Racking my brain - purchase advice, wwyd

wowarning · 02-02-2016, 04:52 AM

Interesting! I may give that a try. So after pretty much deciding that the Tamron is the way to go, I had the revelation this morning that noisy AF in the school auditorium at concerts and plays will probably not be appreciated, and that I should probably be factoring this in - which I was not. Am I correct that the Tamron is noisy screwdrive and the Pentax is at least relatively quiet?

**savoche** · 02-02-2016, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by wowarning

Am I correct that the Tamron is noisy screwdrive and the Pentax is at least relatively quiet?

Indeed. The Tamron is quick to focus, but quite noisy. The Pentax is close to inaudible (but not quite as quick, I believe).

Kozlok · 02-04-2016, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by wowarning

Interesting! I may give that a try. So after pretty much deciding that the Tamron is the way to go, I had the revelation this morning that noisy AF in the school auditorium at concerts and plays will probably not be appreciated, and that I should probably be factoring this in - which I was not. Am I correct that the Tamron is noisy screwdrive and the Pentax is at least relatively quiet?

Yes, the Tamron is the noisiest focusing lens I own. By alot, really. However, it does not hunt very often. Which means that once the first shot is focused, it's pretty fast, so not too annoying. Unless it's a completely silent event, I wouldn't worry about that.

genesmasher · 02-05-2016, 04:40 PM

I have experience with all three lenses (100mm macro, DA 55-300mm and the Tamron). I shoot A LOT of soccer with K5IIs, mostly straight to JPG's (too many shots to post-process manually).

DA 55-300 is my favorite sports zoom, has been for 5 years now (mine is non-WR, SMC version). I can not overemphasize how light and well-balanced on the K5 this lens is, compared to all faster options (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax f/2.8). I find that by shooting at f/5.6-6.5 (ISO 200-400 depending on light, to allow 1/500-1000 shutter speeds), I get sharp results, good background blur, and added DOF makes it easier to get everything in focus. Colors from this lens are excellent (true and saturated, typical Pentax). Focus is reliable and fast, and the images are quite sharp in 55-230mm range (gets softer and less contrasty above 230mm). I typically get ~25-30% keeper rate with this lens, which is amazing in sports photography. It's only limitation is that it needs good light.

I don't understand people's fascination with the Tamron. I recently bought a mint copy secondhand, thinking that I could tolerate the extra weight for (supposedly) better sharpness and sensitivity. Boy was I disappointed. The lens misfocused a lot (front and back, inconsistently), and surprisingly even hunted more than my 55-300. Colors are very different from Pentax (not in a good way, imo). I am sure it could be fixed in post, but I don't want to spend hours after every game correcting color. Anyway, my keeper rate with the Tamron was <10%, with a lot of good shots missed. So I promptly sold it and went back to Pentax.

I also tried Pentax DA* 60-250 couple of years ago. This is definitely a quality lens. Color reproduction is very similar to the 55-300. I haven't noticed a whole lot more sharpness within my usual working focal range (maybe because 55-300 is quite sharp for me), which made it really hard to justify 3x the cost and weight over the DA 55-300. It may be slightly more useful indoors (f/4 constant).

DFA100 macro is a wonderful lens, but not a good choice for sports. If you find other uses for it - by all means get one. So my suggestion to OP would be to go with the 55-300 and 100macro, if you are still on the fence. You will not regret it.

**clackers** · 02-05-2016, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by genesmasher

I don't understand people's fascination with the Tamron. I recently bought a mint copy secondhand, thinking that I could tolerate the extra weight for (supposedly) better sharpness and sensitivity. Boy was I disappointed. The lens misfocused a lot (front and back, inconsistently), and surprisingly even hunted more than my 55-300. Colors are very different from Pentax (not in a good way, imo). I am sure it could be fixed in post, but I don't want to spend hours after every game correcting color. Anyway, my keeper rate with the Tamron was <10%, with a lot of good shots missed. So I promptly sold it and went back to Pentax.

Seems to me, Genesmasher, you actually didn't understand the concept of a bad copy.

Sorry you got one of those.

The rest of us enjoy it:

wowarning · 02-05-2016, 07:31 PM

This is a tricky fence to walk! Thanks for the input guys. Nice shots clackers!

GodsPetMonkey · 02-05-2016, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by wowarning

Going to either buy the 55-300 and the 100 WR macro OR the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Roughly the same cost due to good bargains - $600 for the 2 vs $750 for the one. (Already have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8, F50 f1.7, 35mm f2.4. 18-135, F28 f2.8. and a crappy old Tamron 70-300). Would love to have a macro and have been wanting to upgrade the telephoto end for a long time - but I also take pics of school events in the auditorium that the 70-200 would probably handle nicely. Then again the 100 f2.8 would probably be decent there too - not as versatile, but decent. I've talked myself in circles. WWYD?

As others have pointed out, the 55-300 needs lots of light - but it isn't all that bad, it just depends on what you are using it for. Outside and during the day it has no problems (few lenses would!). For sports, it rarely struggles - most sporting events (indoor and at night) are very well lit anyway, and with good ISO performance you'll be laughing. However, it does show its slowness under ordinary lighting - think bog standard household-at-night conditions. If the school likes to keep its auditorium dimly lit, your keeper rate will drop, though that will depend on how much action is involved, I'd expect most stage productions to have many periods which are not nearly as fast paced as sports!

On the plus side the 55-300 is light, small, versatile, WR, optically-good and incredible value ($270 brand new from B&H? As we say in Australia, strewth mate!). Very tough to beat for an all-round telephoto that you can take pretty much anywhere. The trade off is, obviously, aperture (and a little IQ compared to its bigger brothers).

The 100 WR Macro, on the other hand, is not one I use for action. It is an amazing lens, and my copy got a really healthy dose of pixie-dust because when ever I put it to use it produces stunning pictures - the right balance of contrast, colour, clarity and sharpness. It'll probably make do in a pinch, either go manual focus or if it decides to go hunting stop the AF process and quickshift it. I'd think the range isn't going to be enough for most telephoto jobs anyway - 100mm isn't bad, but it is a long way short of 250mm or 300mm.

My personal choice was the 55-300 (had it for a while) and the 100 WR Macro (recent acquisition - brilliant pricing of late!), but, and it is a big but, I rarely find myself needing to take fast shutter-speed telephoto shots in poor lighting, so I am personally not sacrificing much. I don't think you can go wrong getting the Tamron or the 60-250, but I suggest you pick up a 100 WR Macro at some point, it really is a brilliant bit of glass!

Jedi_Strings · 02-05-2016, 10:15 PM

I have the DFA 100mm & use it for a lot more than macro shots but if you're looking for something flexible I think the suggestions to go with the 60-250 or the 70-200 are spot on. Remember that the crop factor needs to be taken into consideration though & I believe the Tamron is a FF lens as well which is a plus that the DFA 100mm shares.

genesmasher · 02-06-2016, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by clackers

Seems to me, Genesmasher, you actually didn't understand the concept of a bad copy.

Sorry you got one of those.

The rest of us enjoy it:

Nice photos. I am sure I could also find a couple like these per each 100 I took with that lens. Maybe it was a bad copy, but frankly, I have better uses for my time (and money) than to screen through a bunch of these in order to find one that works. Tamron is not exactly known for consistent quality - misfocusing in particular is not at all uncommon. I have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 also - nice versatile zoom lens, MY COPY happens to be pretty sharp and doesn't back-focus too often. But I still don't love the colors it produces straight out of the camera, compared to my Pentax DA lenses (not just the 55-300). Without additional manipulation, just looks flat somehow.

