[tokyoso]

that looks horrible. kinda reminds me of the DA12-24 PF.

I havent seen a lot of images from DA 12-24, but photozone has a review on FA 35/2 that has a good amount of purple fringing....

from photozone.de (FA35/2)

Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis

[NecroticSoldier]

I havent seen a lot of images from DA 12-24, but photozone has a review on FA 35/2 that has a good amount of purple fringing....

from photozone.de (FA35/2)

Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis

That made me cringe... and start to think about purple fringing a bit more ;P.

Something new to add...
the actual price of the DA 55-300mm over here with the $50 rebate is $450 and with the tax it would be approx $510 which makes it about 3.6 times the price of either of those two...

So now it REALLY makes me think whether the IQ and PF occurrence rate is worth it on the PENTAX.

[ajuett]

If you want to see rainbow fringing, get a M or A 200mm f/4. At f/4, 4.5 and 5.6 you see red, green and purple fringing. I've tried two M series and now an A series, the same results every time. Needless to say my confidence in the M or A 200mm is zero, 3 strikes, you are out ;-). I took the A 200mm f/4 back, bought a DA 50-200 and there is no fringing, not even wide open.

[NecroticSoldier]

If you want to see rainbow fringing, get a M or A 200mm f/4. At f/4, 4.5 and 5.6 you see red, green and purple fringing. I've tried two M series and now an A series, the same results every time. Needless to say my confidence in the M or A 200mm is zero, 3 strikes, you are out ;-). I took the A 200mm f/4 back, bought a DA 50-200 and there is no fringing, not even wide open.

Haha, was about to think about the old prime lenses... but on second though... NEVER MIND. Were the old extreme telephotos ever good?

[audiobomber]

They did not acknowledge that they may have received a bad copy, but they are not going to give a definitive conclusion based on the results of one single test sample. I also said the results need to be collaborated by one or more independent test, before I would make any conclusion (buy the lens).

Photozone did mention the lens they tested was decentered. Here's another opinion. Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

The Photozone test of the 55-300 caused quite a stir on the Pentax boards because it had been reported by several owners of both lenses that the Pentax was sharper than the Tamron. It may have been that Photozone tested a less than great sample of the Pentax, or it may just be a difference in testing methods. PopPhoto's SQF score includes a subjective evaluation of colour and contrast. Improved contrast is known to affect the perception of sharpness, and this is not factored into Photozone's MTF score.

I have a Tamron 70-300mm Di and a Pentax 55-300mm. I much prefer the accuracy and depth of colours from the Pentax lens. I've tested sharpness at near distances and far. My 55-300mm is sharper at 300 mm, especially wide open. I don't see any significant difference in sharpness at shorter focal lengths. I like the Tamron's pseudo-macro capability, but that's less important to me than the 55-70mm range. I don't feel I wasted my money on the Tamron, because it was very inexpensive, I had a ton of fun with it and still have it as a spare. If I were starting out though, I'd go straight for the Pentax.

[Pentaxor]

I havent seen a lot of images from DA 12-24, but photozone has a review on FA 35/2 that has a good amount of purple fringing....

from photozone.de (FA35/2)

Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL - Review / Test Report - Analysis

that is under extreme contrast condition but under normal conditions, that kind of pf doesn't really show. from what I can tell you, the DA12-24 is a lot more worse than that, especially under extreme contrast. under normal conditions, the DA12-24 still suffers considerably and noticeably strong CA (strongest at the wide end and wide open). this must be due to the lens' strong microcontrast rendering. evidently, such CA doesn't show at the long end at 24mm. at this focal length, the contrast rendering is a bit weak at wide open, so again this might be the reason why it has low CA at this focal length.

[audiobomber]

I havent seen a lot of images from DA 12-24, but photozone has a review on FA 35/2 that has a good amount of purple fringing....

I'd call it a low blow posting that photo without the explanation:
"Typical for many ultra-large aperture lenses you can experience some purple fringing in extreme contrast conditions at wide-open aperture. Here's an example (100% border crop of a water fountain image)"

That's a 100% crop of an edge at f/2.0. I have an FA 35mm and I can assure you it doesn't begin to approach the Tamron for purple fringe.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 03-19-2010 at 10:20 AM.

[Blue]

Its just my opinion that the DA 55-300mm will out perform the DA 50-200mm in the 160-200mm range. However, it will definitely outperform it at the 200-300mm range.

[KevinR]

Something new to add...
the actual price of the DA 55-300mm over here with the $50 rebate is $450 and with the tax it would be approx $510 which makes it about 3.6 times the price of either of those two...

So now it REALLY makes me think whether the IQ and PF occurrence rate is worth it on the PENTAX.

3.6x, whow... On that basis, I would say go for the Tamron or the Sigma. You indicate your budget is an issue, and that way you will have a long tele for a very low cost.

If you are really unhappy, you can save up and get a Pentax 55-300 later (or 60-250 if you go upmarket ; or maybe even a Sigma Bigma 50-500 if you have urge) The cost of a Sigma/Tamron will be school fees to find out if you really need the lens or what your preference is. We all have to make compromises.

Here in South Africa the Sigma/Tamron is about half the Pentax 55-300 price. So my school fee was expensive. My last compromise was a Sigma 170-500 because it was a third of the price of a good 500mm.

[Pentaxor]

I'd call it a low blow posting that photo without the explanation:
"Typical for many ultra-large aperture lenses you can experience some purple fringing in extreme contrast conditions at wide-open aperture. Here's an example (100% border crop of a water fountain image)"

That's a 100% crop of an edge at f/2.0. I have an FA 35mm and I can assure you it doesn't begin to approach the Tamron for purple fringe.

the FA35 has the same level of CA with the FA31 and DA35 at their respective openings. the DA35 however shows a similar CA pattern levels of the FA35 on all apertures. again, mind you that the DA35 has also has a strong microcontrast rendering. so that might play a part on the CA level.

and yes, the CA level image illustration of the FA35 is pretty weak compared to the CA of the DA12-24 and Tamron.

[NecroticSoldier]

3.6x, whow... On that basis, I would say go for the Tamron or the Sigma. You indicate your budget is an issue, and that way you will have a long tele for a very low cost.

If you are really unhappy, you can save up and get a Pentax 55-300 later (or 60-250 if you go upmarket ; or maybe even a Sigma Bigma 50-500 if you have urge) The cost of a Sigma/Tamron will be school fees to find out if you really need the lens or what your preference is. We all have to make compromises.

Here in South Africa the Sigma/Tamron is about half the Pentax 55-300 price. So my school fee was expensive. My last compromise was a Sigma 170-500 because it was a third of the price of a good 500mm.

Oh, if I bought the Tamron brand new it'd cost about half the price!

[tokyoso]

Something new to add...
the actual price of the DA 55-300mm over here with the $50 rebate is $450 and with the tax it would be approx $510 which makes it about 3.6 times the price of either of those two...

So now it REALLY makes me think whether the IQ and PF occurrence rate is worth it on the PENTAX.

I'm hard pressed to see any PF (purple fringing) in my tamron 70-300 shots. if at all, its very little even with reflective surfaces. Like I said, maybe they sent me a good copy by mistake... but I'm loving my Tamron right now. they take great photos of each other, paired with my M50... if they keep sending me good copies by mistake, I'll never upgrade my cheap lenses.



FYI, there is a new tamron 70-300 in the works. comes with vibration control, ultrasonic drive, etc. I'm loving tamrons all around at the moment.
Tamron 70-300 Bob Atkins Photography

but I should really keep this a secret...

[rover]

I purchased the DA 50-200 before my vacation last year when I was considering the same thing. Here is why,

1) I don't use a tele much at all (haven't used it since).
2) Spending as little as possible was important.
3) I fell I can hand hold 200mm with SR, but not 300mm.
4) I could only find positive things about this lens.

I am happy with my choice.

[tokyoso]

I purchased the DA 50-200 before my vacation last year when I was considering the same thing. Here is why,

1) I don't use a tele much at all (haven't used it since).
2) Spending as little as possible was important.
3) I fell I can hand hold 200mm with SR, but not 300mm.
4) I could only find positive things about this lens.

I am happy with my choice.

why not? SR works pretty well on the K-x... these are 300mm ISO 12800 1/100s... hand held of course.. and it's bikes, so yeah its moving..









straight from the cam..

[tokyoso]

more lens porn.. :LOL:






cant get enough of tamrons right now.. shhhh...:LOL: