*60-250 is a really good lens, and covers the same range only more, so maybe that's what folks are talking about. You wouldn't want to have both of those probably, so many go for more range. Others go for 2.8 in the 50-135 instead of ƒ4 in the 60-250. There's no one answer thats right for everybody. I guess that's why Pentax makes both lenses.

SpecialK · 12-15-2013, 08:29 AM

There are different focal lengths for a reason :-)

starbase218 · 12-15-2013, 02:34 PM

Yes, 50-135/2.8 is approximately equivalent to 75-200/4 on fullframe.

**Rondec** · 12-15-2013, 02:53 PM

The nice thing about the 50-135 is that it is so sharp, even wide open, with very nice bokeh. There are a lot worse lenses you could have in your bag...

starbase218 · 12-15-2013, 03:03 PM

The thing is though, even though the 50-135 is equivalent to a 75-200 on FF, it's not really a long lens, at least not to me. Don't get me wrong, I love it, and 135mm usually is more than enough for me. But my 55-300 allows me to get shots I wouldn't be able to get with the 50-135.

I guess I'd feel very similar to a 75-200 on fullframe. But I never had a fullframe camera.

I do know there are people out there putting 70-200's on crop cameras and loving the extra tele range.

Sandy Hancock · 12-15-2013, 03:16 PM

Since I got my DA*50-135 I have barely used my Sigma 70-200/2.8. It is so much smaller and lighter, the IQ wide open is considerably better and the colours are simply wonderful. The lack of reach just doesn't seem to be a problem for the event stuff I do.

I had the DA*60-250 for a while but never really warmed to its size (especially racked out to 250) and loss of telephoto effect at closer distances.

If I want a real telephoto I use my DA*300. If I want a real telephoto I put it on the Q7

Driline · 12-15-2013, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

If I want a real telephoto I use my DA*300.

"Right On" brother.....

12-15-2013, 07:29 AM	#1
hj630 New Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 15	50-135 = 75-200 in full frame I just bought 50-135 and waiting for it to be delivered. I saw a lot of posts concerning this lens is too short. But if you think those who have fx dsl, isn't 70-200 the same as 50-135 on aps? I dont see too much people complaining about 70-200 being too short on fx. I think for people who wants to shoot birds or long distance objects, it would be better to get a dedicate lens more than 300mm. I think pentax use this range because they want to make a 70-200 equivalent on aps

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame?	reivax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Pentax 50-135 vs Tamron 70-200 + 28-75	dr_romix	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	43	07-28-2012 09:36 AM
what would you get 18-135,50-135 or 50-200 WR	pearsaab	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	06-22-2012 05:50 AM
Has somebody ever tried the DA* 50-135 on full frame?	Noisychip	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	12-12-2010 04:43 PM
will the da*50-135 become a '$900 doorstop' when full-frame is released?	123K10D	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	11-17-2007 11:08 AM

12-15-2013, 07:47 AM	#2
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,691	I have the 50-135 for shooting portraits and outside sporting events. If I was shooting birds, the DA*300 would be the lens to get.

12-15-2013, 07:56 AM	#3
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,408	You're right on the mark with your comparison of the 50-135 with a 75-200 on full frame, which latter is considered a must-have by many.

12-15-2013, 08:14 AM	#4
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	I often carry my 18-135, and it's rare I take it off for a longer lens when out and about. Distressingly rare, I paid a lot of money for those longer lenses, and they weigh a lot. That being said, theDA*60-250 is a really good lens, and covers the same range only more, so maybe that's what folks are talking about. You wouldn't want to have both of those probably, so many go for more range. Others go for 2.8 in the 50-135 instead of ƒ4 in the 60-250. There's no one answer thats right for everybody. I guess that's why Pentax makes both lenses.

12-15-2013, 08:29 AM	#5
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	There are different focal lengths for a reason :-)

12-15-2013, 02:34 PM	#6
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Yes, 50-135/2.8 is approximately equivalent to 75-200/4 on fullframe.

12-15-2013, 02:53 PM	#7
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	The nice thing about the 50-135 is that it is so sharp, even wide open, with very nice bokeh. There are a lot worse lenses you could have in your bag...

12-15-2013, 03:03 PM	#8
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	The thing is though, even though the 50-135 is equivalent to a 75-200 on FF, it's not really a long lens, at least not to me. Don't get me wrong, I love it, and 135mm usually is more than enough for me. But my 55-300 allows me to get shots I wouldn't be able to get with the 50-135. I guess I'd feel very similar to a 75-200 on fullframe. But I never had a fullframe camera. I do know there are people out there putting 70-200's on crop cameras and loving the extra tele range.

12-15-2013, 03:16 PM	#9
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,267	Since I got my DA50-135 I have barely used my Sigma 70-200/2.8. It is so much smaller and lighter, the IQ wide open is considerably better and the colours are simply wonderful. The lack of reach just doesn't seem to be a problem for the event stuff I do. I had the DA60-250 for a while but never really warmed to its size (especially racked out to 250) and loss of telephoto effect at closer distances. If I want a real telephoto I use my DA300. If I want a real* telephoto I put it on the Q7

12-15-2013, 06:04 PM	#10
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,691	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock If I want a real telephoto I use my DA*300. "Right On" brother.....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search