[BarryE]

I was wondering whether to buy the new 70-210 f4, then a thought struck me: how bad is the 50-135 on the K-1? Answer, it could be fine, if ...

I like my K-3 a lot for its size/weight compared to the K-1, but the K-1 is significantly better in DR, which for me is important. I also like picking out detail in the landscape, so a telephoto is handy. The FF options are mostly too heavy for me for the longer FLs. So I thought about the*50-135 ...

The 50-135 vignettes very strongly at the shorter end - maybe it's usable at 135mm. However this misses a key point. Personally I often crop to a 4:3 on landscapes as I find 3:2 a little too elongated, especially when using a telephoto to pick out a subject. When using a 4:3 crop, even at 50mm, there is no vignetting up to around 24mp - equivalent to the K3, but with the K-1's DR. Maybe the edges might be considered a little weak, but as subject isolation and not flat-across-the-frame is normal for me at longer landscape FLs, the edges are not that important, and anyway I have some new FF glass that's probably worse on its edges (the DFA 24-70 comes to mind).

So maybe don't right this lens off on FF if you like 4:3. I'll continue to play with it and see if I change my mind and buy the 70-210 ...

Any opinions on this ?

[jatrax]

I'm not sure a 135mm lens works if you want a 210mm lens........

But interesting that you can get a decent 4:3 out of that lens on the K-1.

My opinion would be: regardless of whether you can make the 50-135 work acceptably it is still only a 135mm lens so not (IMHO) a substitute for a 200mm range lens. I would rather have either the DA*60-250 or the DFA 70-210.

[chochichaeschtli]

I have a 50-135 and a 60-250 an use both frequently on the k-1. The 50-135 only in crop mode and due to size and weight mainly, and i think the fact that you can see more than the actual apsc picture (rectangle) in the viewfinder really helpful for composition, especially for tele lenses.
At 135, it covers almost fullframe, but then i rather just not zoom as much and stay crop. Thats the main difference: the 60-250 is rather ff at the short end and sort of offers a wider zoom range if you are happy with apsc resolution: 60-350 equiv vs 70-200 equiv; if you believe in crop factor equivalence
Anyway, both still great lenses and for me tele was never the reason to get ff.

[mikesbike]

I would say just use the DA* 50-135mm in crop mode- you'd still have the K-1's DR. or consider getting a KP, which has better DR and low light capability than the K-3, and then use the DA* 50-135mm on it, saving a lot of size and weight over the K-1 with the DFA 70-210. Then the K-1 when in the WA- to less tele range like the DFA 24-70mm would be fine and easier-handling, and that lens does well with either body.

The K-1 and KP as a complementary duo is not uncommon from what I've seen.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 06-25-2020 at 08:36 PM.

[BarryE]

I'm not sure a 135mm lens works if you want a 210mm lens........

But interesting that you can get a decent 4:3 out of that lens on the K-1.

My opinion would be: regardless of whether you can make the 50-135 work acceptably it is still only a 135mm lens so not (IMHO) a substitute for a 200mm range lens. I would rather have either the DA*60-250 or the DFA 70-210.

Thanks John, Yes I agree, it's not a 200mm (equivalent), but it's a decent zoom from 50-135 at 4:3, but I was pleasantly surprised at what could be achieved using it this way. I'll play around with it over the uninteresting summer (=heavy, dull greens in the UK) and see what I think in the autumn. Then maybe, I'll get the 70-210. I rather balk at the idea of "wasting" the 50-135. It's a great lens, but the DR on the k-3 is much less than the K-1 and if I want to be in walkabout mode with the K-3 I'll take the 55-300 plm.

---------- Post added 06-26-20 at 08:18 AM ----------

I have a 50-135 and a 60-250 an use both frequently on the k-1. The 50-135 only in crop mode and due to size and weight mainly, and i think the fact that you can see more than the actual apsc picture (rectangle) in the viewfinder really helpful for composition, especially for tele lenses.
At 135, it covers almost fullframe, but then i rather just not zoom as much and stay crop. Thats the main difference: the 60-250 is rather ff at the short end and sort of offers a wider zoom range if you are happy with apsc resolution: 60-350 equiv vs 70-200 equiv; if you believe in crop factor equivalence
Anyway, both still great lenses and for me tele was never the reason to get ff.

Many thanks. I agree the extra in the viewfinder in cropped mode is helpful compositionally, this advantage was new to me. I wonder if any camera has this option in its full viewfinder...?

As I say to John above, the crop factor equivalence I suppose, believing in it or not . The experiment was to not waste the 50-135 and to see what I could get out of it on FF. I used to rather obsess with getting the best quality image from my gear when I was selling landscape prints, now it's rather refreshing trying to use older equipment to squeeze more life out of it and not bothering with the getting the best possible quality.

---------- Post added 06-26-20 at 08:27 AM ----------

I would say just use the DA* 50-135mm in crop mode- you'd still have the K-1's DR. or consider getting a KP, which has better DR and low light capability than the K-3, and then use the DA* 50-135mm on it, saving a lot of size and weight over the K-1 with the DFA 70-210. Then the K-1 when in the WA- to less tele range like the DFA 24-70mm would be fine and easier-handling, and that lens does well with either body.

The K-1 and KP as a complementary duo is not uncommon from what I've seen.

Thanks Mike. probably don't need another camera However, your reasoning is sound. You did make me think about pairing the DFA 24-70 with the K-3. I'd been getting a few real estate commissions prior to Covid and I'd been keeping the 24-70 safe for that work. I'm re-assessing whether I want to continue this work now - PPE and no conversations with clients etc makes it rather grim - I don't need that , so I'm thinking about different gear usage, thus the 50-135 ...