[Canada_Rockies]

Well, after much debate and discussion, I decided to go with the da 50-135. I really hope this lens is worth the $1000 I paid for it. I took a few shots this morning and I'm not seeing much difference from my other lenses...I'm still getting blur and grain when i zoom in on the camera. I have 30 days to return the lens if I don't like it. Any suggestions on how I should have my camera settings set to?

I have a few friends who what their protraits taken this weekend....that's why I got the lens now. I'll send the pictures once they are edited.

To test the lens, you cannot use the LCD. Set your camera to RAW or JPEG best. Examine the file on your computer monitor.

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm still getting blur and grain when i zoom in on the camera.

"Grain" is caused using by too high an ISO. Blur is caused by too slow a shutter speed, or else not having focused as well as you could have. None of this is the fault of the lens.

Any suggestions on how I should have my camera settings set to?

Whatever it takes to get a fast shutter speed and a low ISO.

[figmental1978]

I've had the 50-135 for a few weeks now, it was back focusing pretty bad on my K10D until I adjusted it in debug mode, now it's spot on.

[Tom S.]

Well, after much debate and discussion, I decided to go with the da 50-135. I really hope this lens is worth the $1000 I paid for it. I took a few shots this morning and I'm not seeing much difference from my other lenses...I'm still getting blur and grain when i zoom in on the camera. I have 30 days to return the lens if I don't like it. Any suggestions on how I should have my camera settings set to?

I have a few friends who what their protraits taken this weekend....that's why I got the lens now. I'll send the pictures once they are edited.

Weren't you just crying about losing your home and asking people to pray for you?

[tim71]

I found some time ago myself thinking that 50-135 is "not long enough and thereby useless for this price" etc etc

Now when I got this thing absolutely unplanned (was a one-time-opportunity to get it on such terms), I must say one thing - quantity can not be any kind of replacement for quality - I had Sigma 50-150 in mind, but now I'm not.

Longer lens of some kind is still in future plans, but now it's more probable to have a 12-24 as next target...

70-200 and 50-135 are quite different things and should not be considered as replacements to each other - 50-135 is lightweight enough to be a walkaround lens for... say... street photography, but 70-200 will be more suited for shooting bigger events - probably using monopod or tripod when needed.

P.S. Now I understand, why 50-135 has no tripod mount - it is just lighter enough than Tokina 535...

[darrenleow]

size comparison

[ftpaddict]

Droooooooooooooool. I've wanted the Tamron since I first saw it. Anybody care to donate?

[LeDave]

I chose the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 over the 50-135 f/2.8, having already owned the 50-135 f/2.8 in the past. The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 feels just as solid as the 50-135 f/2.8 regardless of no weather-seals, this lens is built using metal and plastic and although lighter than it's competitors, it is quite heavy. The build is very solid and it feels very nice when feeling it because you can definitely feel and see it's rigid quality. One thing I really like about it is its stiff snap-on hood, it snaps on and sticks on without worrying about anything.

People say the AF is slower than the 50-135 f/2.8 but I disagree, I have the Pentax K-7 and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 using screwdrive, autofocuses faster on this lens than the SDM did on the 50-135 f/2.8

Here is a video of the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 AF speed on the K-7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ns-IiGYHXQ

[darrenleow]

I chose the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 over the 50-135 f/2.8, having already owned the 50-135 f/2.8 in the past. The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 feels just as solid as the 50-135 f/2.8 regardless of no weather-seals, this lens is built using metal and plastic and although lighter than it's competitors, it is quite heavy. The build is very solid and it feels very nice when feeling it because you can definitely feel and see it's rigid quality. One thing I really like about it is its stiff snap-on hood, it snaps on and sticks on without worrying about anything.

People say the AF is slower than the 50-135 f/2.8 but I disagree, I have the Pentax K-7 and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 using screwdrive, autofocuses faster on this lens than the SDM did on the 50-135 f/2.8

Here is a video of the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 AF speed on the K-7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ns-IiGYHXQ

I have the Tamron 70-200 and the DA* 50-135 side by side with me for the next two days. Without a doubt, the DA* is being sent home to get sold. I agree with you on all counts regarding the build quality of the Tamron 70-200. Even though it sounds a bit hollow when tapped it doesn't feel poorly-built at all. My hood wobbles a bit when it's mounted but it's not a real problem.