**clackers** · 02-06-2016, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by genesmasher

Nice photos. I am sure I could also find a couple like these per each 100 I took with that lens. Maybe it was a bad copy, but frankly, I have better uses for my time (and money) than to screen through a bunch of these in order to find one that works.

I have no problems with its focusing, its rendering, or keeper rate. Any errors are mine.

The lens is valued in the Canikon world - just look at the reviews comparing it to the L series.

If you got a bad copy you should have sent it back. 10% keepers didn't set off alarm bells?

genesmasher · 02-06-2016, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by clackers

I have no problems with its focusing, its rendering, or keeper rate. Any errors are mine.

The lens is valued in the Canikon world - just look at the reviews comparing it to the L series.

If you got a bad copy you should have sent it back. 10% keepers didn't set off alarm bells?

Hmm, can't quite figure out if you are still trying to help OP with your commentary or simply determined to berate anyone of different opinion?

I am one of those people that tend to trust their own experiences more than reviews. I simply suggested that DA 55-300 might meet OP' needs at 1/3 the cost and weight of the Tamron, even if he gets lucky with his copy of the latter. Some samples of DA product - JPG's straight from the camera, slightly cropped and resized, no additional processing:

230mm, f/6.7, 1/750s, ISO 200, K-x

https://flic.kr/p/DQB1is

210mm, f/6.7, 1/1000s, ISO 200, K-5II

https://flic.kr/p/DGvsss

100mm, f/6.7, 1/60s, ISO 3200, K-5II

https://flic.kr/p/DqPgnu

wowarning · 02-06-2016, 05:23 PM

Okay kids, no bickering, lol. I'm sure I could make any of the possible choices work, and appreciate everyone here sharing how they found a way to achieve the results they were looking for. The macro went up $50 and I have to wait for the old tax return before buying, so who knows if any of the Tammys will even still be available by then. Just looked at the video for the Pentax 70-200, good lord that is a big hunk of a lens ( and will probably cost a small fortune).

**clackers** · 02-06-2016, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by genesmasher

Hmm, can't quite figure out if you are still trying to help OP with your commentary or simply determined to berate anyone of different opinion?

I think you were being particularly unhelpful in scaring off someone from one of the best lenses they might buy.

They wouldn't be purchasing *your* copy, thank goodness. 😀

See here:

Youtu.be

It also does 1:3 macro, but that's no substitute for a dedicated lens. It's also Full Frame - my third pic was taken on a Sony A7.

FWIW I also have the 55-300 and it's satisfactory for what it is, but it has very different usage scenarios.

audiobomber · 02-07-2016, 06:15 AM

This would be an easy decision for me, because of where and what I shoot. The DA 55-300mm is an essential lens for my needs due to its small size and decent IQ (although I much prefer the better built WR version). It is best used outdoors, which is where I shoot most of the time. My standard day bag is the Sigma 17-50, DA 55-300mm WR and FA 35mm f2. I feel prepared for almost anything with this kit.

The D FA 100mm macro is a brilliant lens for nature photos and macros, and a passable portrait lens. It is also quite compact. It is sharp enough to use wide open but you have to manage some fringing. It is suitable for indoor shooting.

The Tamron 70-200 is considerably sharper than the DA 55-300mm, but the size difference is enormous. I rarely use the Tamron for that reason. I consider it a specialized lens for sports shooting. I expect it is a great portrait lens, but I don't shoot many portraits, and the people I have done portraits for would be very uncomfortable posing in front of that beast of a lens.

All of the above have noisy auto-focus. I don't find any of them more or less noisy than the others but I've never compared them directly. The Tamron is least likely to hunt. Unlike the poster above, I have no issues with accuracy, my copy is exemplary. The 55-300mm and 100mm macro are prone to hunting but fortunately both have quick-shift, which I am quick to use when they miss the target. A little trick I've learned is to reset the lens to infinity focus, which minimizes the problem. For some reason focus is more reliable when racking inward.

