[KDAFA]

I have both. Let's see, from memory:
- The DA200 has better contrast and colours. Probably from having less glass, as it's a prime.
- The DA200 has better mechanical build.
- The DA50-135 has fewer aberrations (PF, chroma errors etc).
- The DA50-135 is smaller and lighter.


The DA200's major weakness is purple fringing at f/2.8. It's gone at f/4.
The DA50-135's major weakness is a slight softness at 135mm f/2.8.


Regards,
--Anders.

Agree with the above comparison.

Only one remark, concerning specifically the colours and contrast: I find the DA*50-135 gives a very punchy result - among the punchiest I've seen among Pentax lenses, and this is one of the ingredients that helps this lens create many eye-catching pictures. The DA*200 gives (by comparison) slightly milder colours and contrast - this is in no way a bad thing; it's still all classic Pentax colours/contrast.

In the area of micro-contrast however, and also fine detail and overall clarity, it is clear that the 200 gives the more refined result of the two lenses. The bokeh is also excellent.

Incidentally, for those concerned, the purple fringing at f2.8 tends to happen only in high-contrast backlit situations, and is usually fairly easy to rectify in PP.

---

Last edited by KDAFA; 04-27-2015 at 09:32 AM.

[normhead]

I have Sigma 18-50mm F2.8, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 105mm F 2.8 macro , Pentax 50mm F2.8 macro and Sigma 70-300mm APO.

You already have good lenses that go to 105. My usual rule of thumb is to try and double the focal lengths. SO the 200 would be perfect. The 50-135 is not much better than your Sigma 105 in terms of reach, probably not better at all in terms of IQ.

You've got 10-20
18-50
105
and you can add 200.
That would be an excellent set up. If you want a walk around lens to go with those, the DA18-135 would be the obvious choice.

As a long term solution.. I'd be looking to add the 18-135, ditch the Sigma 18-50 and ad a 15-21-31-43-55 and 77. I also do marriage counselling.

[Rondec]

Looking at your DA*200 shots, and making mental note to self to go shoot more with it!

Plus, waiting to mount this terrific lens on FF.... imagine a focal length like what we're now getting with the 50-135 on APS-C @ 135mm, but with DA*200 IQ, bokeh, depth compression, and shallow DOF for subject isolation...


< EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I use the 50-135 too, and am a huge fan of it. >

I think I will definitely use the DA *200 more when there is a full frame camera. It ends up being a zoo lens, just because it is too long for normal portraits and things like that.

[KDAFA]

Thank you every one
I want to visit Istanbul, Moscow and Kazan. Sightseeing and visiting museum will be main activity in the travel. I won't go in forest for finding birds and wild animals.
Do you think I need 200 mm or more focal length in cities?
I red a lot of bad things about auto focus system of 50-135 mm lens. Have it really solved?
I have 105mm macro lens so buying 135mm prime lens is not helpful.

Bahman, I think it is quite a difficult decision to chose between the 50-135 and the 200. I use both, and have no complaints for both IQ-wise.

Talking about the focal length, though, I've found the 200 does give valuable extra reach; it's something that's actually discernible in real world use, and valuable, especially for sightseeing where it's hard to predict what you'll encounter, and things may sometimes be quite far away to photograph.

On the other hand, with the 200 you'll lose the zoom convenience of the 50-135. So there'll inevitably be some lens switching with your 105mm, which can be bothersome. In using the 200, there'll also be some "zooming with the feet". This means you'll need to walk around a bit, to compose your shots, since the lens can't zoom. It's just a different approach to photography, but you should take note of this. In particular, are you traveling alone, on your own leisurely time schedule, or will you be with a tour group? If the latter, then the "zooming with the feet" may not always be practical/possible.

Talking again about that extra reach, and in particular inside dim museums. If you chose the 50-135, and the 135mm setting proves to be insufficiently long for certain shots you want to take, then the only choice will be to crop. Now since these are telephoto lenses, the shutter speeds will have to be rather high (I'm assuming hand-held operation). This, plus the low-light conditions, will bump up the ISO. If after that you still need to crop, this can make the noise more prominent, even with a modern sensor like the K-3's. Of course, one can de-noise in PP, but you understand what I mean... So, it's something to take into consideration.

