DA* 50-135 "upgrade"?

Driline · 09-10-2014, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by nomadkng

If you like prime IQ, don't waste your time with the 18-135, it's slightly above kit lens quality on a good day. Other superzooms are worse.

Finally someone else agree's with me

Originally posted by nomadkng

P.S. I owned a 50-135 once, sold it, couldn't get rid of it fast enough.

Nooooooo! I love this lens! The IQ is to die for. And yes I shoot my dog and kids with it. I just bump up the shutter to Warp speed

.

psychdoc · 09-10-2014, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by nomadkng

Unless your kids are playing in wet cement, you'll never get an "action" shot out of the 50-135.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you have been used to faster focusing lenses.

As for me, I shot my kids and class-mates playing soccer, basketball, volleyball and dance and theater and parades. The smaller size and weight is a big bonus and I have had the most fun with it. I did try a tamron 70-200 and got rid of it because of the weight and size. Failure of the SDM motor is a commonly expressed but I got one with no motor issues.since 4 years. [This Pentax zoom along with the tamron 17-50 is more than enough for my skill level for most needs]

Some photos [amateur shooter]:

**DAKS** · 09-10-2014, 05:40 PM

in addition to sports, you mentioned concerts.
the DA*50-135 is great for concerts. It is quiet and the faster f-stop helps too.
(Assuming that you are not in the third balcony, it should be long enough.)

Sandy Hancock · 09-10-2014, 07:23 PM

Although they are both technically outstanding lenses, I never warmed to the 40 and 70 limiteds either. Having a FA43 and FA77 in my bag probably didn't help.

The DA*50-135 is however one of my all-time favourites; it is very sharp, it renders colours and out of focus areas beautifully and the handling is superb, not to mention the weather resistance. It is much smaller than a 70-200/2.8.

I had a DA*60-250 for a while as well, but it felt much bigger, was a stop slower, and it became physically very long when fully extended. It also does not actually give much more reach than the DA*50-135 if the subject is not a long way away. On top of all that, I preferred the images from my DA*50-135.

And I completely agree with the OP about the 15 and 21

Driline · 09-10-2014, 08:08 PM

I tried the DA* 60-250 in our local camera store. The thing is a beast and was just not for me. I much preferred my DA*50-135. It seemed to me that the extra 115 the 60-250 offered just wasn't enough of a difference when shooting long.

johnmflores · 09-10-2014, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by nomadkng

That statement right there eliminates the 50-135. Don't do it, don't even think about it! The 50-135 is the world's slowest focusing medium range zoom on the planet. Unless your kids are playing in wet cement, you'll never get an "action" shot out of the 50-135.

Surely you must be exaggerating:

No, it's not the fastest zoom, but with some patience and practice you can get some nice action shots.

That said, the 60-250 would be nice for football and soccer fields...

Brooke Meyer · 09-10-2014, 11:07 PM

Its a pretty good lens. Bought mine new in 2009 and if I lost it, would buy another. If you're paying attention, the focus is plenty fast.

JohnX · 09-11-2014, 01:25 AM

Don't be put off by the reports of slow focussing with the 50-135.

Everybody bangs on about it, but what did we do in the days before AF? There aren't any photos from then are there? No action shots? No sports shots?

Oh, there are!

Hone your technique. AF is an aid to your photography, not an end.

The 50-135 is a cracking lens.

If you want fast AF, too bad it's slow.

If you want a lightweight lens, it's heavy (should come with free gym membership).

If you want a lens you'll leave at home if it's raining, snowing, misty, well tough, it's WR.

The SDM is always failing! I'm still waiting after 4 years. Getting impatient. Wonder if it's because I give all my SDM lenses a quick few minutes workout every week whether I've used them or not?

Want fuzzy shots? No good, it's a DA*.

VisualDarkness · 09-11-2014, 02:20 AM

Heavy? It's one of the lightest tele AF F2.8 out there.

Andi Lo · 09-11-2014, 03:24 AM

While I agree that AF should be an aid, there are times where bad AF is truly a hindrance to photography.

I get the point of AF apologists, but fast AF can be nothing but boon. If you can and need to get faster AF, please by all means to get faster AF, dont compromise just because the lens have good IQ.

If the DA 50-135 is fast enough for you, that's great, but if it's not dont hesitate to try other options and see if it works better. It's not always your fault.

link81 · 09-11-2014, 04:29 AM

interesting.
it seems about half of the people think the AF is slow , and the other half thinks it is just fine. not much of a consensus one way or another. I wish there was one close to me i could try and see how it works. Maybe i'll look into renting one for a week.

the "sports" i would be shooting is like a lot of the pictures already posted here, Middle school and High school type stuff, not anything too crazy. And the concerts would be the same type of thing, small town choir and orchestra. So the back of the auditorium is about 30-40 rows from the stage.

it seems to be a very polarizing lens, people either love it to death, or think it's a slow (AF) pig that can't get out of its own way.

i think size wise, the 30-135 is about has big as i'd want to carry on a regular basis.

normhead · 09-11-2014, 04:42 AM

I love my DA*60-250, but it's too big to walk around with... it's just not comfortable to carry. And I've done tests that show the DA*60-250 is about equivalent to my Vivitar 135 at 12 feet. Your subject has to be a long way away before you get the extra reach. The thing with wildlife is, you don't have a choice. For sports etc, I've shot football games with a 50 mm lens (on film, so FF), and basketball and volley ball.You just have to anticipate where the action is going. You have to do that no matter what lens you use.

