[Another dyemention]

Another "which lens" question I could use some help answering. Currently I have a k50 with a DA 35 and a Sigma 70/2.8. I also have a rokinon 85/1.4 which I may or may not sell depending on if I need additional funds.
Lenses I'm considering:
DA* 200
DA* 300
Sigma 50-150
Tamron 70-200
These will mainly be used at concerts as music festivals.
My original plan was to buy another body (k3) instead of a zoom like the 50-150 and use the DA 200 on one body and the 35 or 70 on another. Having the 200 on one and the 35 on another pretty much would cover what I need. But... Outside of using this set up at concerts, I kind of feel like it wouldn't be that practical for just every day use. The 200 is too short for wildlife and too long for portraits. I don't think there's much of an advantage using the 200 over my 70 for anything I normally shoot. I can just zoom in by walking.
So I have kind of been leaning towards the DA 300 as I can get much more use out if it than the 200. But I'm not sure the slow AF and 4.0 will be that great for concerts.
So, maybe the 50-150 would be my best bet. I'm losing quite a bit of reach but I'm not opposed to going into crowds at concerts. If I went this route, I'd sell my sigma and rokinon and have most of what I would need for a DA 300 should I decide to go with that to try it out. Or, I'd have enough money to buy the 12-24 which I need something wider than the 35 anyhow.

I just don't have enough experience with photography to be able to make any decision like this. Especially when were talking $500-$700 lenses.
So any help would be appreciated. Thanks

[mohb]

The Sigma 50 150 2.8 is a really good lens and if you are happy with the focal length worth getting if you can find a copy (those who have them tend to keep them)

[bdery]

You have not stated clearly what you want the lens for. concerts, apparently, but can you tell us more about the exact venues? Bars, stadiums, close to the scene, far away?

It seems a K-3 would alleviate some of your worries (fast AF, allowance for cropping, etc).

[Another dyemention]

You have not stated clearly what you want the lens for. concerts, apparently, but can you tell us more about the exact venues? Bars, stadiums, close to the scene, far away?

It seems a K-3 would alleviate some of your worries (fast AF, allowance for cropping, etc).

The longer fl would be for outside at music festivals. No stadium size places though. Something that 200 mm would be perfect for. The closer inside concerts I'd shoot I can just use my 35 or 70 if I decide to keep it. So nothing too far away. I'll have to post a picture of the venue that I normally shoot at. There are lots of aerial photos taken there. I used to own at promaster 70-300 and if I remember correctly, at 300, it was pretty much chest up pictures of the musicians. I could probably move back a bit but then I'd be getting to where the sound guy is and lots if vendor tents. So 200 would be ideal.

---

Last edited by Another dyemention; 10-15-2015 at 06:43 AM.

[normhead]

AT this point, if I were you I would probably go with the Tamron 70-200. I actually prefer my Sigma 70 ƒ2.8 for portraits. There is no law that says you have to be close enough to your subject to smell their breath. Adding a relatively cheap combo like the DA 50 1.8 and 35 2.4 and you have a pretty good package for not much money, and you already have the 35.. I seem to be permanently locked out of the Tamron 70-200 because I have the DA*60-250, but that leaves me wanting to add either the Tammy or the DA* 200, for when I want ƒ2.8.

The 21 ltd and 15 ltd are two more lenses you could add to that base package to extend your range to wide angle should you decide you need it. That'a great lightweight package.

Essentially if you decide you want birding/wildlife lenses, that's a whole other conversation, that has nothing to do with this one.

A DA* 200 with a 1.4 TC is still ƒ4. ƒ4 lenses with a 1.4 TC are ƒ5.6. That is a rather meaningful difference.

[Another dyemention]

I also like my 70/2.8 and would prefer to not sell it. Ever. I also enjoy my rokinon 85/1.4 but I haven't grown attached to it as much as the sigma. But I also haven't used it nearly as much. So I'd rather not sell any of my current lenses to buy something else. I have $600 right now from selling my backpacking gear so I'm pretty close price wise to the 70-200 or the da 200. And close enough to the 300 if I butter my wife up a bit

[nonstopnick]

I own the Sigma 50-150 2.8 and it is a great lens. It is quite sharp from 2.8 on, and has a nice warm rendering - even the bokeh is nice. I think it would make a great low light concert lens. I would get it over the 70-200 and add a longer prime for extended reach or maybe a 1.4 x adaptor.

[K(s)evin]

You will be very impressed with the IQ of the Tamron 70-200, and the f/2.8 is sharp through the vast majority of the range. I own several of the DA & FA Limited primes, and the rendering (if not the 'pixie dust') of the Tammy is right up there! The Tamron on one body, and your 35 on the other, would be a perfect combination.

I've had the Tamron for over 3 years and it still blows me away with the prime-like quality of the photos it delivers. The complaints about the volume of the screw-drive AF are over-blown in my opinion (you'll never hear it at concerts anyway). I mainly use it for kids' sports and I am perfectly happy with the speed of the autofocus. Plus the versatility of a zoom, at events such as you describe, will come in very handy.

This is a total 'no-brainer' if you ask me!

