[5teve]

Hi Guys

I currently have a 18-50 crappy sigma kit lens, a 70-300 macro sigma kit type zoom lens (which performs ok for the money!) a 50mm f1.7 auto chinon MF lens and my best lens (which hasnt been off the camera for a while) is a sigma 28-70 f2.8 DF EX lens.

Im getting a case of LBA again.. so i am looking at gettng rid of lens and buying what will hopefully be my last set of purchases.. (until next time )

I'm seriously considering a DA* 50-135 as all i hear is good reviews and praise... i'll probably source it from B&H unless i can get CR Kennedy to play nicely..

i was also considering a sigma 70-200 2.8 hsm.. for the long end.. but i just dont know if it will be long enough... or if there is a better equivalent? as im a bit of a mm-aholic when i get going.. i'll also be a bit stuffed on the short end too.. and cant really decide on the lens at the short to 50-60mm range. One thing i love about the sigma is the 28-70, seems to be a nice range as i never go to wide.. im just now looking for a step up and waterproofing a little (as its used fairly heavily on a boat and whale season is nearly here!)

any thoughts opinions of just general abuse will be welcomed

Thanks

Steve

[Pentaxor]

hi there. if you are not that concerned about lens speed, but more on IQ and longer focal length, then I'd suggest the 55-300mm. it covers the distance that you want in a lens and IQ of that of a superb lens. don't let the affordable price and cheaper build fool you, it's a magnificent lens. you could buy 1 more additional nice lens with the money that you will save for it, like a 40mm or 70mm.

[5teve]

Thanks for that... i do like the ability to hav the f2.8 to play with if i need to, i do get into some situations where having the low light ability is useful.. but its certainly something to bear in mind!

Thanks

Steve

[Ash]

Waterproofing, you can't go any further than the 50-135.
No other lens in its range gives you that.

Sigma 70-200 HSM isn't weather-sealed, but has a decent build quality and reasonable IQ (caveat: see threads - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/39197-sigma-70...ii-hsm-tc.html - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/wanted-items/66023-wanted-sigma-70-200-2-8-da-50-135-a.html - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/55854-any-sigm...hsm-users.html - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/37334-sigma-70...mron-1-4x.html - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/54598-sigma-70-200-tc.html - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/26402-sigma-70-200-2-8-hsm.html - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/37603-decide-b...-70-200-a.html - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/38001-tamron-s...-50-135-a.html etc, etc.

I've had my own issues with the Sigma: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/72242-sigma-70...l-iq-test.html but may not necessarily be the same with every copy.

The Tamron is my favourite in the 70-200 range - but you can't go past the 55-300 for quality images in good light - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/71469-more-bright-flowers.html (2nd and 3rd images by the 55-300). Depends on how often you'll want to shoot long in low-light...

[5teve]

Hi Ash

Thanks for that... yes i have been following your dramas.. and investigations! i was kind of set on the sigma 70-200 just to get a decent long lens. however im swaying towards the tamron... only issue i see if lack of hsm.. which for some reason i was thinking was a good thing.. plus the sigma isnt that much pricier than the tammy.. but i guess your info re warranty etc is useful and a swinger...maybe

the 50-135 i think is certain.. everyone raves about it... im just worried the wide end wont be wide enough.. as a carry around...

as for the wide end? any help there? i know the 16-50 is a bit fickle at the best of times?

Thanks

Steve

[designinme_1976]

I don't know if I am getting your question correctly or not. It seems that you are interested in getting BOTH the 50-135 along with a 70-200? I really don't think I would go this route due to the considerable overlap.

my vote would be for the 50-135 plus the 300mm prime, but it sure is easier spending someone else's money.

I would sell your kit lens, your 70-300 sigma, and the 28-70 sigma. Get a Tamron 17-50 2.8 along with the pentax 50-135. If you need more reach, perhaps a teleconverter, but I don't know much about what is offered in that regard.

I think it really depends on a few things. What are you shooting mainly, and do you HAVE to have WR lenses? Those two questions open up a lot of different options. That Sigma 100-300 F4 is a wonderful lens, yet heavy and expensive, and no wr. The 60-250 pentax gets great reviews as well, but it is also large and is F4.. and expensive.

I don't think I would get a 50-135 and a 70-200 though, just seems like money could be used for a Pentax prime telephoto like the before mentioned 300mm.

[5teve]

I don't know if I am getting your question correctly or not. It seems that you are interested in getting BOTH the 50-135 along with a 70-200? I really don't think I would go this route due to the considerable overlap.

my vote would be for the 50-135 plus the 300mm prime, but it sure is easier spending someone else's money.