When folks talk about fast focusing lenses, are they even talking about Pentax lenses? The consensus best was the Sigma 70-200, which has been discontinued for Pentax. For myself, thinking back to the days when I shot such things, I think I'd be tempted to go with something like an 85 1.4 given a choice today.

Sandy Hancock · 09-11-2014, 04:46 AM

The DA*50-135's SDM is not super-quick, but neither is it hopelessly slow. What it is, is *decisive*
My Sigma 70-200/2.8 has lightning quick HSM, but it frequently skitters and hesitates, and takes longer to lock on than the "slow" DA*50-135.

link81 · 09-11-2014, 05:26 AM

so i took a quick look at the in depth reviews for a bunch of pentax lens's and they all seemed to be .5-1.5 sec, with the vast majority falling near the one second mark (0.7-01.3). The 50-135 falls right in the middle of that at 1.1 or 1.3 with a k-5. So in my opinion (giving that i don't have one) the AF performance is pretty much par for the pentax course. The prime lens's averaged toward the .5 sec mark, and the zooms fell on the higher end.

nomadkng · 09-11-2014, 08:59 AM

Well at least I started a lively debate.....lol

I guess my experience was on the low end. Perhaps I'm spoiled by my 100-300, but that is/was my expectation for the 50-135. I needed it to perform to that level and it didn't, both for sports and wildlife. After comparing it to the sigma 50-150, it again fell short. So, after personal experience and reading reviews of the 70-200's and the 60-250, I firmly believe there are 3 or 4 better options for sports and action. Did I exaggerate for drama purposes? Probably, but colorful analogies are always fun to interject in any conversation.

09-11-2014, 01:25 AM	#23
JohnX Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London Posts: 1,116	Don't be put off by the reports of slow focussing with the 50-135. Everybody bangs on about it, but what did we do in the days before AF? There aren't any photos from then are there? No action shots? No sports shots? Oh, there are! Hone your technique. AF is an aid to your photography, not an end. The 50-135 is a cracking lens. If you want fast AF, too bad it's slow. If you want a lightweight lens, it's heavy (should come with free gym membership). If you want a lens you'll leave at home if it's raining, snowing, misty, well tough, it's WR. The SDM is always failing! I'm still waiting after 4 years. Getting impatient. Wonder if it's because I give all my SDM lenses a quick few minutes workout every week whether I've used them or not? Want fuzzy shots? No good, it's a DA. Last edited by JohnX; 09-11-2014 at 01:34 AM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
My "adventures" with DA* 16-50 F2.8.	Stagnant	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	07-30-2014 12:52 PM
Optical differences between Pentax "K", "M", and "A" lenses	6BQ5	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	01-10-2014 01:02 PM
which is better "DA 21MM F3.2AL Limited" or "SMCP-FA 20-35MM F4" ?	Flame Angel	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	07-04-2013 08:10 AM
How "slow" is the DA * 50 -135 auto focus?	slip	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	01-01-2013 11:20 PM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM

09-10-2014, 04:05 PM	#16
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,697	Originally posted by nomadkng If you like prime IQ, don't waste your time with the 18-135, it's slightly above kit lens quality on a good day. Other superzooms are worse. Finally someone else agree's with me Originally posted by nomadkng P.S. I owned a 50-135 once, sold it, couldn't get rid of it fast enough. Nooooooo! I love this lens! The IQ is to die for. And yes I shoot my dog and kids with it. I just bump up the shutter to Warp speed .

09-10-2014, 05:26 PM	#17
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Originally posted by nomadkng Unless your kids are playing in wet cement, you'll never get an "action" shot out of the 50-135. I suppose it depends on whether or not you have been used to faster focusing lenses. As for me, I shot my kids and class-mates playing soccer, basketball, volleyball and dance and theater and parades. The smaller size and weight is a big bonus and I have had the most fun with it. I did try a tamron 70-200 and got rid of it because of the weight and size. Failure of the SDM motor is a commonly expressed but I got one with no motor issues.since 4 years. [This Pentax zoom along with the tamron 17-50 is more than enough for my skill level for most needs] Some photos [amateur shooter]:

09-10-2014, 05:40 PM	#18
DAKS Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: McLean, VA Photos: Gallery Posts: 97	in addition to sports, you mentioned concerts. the DA*50-135 is great for concerts. It is quiet and the faster f-stop helps too. (Assuming that you are not in the third balcony, it should be long enough.)