How often do you use your Tamron 70-300mm? There's not a world of difference between it and a 55-300mm. I did that upgrade a long time ago and considered it worthwhile but they are more similar than different. I prefer Pentax colours. fringing is much improved and 55-70mm range is more useful to me than 1:2 macro. The biggest difference IMO was quick-shift on the Pentax. I made me crazy to have to put the camera in MF mode when I was trying to shoot a bird in a tree. I would recommend you not buy the DA L 55-300mm version for that reason; it does not have Q-S. In fact I recommend you not go with the bargain price unless it is for the HD DA 55-300mm WR. The original 55-300 is a rattlebox in comparison. I am a huge fan of weather-resistance. I don't want to miss going on my weekend nature walks due to rain or snow.

I bought the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 recently because of its low price and excellent IQ, but it is not an essential lens for me, it's just nice to have for the few times a year I need it. You'll need to determine your priorities based on what you want to do.

PS You need to consider how you will carry the big Tamron.

I have a backpack that handles the body, lens and hood in shooting position, but getting at the camera in the backpack is very slow and awkward.
I have a messenger bag that will carry the lens with hood not in shooting position, and not on a body.
I have a sling that allows snap shooting, but affords no protection from bumps or the elements.
I bought a Think Tank Digital 30 holster because it is was the only solution I could find that protects the gear and accommodates the gripped body, lens and hood in shooting position. The grip is a real boon when balancing a lens this large.

**clackers** · 02-07-2016, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The DA 55-300mm is an essential lens for my needs due to its small size and decent IQ

I'll never sell mine either, Dan, even though I have the 70-200 (with 1.4 TC available) and Sigma 150-500.

When I'm hiking and it's *unlikely* I'll encounter wildlife, it's the one I carry because it doesn't take up much extra room.

02-05-2016, 06:34 PM	#35
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by genesmasher I don't understand people's fascination with the Tamron. I recently bought a mint copy secondhand, thinking that I could tolerate the extra weight for (supposedly) better sharpness and sensitivity. Boy was I disappointed. The lens misfocused a lot (front and back, inconsistently), and surprisingly even hunted more than my 55-300. Colors are very different from Pentax (not in a good way, imo). I am sure it could be fixed in post, but I don't want to spend hours after every game correcting color. Anyway, my keeper rate with the Tamron was <10%, with a lot of good shots missed. So I promptly sold it and went back to Pentax. Seems to me, Genesmasher, you actually didn't understand the concept of a bad copy. Sorry you got one of those. The rest of us enjoy it: Last edited by clackers; 02-05-2016 at 06:46 PM.

02-06-2016, 01:58 AM	#40
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by genesmasher Nice photos. I am sure I could also find a couple like these per each 100 I took with that lens. Maybe it was a bad copy, but frankly, I have better uses for my time (and money) than to screen through a bunch of these in order to find one that works. I have no problems with its focusing, its rendering, or keeper rate. Any errors are mine. The lens is valued in the Canikon world - just look at the reviews comparing it to the L series. If you got a bad copy you should have sent it back. 10% keepers didn't set off alarm bells? Last edited by clackers; 02-06-2016 at 02:07 AM.

02-07-2016, 06:15 AM	#44
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	This would be an easy decision for me, because of where and what I shoot. The DA 55-300mm is an essential lens for my needs due to its small size and decent IQ (although I much prefer the better built WR version). It is best used outdoors, which is where I shoot most of the time. My standard day bag is the Sigma 17-50, DA 55-300mm WR and FA 35mm f2. I feel prepared for almost anything with this kit. The D FA 100mm macro is a brilliant lens for nature photos and macros, and a passable portrait lens. It is also quite compact. It is sharp enough to use wide open but you have to manage some fringing. It is suitable for indoor shooting. The Tamron 70-200 is considerably sharper than the DA 55-300mm, but the size difference is enormous. I rarely use the Tamron for that reason. I consider it a specialized lens for sports shooting. I expect it is a great portrait lens, but I don't shoot many portraits, and the people I have done portraits for would be very uncomfortable posing in front of that beast of a lens. All of the above have noisy auto-focus. I don't find any of them more or less noisy than the others but I've never compared them directly. The Tamron is least likely to hunt. Unlike the poster above, I have no issues with accuracy, my copy is exemplary. The 55-300mm and 100mm macro are prone to hunting but fortunately both have quick-shift, which I am quick to use when they miss the target. A little trick I've learned is to reset the lens to infinity focus, which minimizes the problem. For some reason focus is more reliable when racking inward. How often do you use your Tamron 70-300mm? There's not a world of difference between it and a 55-300mm. I did that upgrade a long time ago and considered it worthwhile but they are more similar than different. I prefer Pentax colours. fringing is much improved and 55-70mm range is more useful to me than 1:2 macro. The biggest difference IMO was quick-shift on the Pentax. I made me crazy to have to put the camera in MF mode when I was trying to shoot a bird in a tree. I would recommend you not buy the DA L 55-300mm version for that reason; it does not have Q-S. In fact I recommend you not go with the bargain price unless it is for the HD DA 55-300mm WR. The original 55-300 is a rattlebox in comparison. I am a huge fan of weather-resistance. I don't want to miss going on my weekend nature walks due to rain or snow. I bought the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 recently because of its low price and excellent IQ, but it is not an essential lens for me, it's just nice to have for the few times a year I need it. You'll need to determine your priorities based on what you want to do. PS You need to consider how you will carry the big Tamron. I have a backpack that handles the body, lens and hood in shooting position, but getting at the camera in the backpack is very slow and awkward. I have a messenger bag that will carry the lens with hood not in shooting position, and not on a body. I have a sling that allows snap shooting, but affords no protection from bumps or the elements. I bought a Think Tank Digital 30 holster because it is was the only solution I could find that protects the gear and accommodates the gripped body, lens and hood in shooting position. The grip is a real boon when balancing a lens this large. Last edited by audiobomber; 02-07-2016 at 09:01 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
advice on lens purchase	Tom777	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	13	06-18-2014 04:59 PM
People WWYD - Concerts	Kameko	Photo Critique	2	04-16-2014 01:33 AM
Is my *istDS wearing out? Lenses? Brain?	studiojmm	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	11-24-2010 03:52 AM
Lens Purchase Advice	krs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	12-10-2008 09:25 PM
K10D purchase advice	Kitanis	Photographic Technique	4	10-27-2006 11:21 AM

02-02-2016, 04:52 AM	#31
wowarning Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 60 Original Poster	Interesting! I may give that a try. So after pretty much deciding that the Tamron is the way to go, I had the revelation this morning that noisy AF in the school auditorium at concerts and plays will probably not be appreciated, and that I should probably be factoring this in - which I was not. Am I correct that the Tamron is noisy screwdrive and the Pentax is at least relatively quiet?

02-02-2016, 04:57 AM	#32
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Originally posted by wowarning Am I correct that the Tamron is noisy screwdrive and the Pentax is at least relatively quiet? Indeed. The Tamron is quick to focus, but quite noisy. The Pentax is close to inaudible (but not quite as quick, I believe).

02-04-2016, 08:02 PM	#33
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	Originally posted by wowarning Interesting! I may give that a try. So after pretty much deciding that the Tamron is the way to go, I had the revelation this morning that noisy AF in the school auditorium at concerts and plays will probably not be appreciated, and that I should probably be factoring this in - which I was not. Am I correct that the Tamron is noisy screwdrive and the Pentax is at least relatively quiet? Yes, the Tamron is the noisiest focusing lens I own. By alot, really. However, it does not hunt very often. Which means that once the first shot is focused, it's pretty fast, so not too annoying. Unless it's a completely silent event, I wouldn't worry about that.