I would sell your kit lens, your 70-300 sigma, and the 28-70 sigma. Get a Tamron 17-50 2.8 along with the pentax 50-135. If you need more reach, perhaps a teleconverter, but I don't know much about what is offered in that regard.

I think it really depends on a few things. What are you shooting mainly, and do you HAVE to have WR lenses? Those two questions open up a lot of different options. That Sigma 100-300 F4 is a wonderful lens, yet heavy and expensive, and no wr. The 60-250 pentax gets great reviews as well, but it is also large and is F4.. and expensive.

I don't think I would get a 50-135 and a 70-200 though, just seems like money could be used for a Pentax prime telephoto like the before mentioned 300mm.

yep you are getting my question right.. and i did wonder about the overlap!

i shoot anything, its to me a hobby, so i dont have a fixed subject or set of subjects.. wherever i go i shoot.. it may sound a bit random but hey thats me!

I was looking at the WR lens's as i shoot quite a bit on our boat, and with whale season coming up i wanted something that was at least spray resistant and easy to clean.

i guess with the 70-200 i was being tight as it seems quite the bargain (as does the tamron) compared to the 100-300 and the 300mm pentax. size and weight isnt an issue as im not small built!

im wondering if i should get something fairly short (be it the tammy the sigma or the pentax) the 50-135 (i think im setr on this one anyway) and either try a TC out and see if around the 189mm satisfys my range.. then either wait and get something like the 100-300 or even the pentax 55-300 as it gets such a good review for the money..

im very confused and am beginning to hate LBA!

Thanks

Steve

[dadipentak]

I'm with designinme: either the 50-135mm or a 70-200mm. I have the Sigma and like it but don't think HSM is a major advance or anything (ditto SDM.) The DA*300mm with a good TC and a monopod is a nice rig for wildlife.

[Ash]

Hi Ash

Thanks for that... yes i have been following your dramas.. and investigations! i was kind of set on the sigma 70-200 just to get a decent long lens. however im swaying towards the tamron... only issue i see if lack of hsm.. which for some reason i was thinking was a good thing.. plus the sigma isnt that much pricier than the tammy.. but i guess your info re warranty etc is useful and a swinger...maybe

the 50-135 i think is certain.. everyone raves about it... im just worried the wide end wont be wide enough.. as a carry around...

as for the wide end? any help there? i know the 16-50 is a bit fickle at the best of times?

Thanks

Steve

50mm is certainly not wide enough for a walk around lens unless your 'walk-around' involves mainly people. The 16-50 is by *no* means a fickle lens - at any time. Where did you get that? Most people who own this lens on this forum can vouch for its quality build and IQ. Some of my best shots are with this lens.

As for HSM, it's of no advantage (as others have said) other than quietness. Either of the 70-200s are good choices - my own experiences are just that - not authoritative opinions on their performance.

So think carefully about which one you want, and just stick to your guns. Buying locally, perhaps prices are similar, but with B&H, the Sigma is $120 dearer than the Tamron.

[5teve]

Sorry by fickle i meant with regard to the build being inconsistent with many being bad and many being very very good!

i have seen and searched the images on the forum and have been impressed by all the images i have seen.. hence why i would like the upgrade!

i think i really need to look at the 16-50 range (regardless of make as i sometimes struggle with the 28mm on the sigma not being wide enough) and definitly the 50-135. problem is that i dont think i can get clearance for both.. so i would probably have to keep the sigma for a while.

as for where i go on the long end then... well... im not sure..

Ash.. you own a 70-200 and the 50-135.. are they both worth having? for the extra range or is a TC worth adding also to punch up to 300mm?

sorry for all the questions...

Pentax really ought to put a health warning on the box and possible side affects of taking pentax products!

Thanks

Steve

[Ash]

you own a 70-200 and the 50-135.. are they both worth having? for the extra range or is a TC worth adding also to punch up to 300mm?

Steve

Sorry if I gave you the message that I had both the 70-200 and the 50-135. I don't.
I've tried the 50-135 and although impressed with the IQ, found that it wasn't long enough for my purposes. So later on, I settled for a 70-200, first a Tamron, which developed a sticky aperture lever, then a Sigma, which suffered bad FF and softness, and again back to a Tamron.

The Tamron is well suited to adding a 1.4x TC, which I have, and have used successfully with the Tamron. Great results, even wide open. I'd only advise getting a 70-200 or a 50-135, not both - too much overlap, unless you have defined purposes for both lenses that you can justify having them for.

[Oggy]

The 50-135 is possibly the finest lens that Pentax make. Mine would be glued to the camera if it were not for the DA*300. It would not surprise me one bit if a crop from the 50-135 was better than a full frame from the 70-200.

[GLXLR]

I think the 50-135mm lens, although not extremely wide, is more than wide enough for events (not sure about weddings b/c I have not used it yet), and to be honest, it is a world away from the 70mm wide of the other lens (yes i can test this by putting my camera to 70mm. )

When you are in a crowded event (let's say a festival), to get the 50mm equivalent with the 70mm and your subject (a human face) is about 4 feet away from you, you will probably have to move back (this is not scientifically accurate) about 2-4 feet to get the same FL.

I also pondered on this exact question several months ago, and in the end, it really depends on your style of shooting.
I'd say the 50-135mm by itself is a great lens for use for portraits (f/2.8 is nice creamy bokeh, although some may prefer even creamier bokeh), events, and gatherings (REALLY nice for this). It may be big compared to a comparable 50mm f/1.4, 77mm f/1.8 set up, but it is much more versatile and IMO the rendering and sharpness of the 50-135mm at f/2.8 seems better than the FA 50mm or 77mm f/1.8 (*hides*) although the 135mm end of the lens is not incredibly long for wild life of any sort (maybe zoo)

70-200mm f/2.8 plus a teleconvereter, probably also makes a good event, portrait shooting lens (although b/c it is longer not as practical) and a 1.4x TC will make it a good general action lens.

[5teve]

Sorry if I gave you the message that I had both the 70-200 and the 50-135. I don't.
I've tried the 50-135 and although impressed with the IQ, found that it wasn't long enough for my purposes. So later on, I settled for a 70-200, first a Tamron, which developed a sticky aperture lever, then a Sigma, which suffered bad FF and softness, and again back to a Tamron.

The Tamron is well suited to adding a 1.4x TC, which I have, and have used successfully with the Tamron. Great results, even wide open. I'd only advise getting a 70-200 or a 50-135, not both - too much overlap, unless you have defined purposes for both lenses that you can justify having them for.

No it was me just assuming Ash as you seem to have a lot of knowledge about the lenses!

Yeah my concern is that the 50-135 is going to be an awkward lens for me.. but i am soo tempted due to its image quality, thanks for the input tho.. i guess a 100-300 would be better but.. its lots more $$.. the tamron and sigma seem like a steal!

The 50-135 is possibly the finest lens that Pentax make. Mine would be glued to the camera if it were not for the DA*300. It would not surprise me one bit if a crop from the 50-135 was better than a full frame from the 70-200.

Thanks for that Oggy.. i dont think i have heard a single bad thing about this lens..

I think the 50-135mm lens, although not extremely wide, is more than wide enough for events (not sure about weddings b/c I have not used it yet), and to be honest, it is a world away from the 70mm wide of the other lens (yes i can test this by putting my camera to 70mm. )

When you are in a crowded event (let's say a festival), to get the 50mm equivalent with the 70mm and your subject (a human face) is about 4 feet away from you, you will probably have to move back (this is not scientifically accurate) about 2-4 feet to get the same FL.

I also pondered on this exact question several months ago, and in the end, it really depends on your style of shooting.
I'd say the 50-135mm by itself is a great lens for use for portraits (f/2.8 is nice creamy bokeh, although some may prefer even creamier bokeh), events, and gatherings (REALLY nice for this). It may be big compared to a comparable 50mm f/1.4, 77mm f/1.8 set up, but it is much more versatile and IMO the rendering and sharpness of the 50-135mm at f/2.8 seems better than the FA 50mm or 77mm f/1.8 (*hides*) although the 135mm end of the lens is not incredibly long for wild life of any sort (maybe zoo)

70-200mm f/2.8 plus a teleconvereter, probably also makes a good event, portrait shooting lens (although b/c it is longer not as practical) and a 1.4x TC will make it a good general action lens.

Thanks.. again because i dont have any particular purpose for my lenses.. other than shooting whatever im up to at the time its a hard one! 50 definitly isnt wide enough some times.. and im sure 135 wont be long enough others. i normally need both extremes (wow such a newcomer to the hobby!)

i guess the easiest way is just buy it and see how i go im sure i would need the 16-50 to keep it company tho.. or a sigma equivalent! damn this LBA

Thanks again guys

Steve