Help choose a lens in the 70-200 range

GeneV · 12-08-2016, 06:21 AM - **1 Like**

For some reason, that zoom range has never really appealed to me in APS-C. My Sony A6000 came with a 55-210, and it barely leaves the house. For me 200mm is usually not really long enough for wildlife and too long for portraits. Getting a fast 70-200 means size and weight, and a slow one is not all that great for portraits. The DA*50-135, with its exceptional quality, speed and size was far more useful on a cropped format, along with something longer for wildlife. Another thought is that the 55-300 is a much more versatile option.

On film, 80-200 was a go-to lens, and a fast 70-200 is again on the K1.

Last edited by GeneV; 12-08-2016 at 06:26 AM.

Brooke Meyer · 12-08-2016, 08:15 AM

Another vote for the Sigma 100-300/4

scottmasterton · 12-08-2016, 08:32 AM

I went through a similar process to you recently. I kept on searching for something in the 70-200 arena, but eventually came to the conclusion they were too big and heavy for what I wanted, so last week I bought a Pentax 55-300, which I got for a steal of £250 on Amazon uk.

**BigMackCam** · 12-08-2016, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by scottmasterton

I went through a similar process to you recently. I kept on searching for something in the 70-200 arena, but eventually came to the conclusion they were too big and heavy for what I wanted, so last week I bought a Pentax 55-300, which I got for a steal of £250 on Amazon uk.

Actually, that's a very good point. The higher ISO noise and dynamic range performance of current Pentax models such as the K-3II is excellent, and a slower lens needn't be much of a problem in many situations (depth of field limitations aside). Given that, the pre-PLM and new PLM versions of the 55-300 WR are very capable and excellent value for money. Plus, they're light and small enough to leave on the camera all day, if necessary

awscreo · 12-08-2016, 01:23 PM - **1 Like**

full frame 70-200 are indeed massive size/weight - wise. Although you get a perk of people thinking you're a super pro photog wielding a huge zoom around

**clackers** · 12-08-2016, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by awscreo

full frame 70-200 are indeed massive size/weight - wise. Although you get a perk of people thinking you're a super pro photog wielding a huge zoom around

The Tamron 70-200 is probably the smallest and lightest of the pro-style f2.8 zooms, FWIW.

I also own the 55-300, which is nice and compact, but does not compare optically to those zooms.

awscreo · 12-08-2016, 04:40 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

The Tamron 70-200 is probably the smallest and lightest of the pro-style f2.8 zooms, FWIW.

I also own the 55-300, which is nice and compact, but does not compare optically to those zooms.

Coming from mft it was still a massive (literally) contrast

**clackers** · 12-08-2016, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by awscreo

Coming from mft it was still a massive (literally) contrast

Oh, sure, but you're not shooting with a toy anymore.

Kidding! Kidding! I use even smaller sensored cameras with even smaller lenses from time to time ... Canon G7X, Samsung Mini-NX.

awscreo · 12-08-2016, 08:44 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

Oh, sure, but you're not shooting with a toy anymore.

Kidding! Kidding! I use even smaller sensored cameras with even smaller lenses from time to time ... Canon G7X, Samsung Mini-NX.

Was about to start a holywar defending mft but then I woke up and remembered that I'm in a full frame camp now

TaoMaas · 12-09-2016, 06:19 AM

I think both lenses are good choices, but I'd opt for the Tamron primarily because it gives you the option of going FF at some point in the future, if you want. Not that you couldn't use the 60-250mm on a FF camera...but that's not what it was designed for.

Tonycog · 12-09-2016, 07:18 AM

Thank you for all of your responses. I went with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I found a used one at Adorama for a good price and included it with my K-3II order. The Sigma 100-300 in the marketplace here tempted me. I needed to get a lens for my son too, so I ordered the Pentax 55-300 to give him some range with his first lens.

Thanks.