02-05-2016, 04:40 PM	#34
genesmasher Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: California Posts: 33	I have experience with all three lenses (100mm macro, DA 55-300mm and the Tamron). I shoot A LOT of soccer with K5IIs, mostly straight to JPG's (too many shots to post-process manually). DA 55-300 is my favorite sports zoom, has been for 5 years now (mine is non-WR, SMC version). I can not overemphasize how light and well-balanced on the K5 this lens is, compared to all faster options (Tamron, Sigma, Pentax f/2.8). I find that by shooting at f/5.6-6.5 (ISO 200-400 depending on light, to allow 1/500-1000 shutter speeds), I get sharp results, good background blur, and added DOF makes it easier to get everything in focus. Colors from this lens are excellent (true and saturated, typical Pentax). Focus is reliable and fast, and the images are quite sharp in 55-230mm range (gets softer and less contrasty above 230mm). I typically get ~25-30% keeper rate with this lens, which is amazing in sports photography. It's only limitation is that it needs good light. I don't understand people's fascination with the Tamron. I recently bought a mint copy secondhand, thinking that I could tolerate the extra weight for (supposedly) better sharpness and sensitivity. Boy was I disappointed. The lens misfocused a lot (front and back, inconsistently), and surprisingly even hunted more than my 55-300. Colors are very different from Pentax (not in a good way, imo). I am sure it could be fixed in post, but I don't want to spend hours after every game correcting color. Anyway, my keeper rate with the Tamron was <10%, with a lot of good shots missed. So I promptly sold it and went back to Pentax. I also tried Pentax DA* 60-250 couple of years ago. This is definitely a quality lens. Color reproduction is very similar to the 55-300. I haven't noticed a whole lot more sharpness within my usual working focal range (maybe because 55-300 is quite sharp for me), which made it really hard to justify 3x the cost and weight over the DA 55-300. It may be slightly more useful indoors (f/4 constant). DFA100 macro is a wonderful lens, but not a good choice for sports. If you find other uses for it - by all means get one. So my suggestion to OP would be to go with the 55-300 and 100macro, if you are still on the fence. You will not regret it.

02-05-2016, 07:31 PM	#36
wowarning Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 60 Original Poster	This is a tricky fence to walk! Thanks for the input guys. Nice shots clackers!

02-05-2016, 07:39 PM	#37
GodsPetMonkey Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 134	Originally posted by wowarning Going to either buy the 55-300 and the 100 WR macro OR the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Roughly the same cost due to good bargains - $600 for the 2 vs $750 for the one. (Already have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8, F50 f1.7, 35mm f2.4. 18-135, F28 f2.8. and a crappy old Tamron 70-300). Would love to have a macro and have been wanting to upgrade the telephoto end for a long time - but I also take pics of school events in the auditorium that the 70-200 would probably handle nicely. Then again the 100 f2.8 would probably be decent there too - not as versatile, but decent. I've talked myself in circles. WWYD? As others have pointed out, the 55-300 needs lots of light - but it isn't all that bad, it just depends on what you are using it for. Outside and during the day it has no problems (few lenses would!). For sports, it rarely struggles - most sporting events (indoor and at night) are very well lit anyway, and with good ISO performance you'll be laughing. However, it does show its slowness under ordinary lighting - think bog standard household-at-night conditions. If the school likes to keep its auditorium dimly lit, your keeper rate will drop, though that will depend on how much action is involved, I'd expect most stage productions to have many periods which are not nearly as fast paced as sports! On the plus side the 55-300 is light, small, versatile, WR, optically-good and incredible value ($270 brand new from B&H? As we say in Australia, strewth mate!). Very tough to beat for an all-round telephoto that you can take pretty much anywhere. The trade off is, obviously, aperture (and a little IQ compared to its bigger brothers). The 100 WR Macro, on the other hand, is not one I use for action. It is an amazing lens, and my copy got a really healthy dose of pixie-dust because when ever I put it to use it produces stunning pictures - the right balance of contrast, colour, clarity and sharpness. It'll probably make do in a pinch, either go manual focus or if it decides to go hunting stop the AF process and quickshift it. I'd think the range isn't going to be enough for most telephoto jobs anyway - 100mm isn't bad, but it is a long way short of 250mm or 300mm. My personal choice was the 55-300 (had it for a while) and the 100 WR Macro (recent acquisition - brilliant pricing of late!), but, and it is a big but, I rarely find myself needing to take fast shutter-speed telephoto shots in poor lighting, so I am personally not sacrificing much. I don't think you can go wrong getting the Tamron or the 60-250, but I suggest you pick up a 100 WR Macro at some point, it really is a brilliant bit of glass!

