[Christopher M.W.T]

Currently I am looking at the

EX 24-70mm f2.8

&

EX 70-200mm f2.8

Price wise they are both very appealing. I had the pleasure of testing a 70-200 on a K20 in melb city today, I must say I was very impressed with the focus speed on this camera, I used it in AF-C and was really impressed with tracking people on elizabeth st.

I wasn't able to test out the 24-70mm but wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this?

[Ash]

Well there are a lot of happy 70-200 users here who can vouch for it.
I tested it out briefly in deciding which version I'd go for and was reasonably pleased.

As for the 24-70, I don't know enough about it - others on the forum can shed some light on it though...

[Christopher M.W.T]

Well there are a lot of happy 70-200 users here who can vouch for it.
I tested it out briefly in deciding which version I'd go for and was reasonably pleased.

As for the 24-70, I don't know enough about it - others on the forum can shed some light on it though...

I was really impressed with it, found it a tad heavy but that was a minor thing. I am definately considering it or possibly the 50-135 DA*.

I want something I can use for portrait work.

[Ash]

The 50-135 is probably better suited for portraiture because of its exquisite sharpness, brightness and stunning colour contrast rendition. It's also smaller, much lighter and of very good build quality (AND weather-sealed). Lots of pluses there...

You'll have to expect any of the fast telezooms beyond the 50-135 range to be large and heavy. I have the Tamron 70-200 and am happy with it. I'm sure you'll be pleased with the Sigma variety (with added HSM).

[Christopher M.W.T]

Now its a tougher choice.

I think the prices between the two aren't all that different.

[Ash]

The 50-135 will be a little more expensive given those extra benefits, but I don't think you'll find a less than totally impressed 50-135 user here... it really is an unrivalled lens (though a few say they wish it were longer).

I too would have gone for it if it weren't for the 135mm limit - I wanted a little more and with my TC, I can get 280mm with my 70-200, whereas with the 50-135, the TC would not even get me 200mm.

Just different lenses for different purposes.

[Christopher M.W.T]

The 50-135 will be a little more expensive given those extra benefits, but I don't think you'll find a less than totally impressed 50-135 user here... it really is an unrivalled lens (though a few say they wish it were longer).

I too would have gone for it if it weren't for the 135mm limit - I wanted a little more and with my TC, I can get 280mm with my 70-200, whereas with the 50-135, the TC would not even get me 200mm.

Just different lenses for different purposes.

Yer definately the 135mm limit is a little off putting but I am obsessive about image quality and sharpness, so I guess its a tradeoff.

I wonder if anyone has done a head to head with the DA* 50-135 & the Sigma 70-200 EX.

I am curious to see how the DA 60-250mm is though, price wise it's $2600 in Australia

[cupic]

Try quoting the range of Sigma 180 macro or the 50-150mm sigma f/2.8

cheers

[KungPOW]

The 50-135 is an APS-C version of the FF 70-200.

[Christopher M.W.T]

The 50-135 is an APS-C version of the FF 70-200.

Good point actually forget to look at it that way.

[joeyc]

I have both, well had. I just traded the 70-200 for the 100-300. It's no knock on the 70-200, I just need the added reach. The 70-200 is the best long zoom I have ever used. The 24-70 is wonderful. Usable at f2.8, great from 4.0 on. Very nice close focus abilities. Good sharpness throughout. I occasionally want it to be wider, but otherwise just great.

[Ash]

Good point actually forget to look at it that way.

Yes, but remember that doesn't translate in extra reach.
135mm is still 135mm, and won't bring your subject any closer to you in the viewfinder...

[MikePerham]

Currently I am looking at the

EX 24-70mm f2.8

&

EX 70-200mm f2.8

Something I have never understood, is why folks are still looking at the focal lengths that were appropriate with 35mm or FF sensors. I suppose the 70-200 range, especially a F2.8, would be appealing as it translates to about 100-300 that I had with my MZ-S (Sigma EX 100-300 F4). However, I found that lens to be a bit big and heavy for everyday use and was considering buying a 70-200 as more portable & useful for a mid range zoom.

When I switched to an DSLR, I purchased the DA*16-50 and 50-135 found that focal range and smaller, lighter mid range zoom (the 50-135) very functional. I then only used my Sigma 100-300 at the long end so traded it for the DA* 300 F4 and I am really happy with that change.

So my point is some of the lenses designed to cover the 24X36 sensor/film can be useful, but the standard zooms such as the 24/28-70 just are not wide enough on the short end to be useful standard zooms. I plan on selling my Sigma EX 28-70 F2.8 ...along with a few other lenses that I have from my 35mm days.

[Lowell Goudge]

Something I have never understood, is why folks are still looking at the focal lengths that were appropriate with 35mm or FF sensors. I suppose the 70-200 range, especially a F2.8, would be appealing as it translates to about 100-300 that I had with my MZ-S (Sigma EX 100-300 F4). However, I found that lens to be a bit big and heavy for everyday use and was considering buying a 70-200 as more portable & useful for a mid range zoom.

When I switched to an DSLR, I purchased the DA*16-50 and 50-135 found that focal range and smaller, lighter mid range zoom (the 50-135) very functional. I then only used my Sigma 100-300 at the long end so traded it for the DA* 300 F4 and I am really happy with that change.

So my point is some of the lenses designed to cover the 24X36 sensor/film can be useful, but the standard zooms such as the 24/28-70 just are not wide enough on the short end to be useful standard zooms. I plan on selling my Sigma EX 28-70 F2.8 ...along with a few other lenses that I have from my 35mm days.

I think it is a question of where your len kit started, and also, that the 70-200 for example is a great lens for shooting stage performances as well as wild life.

Yes it is heavy, but it is light compared to a 300 F2.8 that you would have used (under your logic) for wildlife on film.

You also have to consider that perhaps people want different focal length ranges than they may have on film.

WHen I shot film, an ultra wide was 24 mm, and I had one (still do in fact) I always found it not wide enough, Switching to digital, my first body came with a SMC-FA-J 18-35. I used this on the PZ-1 for ultra wide until I got my sigma 10-20.

The point is, if you go the ultra wide route, and get a 10-20, then the next logical step is a 24-70 or similar, and this still leaves you with the 70-200 at the top end.

A 24-70 is like a 35-105 on film, and a ton of these lenses were sold, it is the every day zoom.

[Ben_Edict]

Currently I am looking at the

EX 24-70mm f2.8

&

EX 70-200mm f2.8

Price wise they are both very appealing. I had the pleasure of testing a 70-200 on a K20 in melb city today, I must say I was very impressed with the focus speed on this camera, I used it in AF-C and was really impressed with tracking people on elizabeth st.

I wasn't able to test out the 24-70mm but wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this?

I am of no help, regarding the 24-70, but simply love the 70-200! I have the ancient version, without SDM and Macro. I bought it, when there was simply no alternative from Pentax, with both, the 50-135 and the 60-250 in the distant future - and I have no regrets.

Though I see the appeal of a smaller, lighter lens, like the 50-135, I find the range too limited. Perhaps I buy one sometime, but it won't replace the 70-200... It is fast AF-wise, can be used fully open and delivers excellent IQ when stepped down just a bit. Also, it makes a great combination with the two Sigma Apo tcs, which extends the useful fl to cover most of the range, I usually need, though I confess, to using the 50-500 for longer fls (beyond 300mm) mostly.

Ben