---------- Post added 04-28-15 at 01:18 AM ----------

For someone looking for a 200*, such as myself, does anyone who suggested the *50-135 have both? If so, in terms of image quality, which do you like better? Can you post photos from each lens to show?

Sent you PM concerning your query above.

---

Last edited by KDAFA; 04-27-2015 at 09:19 AM.

[Bahman1358]

Thank you everybody
Your comments are very helpful. I think both lens have good quality according to photos taken by these lens. But main question is:
If I buy DA* 200, I have not any lens with 50~105mm focal length ( I will not bring Sigma 70-300mm APO ) . Do you think can I find a solution If the object can not be confined in a 105mm view angle. Is using 50 mm is a proper solution?
If I buy DA* 50-135 , My longest reach will be limited to 150mm because my other telephoto lens ( 70-300mm APO sigma) IQ reduce drastically if I zoom it more than 150mm. Do you think I will encounter situations that need more reach frequently?
I will carry a bag containing a body and 3 or 4 lens. I can wait to change lens but I don't want to carry extra lens which the chance of using them are negligible.
I travel with my wife on our own schedule and taking good photos is very important for us.

[nonstopnick]

Set your 70-300 at 200 mm and go shoot some photos. Try and find the kind of photo ops you will be encountering and see what you think.

It sounds like they are both high quality glass, it's more of a fit issue than a which is better issue.

[normhead]

Really... there's not much difference between 105 and 135. Anything you can shoot at 135 you can shoot with 105 and crop. The 200 can fill in for the 70-300 in the long end, intact it will be much better than the 70-300 at the long end. Again if you want 70-300 quality shoot the 200 2.8 and crop. Having nothing between 50 and 105, that's just efficient. Later if you wish you can add the DA70...

For what you have, how about the DA 70 and the 1.4 TC that would get you to about 150mm (with your Sigma 105) and fill the hole in your line up. Of course, your local guy may not have them in stock.

Your basic choose is flexibility (DA* 50-135) or reach (DA*200). Just not going below 50, I question how flexible a 50-135 really is. It's all telephoto, no WA capability.

However if you wanted to consider this a two lens kit... 18-50 and 50-135 is a pretty good combo.

And too much thinking hurts your brain. Sometimes eeny meeny miney moe is good too.

[Rondec]

I guess I would just say that it is easier to crop a 135mm shot to 200mm than the reverse.

[GeneV]

When it came down to spending some four figure money for a longer prime, I opted for the DA*300 rather than the 200 for the reason Rondec stated. It is pretty easy to crop 135 to 200 with good results, and my 50-135 is very versatile.

[normhead]

I guess I would just say that it is easier to crop a 135mm shot to 200mm than the reverse.

He does have a Sigma 105.... did you miss that?

[Rondec]

He does have a Sigma 105.... did you miss that?

No. I guess I would normally value the sharpness and flexibility of the zoom over the 200. We got the 200 because my wife shoots weddings and she wanted more reach, but found the 70-200 f2.8 zooms to be too big for her to handle, hence the 200 prime.

[UncleVanya]

Remember that 50-135 on these cameras is just like 70-200 on film. These are the workhouse focal lengths for short to mid telephoto.these aren't super zoom walk around do everything lenses, but this is very flexible vs primes.

The real question the OP needs to answer is are you prime or zoom oriented? Based on the lenses owned it seems like you prefer zooms but that could just be due to happenstance.

I find both lenses to be fabulous and given your lenses, I think either will work.

[normhead]

Remember that 50-135 on these cameras is just like 70-200 on film. These are the workhouse focal lengths for short to mid telephoto.these aren't super zoom walk around do everything lenses, but this is very flexible vs primes.

The real question the OP needs to answer is are you prime or zoom oriented? Based on the lenses owned it seems like you prefer zooms but that could just be due to happenstance.

I find both lenses to be fabulous and given your lenses, I think either will work.

That's the thing, either of these lenses is to die for.

[UncleVanya]

More info...

I just shot that same rose using my DA 35 f/2.4 at f/2.4 - 4 and saw similar purple fringing. The color may be complex for the sensor to capture - it may not just be the lens in that case.

[hjoseph7]

Tell you the truth, I wouldn't buy any of the two since the 70-300 has it covered.