GeneV · 12-09-2016, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by awscreo

full frame 70-200 are indeed massive size/weight - wise. Although you get a perk of people thinking you're a super pro photog wielding a huge zoom around

Not just weddings. A few weeks ago, walking on a beach with the K1/Tamron 70-200, a guy yells out to me "70-200/2.8, right?" When I nodded yes, he said "a pro."

normhead · 12-09-2016, 08:18 AM - **4 Likes**

My opinion backed up by my purchases, is that I really like the weight of the DA* 60-250 ƒ4. You still need a long lens for wildlife, but, to say you can't shoot wildlife with it is a bit of a stretch. Add the 1.4 TC to it and the focus breathing issue is somewhat alleviated.

Wildlife I've taken images of with the 60-250.

A bear, foxes, wolves, small birds, big birds.

It's not 600mm, but, niether is a 70-200. The one advantage to the 70-200 2.8s is, you can put a 2x TC on them. If you're not planning to do that the 60-250 will do nicely.

Not good enough or wildlife?

Or small birds

Well OK then, whatever. You still need something over 400mm from time to time, but the 60-250 is great way to compliment that.

awscreo · 12-09-2016, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Not just weddings. A few weeks ago, walking on a beach with the K1/Tamron 70-200, a guy yells out to me "70-200/2.8, right?" When I nodded yes, he said "a pro."

mm, i haven't mentioned weddings, haven't taken my lens to a wedding because I didn't want to end up working when I was suppose to be partying

But funny situation none the less

Driline · 12-09-2016, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

Just throwing this out there: there is a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG for sale in the pentax market place for under 1K US. Even on APS-C, 200mm is a bit short for wildlife.

Isn't this the best 100-300 F4 lens ever made for Pentax? I only see glowing reviews of this lens.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens tests on K-1 : 15-30, 24-70, 70-200, 31, 43, 77, 100 Macro, 28-70 and 80-200	Mistral75	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	06-28-2016 11:46 AM
Help in understanding the dynamic range lost when printing	BarryE	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	19	06-13-2016 10:40 AM
Help me choose between Pentax 50-135, Sigma/Tamron 70-200	Christine Tham	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	01-22-2011 05:17 AM
Help me choose a lens!	bigburb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	10-31-2006 07:33 PM

12-08-2016, 06:21 AM - 1 Like	#16
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	For some reason, that zoom range has never really appealed to me in APS-C. My Sony A6000 came with a 55-210, and it barely leaves the house. For me 200mm is usually not really long enough for wildlife and too long for portraits. Getting a fast 70-200 means size and weight, and a slow one is not all that great for portraits. The DA50-135, with its exceptional quality, speed and size was far more useful on a cropped format, along with something longer for wildlife. Another thought is that the 55-300 is a much more versatile option. On film, 80-200 was a go-to lens, and a fast 70-200 is again on the K1. Last edited by GeneV; 12-08-2016 at 06:26 AM.*

12-08-2016, 08:15 AM	#17
Brooke Meyer Guest	Another vote for the Sigma 100-300/4

12-08-2016, 08:32 AM	#18
scottmasterton Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Scotland. Posts: 25	I went through a similar process to you recently. I kept on searching for something in the 70-200 arena, but eventually came to the conclusion they were too big and heavy for what I wanted, so last week I bought a Pentax 55-300, which I got for a steal of £250 on Amazon uk.

12-08-2016, 10:25 AM	#19
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,645	Originally posted by scottmasterton I went through a similar process to you recently. I kept on searching for something in the 70-200 arena, but eventually came to the conclusion they were too big and heavy for what I wanted, so last week I bought a Pentax 55-300, which I got for a steal of £250 on Amazon uk. Actually, that's a very good point. The higher ISO noise and dynamic range performance of current Pentax models such as the K-3II is excellent, and a slower lens needn't be much of a problem in many situations (depth of field limitations aside). Given that, the pre-PLM and new PLM versions of the 55-300 WR are very capable and excellent value for money. Plus, they're light and small enough to leave on the camera all day, if necessary

12-08-2016, 01:23 PM - 1 Like	#20
awscreo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,722	full frame 70-200 are indeed massive size/weight - wise. Although you get a perk of people thinking you're a super pro photog wielding a huge zoom around

12-08-2016, 04:12 PM	#21
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by awscreo full frame 70-200 are indeed massive size/weight - wise. Although you get a perk of people thinking you're a super pro photog wielding a huge zoom around The Tamron 70-200 is probably the smallest and lightest of the pro-style f2.8 zooms, FWIW. I also own the 55-300, which is nice and compact, but does not compare optically to those zooms.