09-10-2014, 07:23 PM	#19
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Although they are both technically outstanding lenses, I never warmed to the 40 and 70 limiteds either. Having a FA43 and FA77 in my bag probably didn't help. The DA50-135 is however one of my all-time favourites; it is very sharp, it renders colours and out of focus areas beautifully and the handling is superb, not to mention the weather resistance. It is much smaller than a 70-200/2.8. I had a DA60-250 for a while as well, but it felt much bigger, was a stop slower, and it became physically very long when fully extended. It also does not actually give much more reach than the DA50-135 if the subject is not a long way away. On top of all that, I preferred the images from my DA50-135. And I completely agree with the OP about the 15 and 21

09-10-2014, 08:08 PM	#20
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,697	I tried the DA* 60-250 in our local camera store. The thing is a beast and was just not for me. I much preferred my DA*50-135. It seemed to me that the extra 115 the 60-250 offered just wasn't enough of a difference when shooting long.

09-10-2014, 11:02 PM	#21
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by nomadkng That statement right there eliminates the 50-135. Don't do it, don't even think about it! The 50-135 is the world's slowest focusing medium range zoom on the planet. Unless your kids are playing in wet cement, you'll never get an "action" shot out of the 50-135. Surely you must be exaggerating: No, it's not the fastest zoom, but with some patience and practice you can get some nice action shots. That said, the 60-250 would be nice for football and soccer fields...

09-10-2014, 11:07 PM	#22
Brooke Meyer Guest	Its a pretty good lens. Bought mine new in 2009 and if I lost it, would buy another. If you're paying attention, the focus is plenty fast.

09-11-2014, 02:20 AM	#24
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Heavy? It's one of the lightest tele AF F2.8 out there.

09-11-2014, 03:24 AM	#25
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	While I agree that AF should be an aid, there are times where bad AF is truly a hindrance to photography. I get the point of AF apologists, but fast AF can be nothing but boon. If you can and need to get faster AF, please by all means to get faster AF, dont compromise just because the lens have good IQ. If the DA 50-135 is fast enough for you, that's great, but if it's not dont hesitate to try other options and see if it works better. It's not always your fault.

09-11-2014, 04:29 AM	#26
link81 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 12822 Photos: Albums Posts: 459 Original Poster	interesting. it seems about half of the people think the AF is slow , and the other half thinks it is just fine. not much of a consensus one way or another. I wish there was one close to me i could try and see how it works. Maybe i'll look into renting one for a week. the "sports" i would be shooting is like a lot of the pictures already posted here, Middle school and High school type stuff, not anything too crazy. And the concerts would be the same type of thing, small town choir and orchestra. So the back of the auditorium is about 30-40 rows from the stage. it seems to be a very polarizing lens, people either love it to death, or think it's a slow (AF) pig that can't get out of its own way. i think size wise, the 30-135 is about has big as i'd want to carry on a regular basis.

09-11-2014, 04:42 AM	#27
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I love my DA60-250, but it's too big to walk around with... it's just not comfortable to carry. And I've done tests that show the DA60-250 is about equivalent to my Vivitar 135 at 12 feet. Your subject has to be a long way away before you get the extra reach. The thing with wildlife is, you don't have a choice. For sports etc, I've shot football games with a 50 mm lens (on film, so FF), and basketball and volley ball.You just have to anticipate where the action is going. You have to do that no matter what lens you use. When folks talk about fast focusing lenses, are they even talking about Pentax lenses? The consensus best was the Sigma 70-200, which has been discontinued for Pentax. For myself, thinking back to the days when I shot such things, I think I'd be tempted to go with something like an 85 1.4 given a choice today.

09-11-2014, 04:46 AM	#28
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	The DA50-135's SDM is not super-quick, but neither is it hopelessly slow. What it is, is decisive* My Sigma 70-200/2.8 has lightning quick HSM, but it frequently skitters and hesitates, and takes longer to lock on than the "slow" DA*50-135.

09-11-2014, 05:26 AM	#29
link81 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 12822 Photos: Albums Posts: 459 Original Poster	so i took a quick look at the in depth reviews for a bunch of pentax lens's and they all seemed to be .5-1.5 sec, with the vast majority falling near the one second mark (0.7-01.3). The 50-135 falls right in the middle of that at 1.1 or 1.3 with a k-5. So in my opinion (giving that i don't have one) the AF performance is pretty much par for the pentax course. The prime lens's averaged toward the .5 sec mark, and the zooms fell on the higher end.

09-11-2014, 08:59 AM	#30
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	Well at least I started a lively debate.....lol I guess my experience was on the low end. Perhaps I'm spoiled by my 100-300, but that is/was my expectation for the 50-135. I needed it to perform to that level and it didn't, both for sports and wildlife. After comparing it to the sigma 50-150, it again fell short. So, after personal experience and reading reviews of the 70-200's and the 60-250, I firmly believe there are 3 or 4 better options for sports and action. Did I exaggerate for drama purposes? Probably, but colorful analogies are always fun to interject in any conversation.