[Clem Nichols]

FWIW, I just received an e-mail today from BH-Photo saying they now have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 for Pentax in stock.

Tamron | 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens | AF001P-700

CN

[Substitute]

200mm f:2.8 800 iso.
image removed
AF is lowsy and slow but it is a good lens!

[bonovox]

200mm f:2.8 800 iso.
AF is lowsy and slow but it is a good lens!

Great photo!

I find the new HSM version to be more than acceptable AF performance (in fact, I think it is quite strong in this area).

[Substitute]

Well some of my collegues had it on the festival, either on C or N mounts and they also said AF was slow in low light at 200mm 2.8.
Which is a very peculiar setting I admit, but that's where we use it. I am sure VI or VII are great performer in daylight.
50-135mm is much better according to me in this respect.

[Denis]

Well some of my collegues had it on the festival, either on C or N mounts and they also said AF was slow in low light at 200mm 2.8.
Which is a very peculiar setting I admit, but that's where we use it. I am sure VI or VII are great performer in daylight.
50-135mm is much better according to me in this respect.

How can a 50-135 be compared to 70-200. Image size at 200mm would have to be exactly the same at the same f ratio on the same camera. The focus travel on a macro type and DOF are totally different. Contrast is what drive the lens using the camera AF system. I think quite often that we are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to focus speed. Evaluating the situation, light and contrast available is often the cause of failure. First assumption is failure of the equipment to meet every possible situations which is often not the case.

[Substitute]

How can a 50-135 be compared to 70-200.

Image size at 200mm would have to be exactly the same at the same f ratio on the same camera. The focus travel on a macro type and DOF are totally different. Contrast is what drive the lens using the camera AF system. I think quite often that we are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to focus speed. Evaluating the situation, light and contrast available is often the cause of failure.

First assumption is failure of the equipment to meet every possible situations which is often not the case
.

It is not compared, I did not compare those two lenses at this focal distance, since 50-135mm stops at eeeeerrr 135mm!

Well pretty simple, you need two bodies and shoot the same concert with both lenses.. and oh surprise, you find out that in the SAME situation (light blah blah blah) 50-135mm is faster...
Well in my case I am not asking the equipment to meet any situation, just low low light and af speed. End of story.

[Denis]

It is not compared, I did not compare those two lenses at this focal distance, since 50-135mm stops at eeeeerrr 135mm!

Well pretty simple, you need two bodies and shoot the same concert with both lenses.. and oh surprise, you find out that in the SAME situation (light blah blah blah) 50-135mm is faster...
Well in my case I am not asking the equipment to meet any situation, just low low light and af speed. End of story.

Fair enough.

When you stated "faster", is it due to time to stop focusing without hunting? Macro lenses tend to hunt in low light with low contrast which is why limiters are intalled. The 70-200 is macro with no limiter and can focus all the way in both directions before finding focus which can cause long focus time or hunting. It is a design issue and I don't thing it is with 50-135. I believe this would be true on many other types.

[Substitute]

Ok then fair enough too..:ugh:
I was talking about 70-200mm Version I which is not macro. So it could be compared to the 50-135mm, which is more recent, lighter and weather sealed ;-)
So as far as low light situations are concerned I will stick to the 50-135mm then switch to the 60-250 if the body is able to deal with low light situations at f:4...:ugh:

[Denis]

Ok then fair enough too..:ugh:
I was talking about 70-200mm Version I which is not macro. So it could be compared to the 50-135mm, which is more recent, lighter and weather sealed ;-)
So as far as low light situations are concerned I will stick to the 50-135mm then switch to the 60-250 if the body is able to deal with low light situations at f:4...:ugh:

If you have to shoot low light at concert, it is probably best to stay with 50-135.

I was wondering if the 60-250 can do full frame. Hope the price drops, a little too expensive for my liking.

[roentarre]

200mm f:2.8 800 iso. This is copyrighted material!!

AF is lowsy and slow but it is a good lens!

She is a beautiful lady and the sigma 70-200 f2.8 is one of the best options around.

Your image suffered mal-focusing. Eyes are completely smeared in the image, buried in shadows. The dark foreground made a mess to the composition of the image.

I understand that this is your art. The image did not show the superiority of the zoom.

This is the fact you preferred if I had been too honest.

[TYOsborn]

200mm f:2.8 800 iso. This is copyrighted material!!

AF is lowsy and slow but it is a good lens!

I'm assuming this was indoors.. How far away were you? An estimate will be fine.

[Substitute]

Outch Rottentare..that really hurts but frankly having seen your pictures, your opinion on photography is close to zero to me, so please, keep away from my threads and give everybody a break.
Don't you do meditation, medicine Buddha? Were you never taught to let it go, to just observe and not to react to events?You should try, there are excellent Vipassana centers in AUstralia!Now you want to be nasty and a real pain , ok that'a sign of love and attention ;-) A silly one , but still. Thank you!!!!!
You don't like my pictures I don't like yours, so keep away from me.

Distance was about 4 metres. Light were close to none and changing abruptlly which is quite normal for a concert, and we had no space to shoot. In those conditions getting the right focus is luck, but as a matter of fact pictures out of focus like this get bought by magazineswhich happened to mine, so I will remove it. So will Rottentare.

[bonovox]

Normally I'd want focus on the eyes, but I think that the focus on the mouth works in this photo - since she is singing.

BTW, I'm really over the bickering between you two.