12-08-2016, 04:40 PM - 1 Like	#22
awscreo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,722	Originally posted by clackers The Tamron 70-200 is probably the smallest and lightest of the pro-style f2.8 zooms, FWIW. I also own the 55-300, which is nice and compact, but does not compare optically to those zooms. Coming from mft it was still a massive (literally) contrast

12-08-2016, 04:46 PM	#23
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by awscreo Coming from mft it was still a massive (literally) contrast Oh, sure, but you're not shooting with a toy anymore. Kidding! Kidding! I use even smaller sensored cameras with even smaller lenses from time to time ... Canon G7X, Samsung Mini-NX.

12-08-2016, 08:44 PM - 1 Like	#24
awscreo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,722	Originally posted by clackers Oh, sure, but you're not shooting with a toy anymore. Kidding! Kidding! I use even smaller sensored cameras with even smaller lenses from time to time ... Canon G7X, Samsung Mini-NX. Was about to start a holywar defending mft but then I woke up and remembered that I'm in a full frame camp now

12-09-2016, 06:19 AM	#25
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	I think both lenses are good choices, but I'd opt for the Tamron primarily because it gives you the option of going FF at some point in the future, if you want. Not that you couldn't use the 60-250mm on a FF camera...but that's not what it was designed for.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2016, 07:18 AM	#26
Tonycog New Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 13 Original Poster	Thank you for all of your responses. I went with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I found a used one at Adorama for a good price and included it with my K-3II order. The Sigma 100-300 in the marketplace here tempted me. I needed to get a lens for my son too, so I ordered the Pentax 55-300 to give him some range with his first lens. Thanks.

12-09-2016, 07:50 AM	#27
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by awscreo full frame 70-200 are indeed massive size/weight - wise. Although you get a perk of people thinking you're a super pro photog wielding a huge zoom around Not just weddings. A few weeks ago, walking on a beach with the K1/Tamron 70-200, a guy yells out to me "70-200/2.8, right?" When I nodded yes, he said "a pro."

12-09-2016, 08:18 AM - 4 Likes	#28
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	My opinion backed up by my purchases, is that I really like the weight of the DA* 60-250 ƒ4. You still need a long lens for wildlife, but, to say you can't shoot wildlife with it is a bit of a stretch. Add the 1.4 TC to it and the focus breathing issue is somewhat alleviated. Wildlife I've taken images of with the 60-250. A bear, foxes, wolves, small birds, big birds. It's not 600mm, but, niether is a 70-200. The one advantage to the 70-200 2.8s is, you can put a 2x TC on them. If you're not planning to do that the 60-250 will do nicely. Not good enough or wildlife? Or small birds Well OK then, whatever. You still need something over 400mm from time to time, but the 60-250 is great way to compliment that.

12-09-2016, 01:32 PM	#29
awscreo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,722	Originally posted by GeneV Not just weddings. A few weeks ago, walking on a beach with the K1/Tamron 70-200, a guy yells out to me "70-200/2.8, right?" When I nodded yes, he said "a pro." mm, i haven't mentioned weddings, haven't taken my lens to a wedding because I didn't want to end up working when I was suppose to be partying But funny situation none the less

12-09-2016, 05:58 PM	#30
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,691	Originally posted by Digitalis Just throwing this out there: there is a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG for sale in the pentax market place for under 1K US. Even on APS-C, 200mm is a bit short for wildlife. Isn't this the best 100-300 F4 lens ever made for Pentax? I only see glowing reviews of this lens.