[kp0c]

OK. I haven't had the 50-135 for long, and I'm no photo expert. I have a few lenses now and should use them more. But as little as I've used the 50-135 in the 2 weeks I've had it, there are two things that stick with me:


(1) If all the DA* lenses are built like this, I'd take a Limited any day. Even with the screw focus.
(2) The screw focus on ALL my limiteds is faster than the 50-135. And this is on a K200D. And my 20-40 Limited? That DC motor is like a rocket ship compared to the 50-135. It actually makes auto-focus on the K200 useful.


The lens feels nice, but I don't like the lack of stops at the ends of the focusing range. The Limiteds and M-series lenses I have feel much better at both zooming and focusing.

Maybe you should explain a bit more. Are you saying the built quality of the 50-135mm wasn't up to your expectation? I find this very interesting and don't agree at all with your statement. I have had all the limited Pentax produces but the 20-40mm. The DA* 50-135mm is built like a modern high end lens. For comparaison, I find its built on par with the Canon 70-200mm f4 L that I used during an assignment. Not all DA* lens are built as well though, the 16-50mm design sucks imo, with the focussing ring being a little too small for my taste as well as being to close to the camera body. My copy also creeps, "eurke".
The only complain I have with the built quality of the 50-135mm is the bayonet mount for the hood. It could be a little more robust. About the focusing ring that will turn passed limits, there is actually a feedback telling you you've reach the end of the focusing range, I don't see how an abrupt stop of motion would be better than that.

The focussing speed isn't exactly fast, I'll give you that. However, I believe some people have a slower than normal sdm motor, probably one that is between life and death and misjudge the focussing speed on that factor. I just got my SDM motor replaced on one of my 50-135 (I have three at the moment, don't ask, I just sold two) and the focussing speed with a new motor is very decent. Is it as fact as any of my screw drive primes? Nope. But it doesn't get in the way when I shoot weddings and portrait session, I can even follow my kids around in the backyard. I also have a screw drive converted 50-135mm, and the noise isn't all that bad (I'd say it's probably quieter than the da 35mm 2.4 for instance) and about as fast as a new sdm motor, maybe a little bit faster. On APSC, this lens is magical IMO. It's small and light for what it is (a 70-200mm 2.8 equivalent lens), it's fast (aperture wise) and the rendering is simply superb. I don't like to carry it around when I'm out taking photos for fun (mostly street shooting) because I still think it's too big for that, but when on an assignment, it lives on my camera for any portrait or medium telephoto shot. Even if I have time to switch to my DA 70mm, I don't do it, the 50-135mm is that good. When I had the 77mm, it was the same thing.

[Samoht]

Thanks Norm Head, really nice photos. Great lens and a great photographer.

Awesome sorting of the photos, especially these two.

A warning sign with moose and deer(?) and a lot of people with cameras so there must be something really cool like a really big moose or perhaps a bear.


The next photo wasn't really what I expected, I love it!

[normhead]

Now you'r making me blush..... here's the thread with the moose.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/296145-people-a_photo...nd_of_day.html

[GlassJunkie]

Good inputs by all of you, thanks!

If I would buy a TC it certainly would be the Pentax version just because of its weather sealing, buying a non weather sealed TC and putting it between a weather sealed body and lens is really nothing I want to do. I want the weather sealing, TC is not off the table though.
A 150-450 would have been awesome but it costs about 3000 USD and this used 60-250 has a starting price of 825 USD and I can probably get it for 765-800 USD, so basically the 150-450 is to expensive for me.

A DA* 300 would work, about 5-600 USD more though than this used lens. Haven't seen a used 300 up for sale here in Sweden, buying from abroad feels a bit insecure and the delivery cost is usually quite expensive.
Extended zoom was actually news for me, thought it worked in the same way as the 50-135. You learn something every day.

What felt like an easy pick has become kind of mindboggling, my thoughts from the start was that the 50-135 would be a overall kind of walkabout lens and the 60-250 a wildlife lens.

Money wise:
Buying Pentax 1,4xTC to the DA* 50-135, will give approx 70-190mm: 540 USD
Used DA* 60-250: 765-825 USD
New DA* 300: 1350ish USD

You are right on the Pentax 1.4TC. I have/ use the Tammy's with a FA*300/2.8 (for 2x), fine there. The EXIF data and integration in K-3 is great. My learning on 60-250 with Ptx 1.4HDTC is that it does not degrade the image much, and it was a very good combo for big birds at 30 yards or so.... Little guys at 10 yards, gives a good image (little PP work). IQ on that combo (our copies) is equal/ better to Sig 120-400...

[normhead]

You are right on the Pentax 1.4TC. I have/ use the Tammy's with a FA*300/2.8 (for 2x), fine there. The EXIF data and integration in K-3 is great. My learning on 60-250 with Ptx 1.4HDTC is that it does not degrade the image much, and it was a very good combo for big birds at 30 yards or so.... Little guys at 10 yards, gives a good image (little PP work). IQ on that combo (our copies) is equal/ better to Sig 120-400...