02-05-2016, 10:15 PM	#38
Jedi_Strings Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Bronx, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 56	I have the DFA 100mm & use it for a lot more than macro shots but if you're looking for something flexible I think the suggestions to go with the 60-250 or the 70-200 are spot on. Remember that the crop factor needs to be taken into consideration though & I believe the Tamron is a FF lens as well which is a plus that the DFA 100mm shares.

02-06-2016, 01:48 AM	#39
genesmasher Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: California Posts: 33	Originally posted by clackers Seems to me, Genesmasher, you actually didn't understand the concept of a bad copy. Sorry you got one of those. The rest of us enjoy it: Nice photos. I am sure I could also find a couple like these per each 100 I took with that lens. Maybe it was a bad copy, but frankly, I have better uses for my time (and money) than to screen through a bunch of these in order to find one that works. Tamron is not exactly known for consistent quality - misfocusing in particular is not at all uncommon. I have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 also - nice versatile zoom lens, MY COPY happens to be pretty sharp and doesn't back-focus too often. But I still don't love the colors it produces straight out of the camera, compared to my Pentax DA lenses (not just the 55-300). Without additional manipulation, just looks flat somehow.

02-06-2016, 05:09 PM	#41
genesmasher Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: California Posts: 33	Originally posted by clackers I have no problems with its focusing, its rendering, or keeper rate. Any errors are mine. The lens is valued in the Canikon world - just look at the reviews comparing it to the L series. If you got a bad copy you should have sent it back. 10% keepers didn't set off alarm bells? Hmm, can't quite figure out if you are still trying to help OP with your commentary or simply determined to berate anyone of different opinion? I am one of those people that tend to trust their own experiences more than reviews. I simply suggested that DA 55-300 might meet OP' needs at 1/3 the cost and weight of the Tamron, even if he gets lucky with his copy of the latter. Some samples of DA product - JPG's straight from the camera, slightly cropped and resized, no additional processing: 230mm, f/6.7, 1/750s, ISO 200, K-x https://flic.kr/p/DQB1is 210mm, f/6.7, 1/1000s, ISO 200, K-5II https://flic.kr/p/DGvsss 100mm, f/6.7, 1/60s, ISO 3200, K-5II https://flic.kr/p/DqPgnu

02-06-2016, 05:23 PM	#42
wowarning Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 60 Original Poster	Okay kids, no bickering, lol. I'm sure I could make any of the possible choices work, and appreciate everyone here sharing how they found a way to achieve the results they were looking for. The macro went up $50 and I have to wait for the old tax return before buying, so who knows if any of the Tammys will even still be available by then. Just looked at the video for the Pentax 70-200, good lord that is a big hunk of a lens ( and will probably cost a small fortune).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2016, 09:02 PM	#45
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by audiobomber The DA 55-300mm is an essential lens for my needs due to its small size and decent IQ I'll never sell mine either, Dan, even though I have the 70-200 (with 1.4 TC available) and Sigma 150-500. When I'm hiking and it's unlikely I'll encounter wildlife, it's the one I carry because it doesn't take up much extra room.