Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-27-2008, 05:13 AM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: italy
Posts: 12
pentax da* 50-135 or some primes ?

hi, i'll buy a new lens but i can't choose about:

A) DA* 50-135 (800 euros)
B) DA 40 + DA 70 (890 euros)
C) DA 35 macro + DA 55-300 (750 euros)

i need good quality i now have
DA 16-45 (i use the most)
Tammy 28-75
Pentax F 50 1.7
Tamron adaptall macro 90 2.5
some takumar lens.

i had a pentax f 70-200 and i use it very rarely, so i really need the 50-135 ?

i don't like huge lens, i sold a pentax A 28-135 because it was a very heavy lens.
i don't know if 50-135 it's big. an if it's a prime killer.

please help me !

11-27-2008, 08:46 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Mechan1k's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,889
For waht you already have .... I'd go option A.
It's one lens I'd love to try myself actually.
11-28-2008, 03:13 AM   #3
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 70
if you don't like large and heavy zooms, then the 50-135 is probably not for you

DA* 50-135/2.8 ED [IF] SDM
11-28-2008, 09:11 AM   #4
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,677
Considering you already have 28-75, 50mm and 90mm, I think the 50-135 will be pretty much redundant. It is a large lens, which you say you don't like.
IMO you should get the 55-300mm, which is very light, reasonably compact and gives you a range you don't have covered.

11-28-2008, 10:08 AM   #5
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 173
Size Comparison

Here's a comparison of the DA50-200, DA16-45, the DA*50-135, and a 0.5L bottle of water.






I personally find the DA* to be a comfortable size and weight for handling, but, it is about the same size and only 55g lighter than the A28-135 you sold.

The pancakes are known for their consistency of sharpness across the frame. So, as for being a prime killer, it depends on your preferences. The DA*50-135's center sharpness and bokeh(imo) are as good as the DA70, the main difference will be edge sharpness. I guess it comes down to a choice between the convenience of a zoom and the light weight of a prime.

The DA55-300 is a nice lens, and better than the tele zoom you had, but it's still a slow max aperture consumer zoom. Whether or not I'd recommend it depends on why you never used your 70-200. I didn't use my 50-200 because f4-5.6 hurt when trying to shoot in low light at longer focal lengths, and because I don't really have an interest in taking close-up pictures of far away things (such as wildlife). I got the DA*50-135 for the way teles compress perspective, and for its color and bokeh, not for its range.

Suggesting a lens is kind of hard given that you already have so many of them. I agree that the DA*50-135 may be redundant given your existing setup. Similarly, the DA40 is somewhat redundant given the F50, as is the DA70 because of the Tamron 90.

With your current setup, option C seems to be the best choice as it offers much greater diversification in your lineup than the other two options. If you plan on selling some lenses, or if there are lenses you rarely use, then that changes things.

In the end it comes down to where you feel the biggest weakness of your lineup exists.
11-28-2008, 10:38 AM   #6
Veteran Member
tomtor's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 382
I would just get the 55-300 and save the money for a future 12-24 or 10-17FE or something else (eg a nice flash?!)

Your Tammy 28-75/2.8 covers the DA40+70 combo in FL (or do you find the 28-75 too big?) and the 50-135 is probably too big.
11-28-2008, 12:01 PM   #7
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by studiocrocevia Quote
i had a pentax f 70-200 and i use it very rarely, so i really need the 50-135 ?
Do you still have the 70-200? If not, and the longest you've got is the 90, I'd think about that 55-300, or maybe an M135/3.5 (which is very cheap) as a way of getting a bit more telephoto than you have in a nice-sized package. The 55-300 obviously has the advantage of flexibility and reach, but the 135 has a bit of a speed advantage and a huge price advantage - plus it is somewhat smaller/lighter as well.

But with the 28-75 in your bag already, I wouldn't be in any big hurry to pick up the DA40 or DA70 unless you want the much smaller size. And I'd probably pick the 40 ahead of the 70 as being a focal length useful enough that the small size would really matter: you really can get away with taking just the camera & DA40 with you a lot of places. But that DA35 macro would make a ncie addition to the kit.
11-28-2008, 12:43 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Sean Nelson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 353
Avoid the 50-135 if you're not willing to lug it around, it's considerably heavier and larger than the 55-300. But if you want the extra 1-2 stops of aperture for low light situations, it's your best bet.

I have the DA35 and like it quite a lot because it has a near-"normal" useful field of view, gives very nice images, and basically eliminates the close focusing limitation that all my other lenses have. I don't consider myself a macro photographer, but I find it annoying when I run into the close focus limit of a lens.

11-28-2008, 01:05 PM   #9
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,560
I guess it all depends on the type of photography you do and how close you can get to the subject matter.

If no restrictions I'd go primes all the way, in fact the only zoom I own is the kit job that came with the camera.
11-28-2008, 01:32 PM   #10
Veteran Member
offertonhatter's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North West UK
Posts: 377
Like Kerrow says, it depends on the subject.

Although the 50-135 is considered a "large" lens, it does balance very well with my K10d/K20D and battery grip.

If you do a lot of Studio portrait work, or even outside portrait use, you will find the 50-135 excellent, in fact it runs primes in the range very close indeed.

I would also love to have the 40 and 70 as you mentioned, as they are very light and have superb IQ, but if I had the choice, I think initally I would go for the 50-135, as it has a great range, and then save up for the other two. But thats me.
11-28-2008, 03:23 PM   #11
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,677
QuoteOriginally posted by Sean Nelson Quote
Avoid the 50-135 if you're not willing to lug it around, it's considerably heavier and larger than the 55-300. But if you want the extra 1-2 stops of aperture for low light situations, it's your best bet.
The 55-300mm is F4.5 up to 200mm, so the 50-135 is about 1-1/3 stops faster.
11-28-2008, 04:05 PM   #12
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: italy
Posts: 12
Original Poster
thanks a lot.

thanks everyone !

how good is the 35 macro vs the 40 f 2.8 ?
i think that i can buy a very good prime 35 to 50 mm
and thinking about tammy 70-300 or pentax 55-300.

i think if i have the 50-135 i will not carry it everytime.

i'm a lot confused !
11-28-2008, 08:42 PM   #13
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,677
QuoteOriginally posted by studiocrocevia Quote
thinking about tammy 70-300 or pentax 55-300.
I own both, get the Pentax if you can afford it. My 55-300mm is sharper, with much better colour & contrast and less purple fringing. Quick shift focus is a big plus, as is the wider angle. It would be nice to have close focus like the Tamron, but adding a Raynox lens to the Pentax blows the Tamron's pseudo-macro out of the park. For more money of course.
11-28-2008, 08:55 PM   #14
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 31
I must agree with all the comments on the size/weight of the 50-135. I myself had one for about 3 months, sold it due to it's bulk and bought a 70mm Limited and have never looked back.

That said, the 50-135 is a quality lens in every aspect as you will see from the enormous amount of praise it has received in this forum.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da, da*, euros, k-mount, lens, macro, pentax, pentax da*, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: smc Pentax M Primes, S-M-C Primes, THE Series 1 70~210 Zoom, Viv MFTC and more monochrome Sold Items 33 02-13-2009 01:29 PM
For Sale - Sold: primes 20,28,35,50,135 plus more ryno Sold Items 7 05-20-2008 12:27 PM
Pentax Primes KFrog Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 01-19-2008 01:28 AM
Sears 135/2.8 vs. Pentax M 135/3.5 Alvin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 04-07-2007 06:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top