[Driline]

I also like my 70/2.8 and would prefer to not sell it. Ever. I also enjoy my rokinon 85/1.4 but I haven't grown attached to it as much as the sigma. But I also haven't used it nearly as much. So I'd rather not sell any of my current lenses to buy something else. I have $600 right now from selling my backpacking gear so I'm pretty close price wise to the 70-200 or the da 200. And close enough to the 300 if I butter my wife up a bit

I own both the DA*200 and DA*50-135. Either lens will serve your needs well for indoor concerts. If you go with the DA*50-135 it will double as a portrait lens as well. The DA*. 50-135 has a bit more pixie dust IMHO. I tried the Tamron 70-200 recently at my local camera shop and compared like shots with my DA*200 that I happened to bring in with me at the time. The Pentax DA*200 was sharper and rendered colors nicer than the Tamron. I would stick with Pentax if you want the best IQ. You can purchase a used DA*200 or DA*50-135 cheaper than a new Tamron.
I paid $650 from Adorama for my DA*200 and $600 for my DA*50-135 off of eBay. No problems with either lens.

[Another dyemention]

You will be very impressed with the IQ of the Tamron 70-200, and the f/2.8 is sharp through the vast majority of the range. I own several of the DA & FA Limited primes, and the rendering (if not the 'pixie dust') of the Tammy is right up there! The Tamron on one body, and your 35 on the other, would be a perfect combination.

I've had the Tamron for over 3 years and it still blows me away with the prime-like quality of the photos it delivers. The complaints about the volume of the screw-drive AF are over-blown in my opinion (you'll never hear it at concerts anyway). I mainly use it for kids' sports and I am perfectly happy with the speed of the autofocus. Plus the versatility of a zoom, at events such as you describe, will come in very handy.

This is a total 'no-brainer' if you ask me!

That's kind of the way I'm leaning as of late. But I do like the size of the sigma zoom compared to the 70-200. But I guess it would make up for it by needing to carry a longer prime anyhow. I don't think there's be much of an advantage using the sigma over the tamron though. Other than maybe as a walkaround lens. But I like taking my 70/2.8 or 85/1.4 when I go out anyhow.

[normhead]

You can purchase a used DA*200 or DA*50-135 cheaper than a new Tamron.
I paid $650 from Adorama for my DA*200 and $600 for my DA*50-135 off of eBay. No problems with either lens.

But then you have average Pentax SDM focusing speed, as opposed to the Tamron which is pretty darn fast. I'd buy the Tamron new, because it has a fairly high return rate, and you definitely don't want to get it from some place you can't exchange it. People get really good ones, but they also get sample s that are DOA or worse, fail after a few weeks. For myself, two lenses to cover the range of one doesn't make any sense. I tend to favour heavy, over the necessity of changing lenses.

My reason for being interested in the 200 would be as a compliment to the DA 18-135 as a light weight do everything package. IN that capacity it gives you 200mm at a half a pound less weight than my DA*60-250, which gets left home because of weight issues way too often. But going 70-200 with a couple light weight primes would really be a thing, given your situation.

All these lenses have a place, it's just a question of "do they have a place at your place?"

[Another dyemention]

All these lenses have a place, it's just a question of "do they have a place at your place?"

That is the question. But one I don't have enough experience to answer myself. And if were talking a $100-$200 lens, then whatever. But at the prices of these, it's a little scary to take a chance and see how it goes.

[normhead]

That is the question. But one I don't have enough experience to answer myself. And if were talking a $100-$200 lens, then whatever. But at the prices of these, it's a little scary to take a chance and see how it goes.

For me, with a limited budget and big photographic ideas, the 70-200 is a no brainer. It does more for less. If you have unlimited funds, then a lot of other lenses come into play. But, be absolutely certain you get a good copy. All of the complaints about this lens are from people who tested or received bad copies. Last time i checked the DOA rate was about 10% reported by forum members. Be prepared to return it, and make sure you buy from place where that's reasonably easy. You need to be able to exchange it for no other reason than you don't like it, and stick with it until you get one you like. If you get a good one, according to the reviews I've read, it's right up there with the best Canon and Nikon have to offer. The construction isn't as solid. But for consumer use, it's unlikely that will ever matter.

[Another dyemention]

Idk. I've read quite a bit of reviews saying tamron claims there was impact damage. B&h has a thirty day return period. Idk if I'd be ok spending $700 to have the lens crap out after two months and have to pay $400 for tamron to fix it. Whole thing is shady to me.

[bdery]

The longer fl would be for outside at music festivals. No stadium size places though. Something that 200 mm would be perfect for. The closer inside concerts I'd shoot I can just use my 35 or 70 if I decide to keep it. So nothing too far away. I'll have to post a picture of the venue that I normally shoot at. There are lots of aerial photos taken there. I used to own at promaster 70-300 and if I remember correctly, at 300, it was pretty much chest up pictures of the musicians. I could probably move back a bit but then I'd be getting to where the sound guy is and lots if vendor tents. So 200 would be ideal.

A 70-200 indeed looks like the obvious choice for this. People love their copies, you should be happy with yours too. It is supposed to have somewhat strong CA, but that's fixable.