[Christopher M.W.T]

Really though choice I can get them both locally with the sigma coming in about $150 cheaper.

I like that they are both f2.8

I like the zoom range of the Sigma, however I hear it's close up performance isn't the best, whereas the DA* is a bit better for close up.

I want to use the lense for a bit of portrait work so hence why I am leaning towards the DA*. Also going off reviews people say the picture quality is excellent.

I know it should be a pretty easy decision but I am very much undecided.

[Christopher M.W.T]

Really though choice I can get them both locally with the sigma coming in about $150 cheaper.

I like that they are both f2.8

I like the zoom range of the Sigma, however I hear it's close up performance isn't the best, whereas the DA* is a bit better for close up.

I want to use the lense for a bit of portrait work so hence why I am leaning towards the DA*. Also going off reviews people say the picture quality is excellent.

I know it should be a pretty easy decision but I am very much undecided.

Now I should also throw the Tamrom f2.8 70-200 into the mix.

I hear its excellent value for money but is has AF issues.

[OrenMc]

That is a tough one. I went through the same thing just a short time back and I see a lot of folks asking the same question. If you are looking for mainly portrait work though the DA* is probably the way to go, its got a little wider end that will come in handy.
I like the the color rendition of my Sigma though, something I was happily surprised with. I don't know about the close-up preformance you are speaking of as I haven't used mine that much yet to give you a true report but I have had no issues to date. Be aware also the HSM on the Sigma can fail if over heated also. Not sure if the Pentax does the same.
I will have a good chance to use my Sigma in a little over a week when I go over to visit my son and granddaughters. I am looking forward to see more of is preformance portrait wise also.
Some folks love the Tamron also so like I said " thats a tough one "

[Christopher M.W.T]

I should say i've tested the sigma and I liked it, tried it on a K20D in AFC and found that it was a lot faster than i'd imagined, only thing I found was the weight, not that bad but still a bad heavy/

[68wSteve]

I have both right now. If you give me a couple days i can give you a better review. Just got the sigma 70-200 to possibly replace my DA*50-135. I had the Sigma 100-300 but felt it was to big for handheld and the 70-200 gives me a little more coverage because after that all i have is the DA*300.

[Christopher M.W.T]

I have both right now. If you give me a couple days i can give you a better review. Just got the sigma 70-200 to possibly replace my DA*50-135. I had the Sigma 100-300 but felt it was to big for handheld and the 70-200 gives me a little more coverage because after that all i have is the DA*300.

Yer i'm definately curious to hear the difference. My main concern overall is image quality.

Weight wise how do the two compare?

[MikePerham]

Really though choice I can get them both locally with the sigma coming in about $150 cheaper.

I like that they are both f2.8

I like the zoom range of the Sigma, however I hear it's close up performance isn't the best, whereas the DA* is a bit better for close up.

I want to use the lense for a bit of portrait work so hence why I am leaning towards the DA*. Also going off reviews people say the picture quality is excellent.

I know it should be a pretty easy decision but I am very much undecided.

I find the 50-135 focal range to be much more useful with the APS-C format ...and the DA* 50-135 is a gem. You may also find it easier to handhold as it is smaller and lighter than the Sigma.

[nostatic]

I would probably sell my 31ltd before my 50-135*. And I hate zoom lenses.

[melander]

Dont forgett to put weather sealing into the equation, Then there is no option

[Chwisch87]

I tell ya i am in the same boat. I currently have the 18 to 50 EX DC 'macro' from sigma and it has been a great starter lens to me. I think this along with the 70 to 200 F2.8 along with I need the next step up and the 50 to 135 seemed logical however a friend who recently got it told me the lens is very soft at 135 even at F4 ... which i am wondering if its just his copy or a larger problem.


I its fair to say this along with my current sigma and the 100-300 F4 round out the top three zooms sigma makes with the K mount sooo its all pretty tough decision.

[legacyb4]

Soft at F4? Only if you aren't focusing properly...

[Lowell Goudge]

Back to the OP question

the 50-135 is a better focal length range for portraits on the ASP-C sensor than 70-200

Having said that, I think for serious protraits F2.8 is too small an aperture, in the 50-100mm focal length, FOr that I use my 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.5 MF primes.

As for shich zoom to get, as a general point, if you do't intend to use the lens for wild life and/or have a different approach as to how to achieve 300mmF4 or 400mmF5.6 the 50-135 may be all you need, and it is smaller and lighter.

[heliphoto]

Yeah, this is a tough tough descision, and I'm in the same boat from the other end - I own both the 50-135, and the Tammron 70-200, and I promised my wife I'd sell one as pennance for buying the DA* 300mm ... I change my mind about every 5 min. regarding which one to get rid of. I'm thinking the smaller, wx. sealed lens will end up staying (but ask me again in 5 min!). If you want to use the lens for close focus subjects such as flowers, the Tamron and Sigma 70-200s will do 1:3.1 and 1:3.5 respectively while the 50-135mm only gives you 1:5.8 magnification.

[Pentax_XTC]

I have the DA* 50-135 and love it! Especially today when I was outside shooting and the sky let loose on me! I got inside with my K-7 and 50-135 covered in water. I just wiped it off and everything is fine. So for the high quality optics and "sudden storm" proof enclosure, it's worth the extra 150.00 to me.

I also feel that the 2.8 is plenty of good bokek for portraits at the 50-135mm range; but then again both bokeh and the amount of it that are good is an opinion that varies from one photographer to another.

[Ash]

You want this telezoom for portraits, then there really is no debate about this one.
The 50-135 is for you.
IQ, size & weight, weather sealing - can't beat it.
Both 70-200s are good too, but for different purposes, and certainly aren't as sharp or contrasty at f/2.8-4, which is where you would use such a lens for portraiture.
I have the Tamron 70-200 and bought it instead of the other two because for indoor events/concerts you'll need extra reach. Portraiture allows the photograhper to move in as close as you need to for the shot.