I actually returned a Sigma 120-400, I wanted it to work, but gave up and returned it for my DA*60-250. Even with the TC it's a little short, but what I get I like. The Sigma was longer, but i didn't like what I got.

[fredralphfred]

Maybe you should explain a bit more. Are you saying the built quality of the 50-135mm wasn't up to your expectation?

I never had any other da* lenses, and I've never shot other systems. I didn't expect all-metal construction -- I knew it would be mainly plastic, and I don't have a problem with that. It is sturdy plastic, and the lens feels well-built as long as you don't turn anything. What I didn't expect is that my Limiteds (and in this case, the 20-40, since it's a zoom) would feel so much nicer focusing and zooming.

I find this very interesting and don't agree at all with your statement. I have had all the limited Pentax produces but the 20-40mm. The DA* 50-135mm is built like a modern high end lens.

I don't doubt I would dislike the modern "high-end" lenses from other systems, then.

. . . The only complain I have with the built quality of the 50-135mm is the bayonet mount for the hood. It could be a little more robust.

That actually doesn't bother me. And unless you're going to put a detent inside the bayonet mount to hold it in place, I think it's about as good as it could get.

About the focusing ring that will turn passed limits, there is actually a feedback telling you you've reach the end of the focusing range, I don't see how an abrupt stop of motion would be better than that.

The way it feels makes me wonder how long that "feature" will last. An abrupt stop gives you a positive indication that doesn't make it feel like you're stripping anything out. Of course, even I've had enough experience with lenses to have discovered that the stops are almost never lined up right for infinity focus, whether it's limited or M.

The focussing speed isn't exactly fast, I'll give you that. However, I believe some people have a slower than normal sdm motor, probably one that is between life and death and misjudge the focussing speed on that factor.

Well, I got this thing two weeks ago, so I hope that (1) Pentax has finally fixed the SDM problem, and (2) the lens wasn't "half-dead" brand-new. I'm also really hoping that the vast majority of these lenses they've sold have been problem-free. If even half of these lenses developed this problem, I can't believe Pentax would still be in business. I used to work for a major engine manufacturer, and if 5% of the engines they sold had a particular problem, it was "end-of-the-world" and everyone would be convinced theirs would develop the problem.

I just got my SDM motor replaced on one of my 50-135 (I have three at the moment, don't ask, I just sold two) and the focussing speed with a new motor is very decent. Is it as fact as any of my screw drive primes? Nope. But it doesn't get in the way when I shoot weddings and portrait session, I can even follow my kids around in the backyard. I also have a screw drive converted 50-135mm, and the noise isn't all that bad (I'd say it's probably quieter than the da 35mm 2.4 for instance) and about as fast as a new sdm motor, maybe a little bit faster. On APSC, this lens is magical IMO. It's small and light for what it is (a 70-200mm 2.8 equivalent lens), it's fast (aperture wise) and the rendering is simply superb. I don't like to carry it around when I'm out taking photos for fun (mostly street shooting) because I still think it's too big for that, but when on an assignment, it lives on my camera for any portrait or medium telephoto shot. Even if I have time to switch to my DA 70mm, I don't do it, the 50-135mm is that good. When I had the 77mm, it was the same thing.

I'm glad the pictures look good. They should -- this is a $1000 lens. I got it because I found a good price and I thought I could use a zoom between the 20-40 and the 150-450 that I'd like to get sometime in the future. I didn't look through reviews on it thoroughly because I thought, "It's a new DA* lens. This is the best of what Pentax has to offer. And I remember that everyone was impressed with its image quality." I didn't notice, or people didn't comment at the time, on the slow focusing speed. I don't understand how Pentax could think of offering a motorized focusing system that was worse than the screw drive. I still like Pentax, don't get me wrong, but it really, really seems that the company's focus (pun intended) wasn't on focusing. LIke it was last on the list of things a camera and lens should be able to do. I would be more likely to forgive them if the stock focusing screen (which is "non-replaceable" in the K200d) allowed you to manual focus with any sort of precision, but it doesn't.


It does encourage me that they haven't come out with any new SDM lenses. But why not revise your "high-end" SDM lenses to use DC motors if you haven't fixed the problems yet (and this includes slow, in addition to breaking)? Yes, yes, it will cost money, but if the problem is really this bad, they owe it to their customers, and they owe it to them NOW -- not after they're done introducing new lenses. Even if you can't go back and retrofit old ones, you should at least stop new problems.

[normhead]

The way things are going right now with the new DC motors it's looking like the SDM lenses are going to be the Pentax WTF lenses. My only guess is, when SDM was conceived, Pentax AF was so bad, that's all they needed to make full use of the cameras capabilities. Now that they are stepping up the AF, SDM is their achilles heel.