I compared the focusing speed on my K20D to your K-7 video. I felt that the racking of the focus from end to end is roughly the same speed, although the pause at each end is slightly longer on the K20D. Also, the K-7 probably locks focus on an actual subject more decisively while the K20D tends to do a bit of double-checking (not hunting) before the AF locks, especially in dim light. I have not tried AF-C on sports yet though. The screw-drive sound is not an deal-breaker for me, since all of my other lenses are screw-driven as well.

[superfuzzy]

The Pentax 50-135 is magic. It's limited by maximium aperture of 2.8, but has IQ that matches or exceeds primes in that focal range.

Not the best example of IQ, but here's a shot taken with the 50-135:

[superfuzzy]

I thought that the general concensus was the Tamron has better QC than the Sigma 70-200mm, but the Sigma has better IQ and faster focusing and more accurate AF.

[heliphoto]

I chose the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 over the 50-135 f/2.8, having already owned the 50-135 f/2.8 in the past.
...

Sold it already, huh? Wow things change quickly (with me too)...

I like the Tamron so much I got a copy for my Canon ...

I have the Tamron 70-200 and the DA* 50-135 side by side with me for the next two days. Without a doubt, the DA* is being sent home to get sold. I agree with you on all counts regarding the build quality of the Tamron 70-200. Even though it sounds a bit hollow when tapped it doesn't feel poorly-built at all. My hood wobbles a bit when it's mounted but it's not a real problem.

I compared the focusing speed on my K20D to your K-7 video. I felt that the racking of the focus from end to end is roughly the same speed, although the pause at each end is slightly longer on the K20D. Also, the K-7 probably locks focus on an actual subject more decisively while the K20D tends to do a bit of double-checking (not hunting) before the AF locks, especially in dim light. I have not tried AF-C on sports yet though. The screw-drive sound is not an deal-breaker for me, since all of my other lenses are screw-driven as well.

I directly compared the 50-135 vs. the Tammy 70-200mm for focusing speed on the K20D (results here), and found the Tamron to be significantly faster - It's about the same on my Canon too, which is nowhere near as fast as Canon USM ring motors.

[heliphoto]

I thought that the general concensus was the Tamron has better QC than the Sigma 70-200mm, but the Sigma has better IQ and faster focusing and more accurate AF.

I thought the consensus was that the Tamron had better IQ (sharper wide open) and more accurate AF, while the Sigma has faster AF (and "quick-shift" focus override functionality with the HSM focusing) and both had QC issues (Tamron's sticking apertures vs. ??? with the sigmas (I've never really caught what the complaints with the Siggys are - decentering maybe?))

IQ wise, I'll say that the Tamron has better sharpness than my DA* 16-50 and my DA* 50-135 did, and on par with the DA* 300! The DA*s 16-50 had somewhat better colors and much better flare resistance, but I found the colors from the DA* 50-135 to be comparable to the Tammy.

[LeDave]

I thought the consensus was that the Tamron had better IQ (sharper wide open) and more accurate AF, while the Sigma has faster AF (and "quick-shift" focus override functionality with the HSM focusing) and both had QC issues (Tamron's sticking apertures vs. ??? with the sigmas (I've never really caught what the complaints with the Siggys are - decentering maybe?))

IQ wise, I'll say that the Tamron has better sharpness than my DA* 16-50 and my DA* 50-135 did, and on par with the DA* 300! The DA*s 16-50 had somewhat better colors and much better flare resistance, but I found the colors from the DA* 50-135 to be comparable to the Tammy.

Yeap, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 has better IQ than both the Canon 70-200 and the Sigma 70-200, and rivals in IQ to that of the Nikon 70-200. This lens is really something special, awesome IQ for the price (Although it's gone up in price now, it's still worth it).

[raider]

I recently have a look at the sigma 70-200 at a camera store and it seems that the sigma is smaller in size than the tamron. The 50-135 seems even smaller as well.

The Tamron 70-200 with its lens hood on looks really big and long....and sometimes I am rather uncomfortable as it seems to catch a lot of attention when I am using this lens..