[narual]

Unless you actually need the silent focus, I'd definitely convert the 50-135 (and 16-50 if you had it) to screw drive. It's noticeably faster, especially with the K3. I wish the 60-250 could be switched.

So far as the teleconverter goes -- if you get a decent used PZ-AF supporting one, you can always turn around and sell it later for about what you paid for it, if you decide you want to go with the WR model. That's a cheap way to test the waters while not significantly damaging your image quality.

I have a 16-50 but I almost never use it, and when I did, it was usually with the 1.5x teleconverter so I could take it instead of my 28-75 and still have the wider end available when I needed it, not to mention getting the pentax rendering (though I don't like the 16-50's rendering like I do the other da* zooms).

[fredralphfred]

Unless you actually need the silent focus, I'd definitely convert the 50-135 (and 16-50 if you had it) to screw drive. It's noticeably faster, especially with the K3. I wish the 60-250 could be switched. . .

So you're saying the 60-250 really isn't any better in terms of focus speed? I find that disappointing, and dampening significantly my lust for the lens.


I remember when I first got my Pentax. I had planned to shoot "only with primes" and eschew zooms. That is, until I got a brief (3 month) stint with a newspaper that subsequently went out of business. (Probably because I was shooting Pentax -- can't run a paper that way). That taught me the value of zooms, and showed me the kit zoom was really pretty good. Anyway, it was while I was trying to cover girls' soccer and softball with my M135 that I decided a 60-250 would be about optimal, since 135 certainly wasn't enough. I bought the 50-135 after Pentax came out with the 150-450 figuring that for the long stuff (soccer, rugby, football) it would be yet a better fit. I hope the 150-450 has a DC motor.

[narual]

Not saying that, no. It's definitely slower than the 50-135 screw drive. SDM, I didn't see much difference. I think it was faster, but that could have been because of the conditions I used it in, the larger depth of field at f/4, or "this better be faster after all the money I spent on it"

The price you found is good brw. I was happy paying 1100 for mine.

So far as the full frame 150-450 for sports goes, you could always pick up an F 100-300 for a roughly equivalent length on crop. Those an sometimes be found dirt cheap bundled with old film bodies on eBay or on their own. Still gives you the longish minimum to speed up focusing, and it seems to do a pretty good job in sample pics.
SMC Pentax-FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8 Reviews - FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[fredralphfred]

The price you found is good brw. I was happy paying 1100 for mine. . .

No free lunch; it looks like I got a grey market from Amazon. Apparently it's not enough for them to ship it from their warehouse -- they also have to "sell" it. And don't expect them to offer any warnings, either. They get really fishy about explaining warranties on grey market stuff ("contact the seller") and now I know why. Still, I may have saved enough to pay for one SDM replacement :-)

So far as the full frame 150-450 for sports goes, you could always pick up an F 100-300 for a roughly equivalent length on crop. Those an sometimes be found dirt cheap bundled with old film bodies on eBay or on their own. Still gives you the longish minimum to speed up focusing, and it seems to do a pretty good job in sample pics.
SMC Pentax-FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8 Reviews - FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

I appreciate the advice, but I need the 150-450. I never shot "full frame," so I'm not used to dealing with equivalents. I am confident based on my experience shooting various sports with the M135 that I'd need a 150-450 for rugby, football, and soccer. It _might_ be a touch close on the wide end on occasion, but the 450 would sure come in handy for action on the other side of the court (either because I'm out of breath or I want the angle -- probably because I'm out of breath).

[narual]

The 60-250 doesn't have the history of sdm problems the other two da* zooms had. Shouldn't be a problem for you.

[formercanuck]

Have you thought about getting a 1.4x TC ?

[fredralphfred]

Just say NO! to drugsteleconverters!

Have you thought about getting a 1.4x TC ?

Are you asking me?

If so, no. I've never considered getting a thing to go between two precision things.

Look -- TC's have their place, which in my opinion is on the back end of a prime when you can't get a longer prime. Or if they're built-in on the $26,000 Sigma that you can't get for Pentax. That comes with its own rechargeable battery pack for the focus motor. That you mount your camera to rather than mounting it to your camera. And for that price (and size) should come with a Rascal (or similar battery-powered accessibility cart for the elderly) with built-in turret.

Or perhaps if you occasionally need extra reach and can't justify spending the $ on the longer prime.

But cropping can often get you out of the latter situation, and from what I've heard people say about teleconverters, it seems that cropping sometimes looks better. Also, I read an article on lensrentals.com about lens mounts that led me to believe that adapters and teleconverts are tools of the devil. Especially when it comes to tolerance stack.

[narual]

I guess you know better than all of us, Fred. But in case you'd like to see some actual tests instead of hyperbole....

Pentax-DA 1.4x AW AF Rear Converter Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews