Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-18-2010, 11:41 AM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: National Capital Region
Posts: 738
Tamron 24-135mm photos

QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
Yeah, it looks a lot smaller at that angle. I'm kind of curious though to how long it is when it's fully extended, since I'm pretty sure that it uses a telescoping duo barrel design, which makes it double (or sometimes triple in length) when it's fully extended.

What personal experience do you have with this lens, by the way? Would you recommend that I get it too?
I've provided a couple of photos to the forum after I was informed they were missing in the 3rd party lens review section, one of them with the barrel fully extended.

PentaxForums.com Third-Party Lens Review Database - Tamron SP AF 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical [IF]

As a walk-around lens, I do recommend this lens highly.

And on a side note, after hearing discussions about its weight, I do agree that the setup feels slightly front heavy when this lens is mounted to either *ist DS or K-x. However, on a K20D, the balance is almost perfect!

04-18-2010, 04:54 PM   #47
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
The way I would use this Tamron lens would be mostly wide angle setting with occasional zooms in on to a subject. So if the barrel extends to the 135 mm position all I have to do to keep it compact is roll it back to 24 mm. At the retracted setting it looks like a nice balance to the camera body. I attended a swap meet today but no 23-135 Tamron's or Sigma's at any table anywhere. There are only a couple on eBay and I would rather by from a dealer online or locally if possible.
04-18-2010, 05:42 PM   #48
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
QuoteOriginally posted by EsBee Quote
I've provided a couple of photos to the forum after I was informed they were missing in the 3rd party lens review section, one of them with the barrel fully extended.

PentaxForums.com Third-Party Lens Review Database - Tamron SP AF 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical [IF]

As a walk-around lens, I do recommend this lens highly.

And on a side note, after hearing discussions about its weight, I do agree that the setup feels slightly front heavy when this lens is mounted to either *ist DS or K-x. However, on a K20D, the balance is almost perfect!
That's the problem for me, because I like it when my camera weighs more than my lens, and I usually like to have the smaller types of cameras, not the bigger and bulkier ones. That's the problem that I had with the Canon 28-135mm, it was way too front heavy and it extended way too far, and I always would bump it on things.
04-19-2010, 01:15 PM   #49
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
That's the problem for me, because I like it when my camera weighs more than my lens, and I usually like to have the smaller types of cameras, not the bigger and bulkier ones. That's the problem that I had with the Canon 28-135mm, it was way too front heavy and it extended way too far, and I always would bump it on things.
I just can not imagine limiting my lenses to weighing less than the camera body and being very short. Does this mean "jct us101" never uses his camera for telephoto images??? I really like having a really long focal length lens. Think of all the images you could capture at a great distance. No one even knows you are taking the picture with a long, say 300 mm and up, telephoto lens. Not even the birds!!

04-19-2010, 02:40 PM   #50
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
QuoteOriginally posted by kacansas03 Quote
I just can not imagine limiting my lenses to weighing less than the camera body and being very short. Does this mean "jct us101" never uses his camera for telephoto images??? I really like having a really long focal length lens. Think of all the images you could capture at a great distance. No one even knows you are taking the picture with a long, say 300 mm and up, telephoto lens. Not even the birds!!
The DA 50-200mm and the DA 55-300mm weigh considerably less than any Pentax camera body that I've used. I'm not really one that would buy a really long telephoto lens anyways, I prefer to stay with the smaller and lighter ones. It's not really that limiting either, I can't afford the more expensive lenses anyways.
04-19-2010, 04:02 PM   #51
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
The DA 50-200mm and the DA 55-300mm weigh considerably less than any Pentax camera body that I've used. I'm not really one that would buy a really long telephoto lens anyways, I prefer to stay with the smaller and lighter ones. It's not really that limiting either, I can't afford the more expensive lenses anyways.
Oh, I see that I should(hate that word) have checked the lens data base before sticking my foot in my mouth and chewing on it because I assumed(yeah I know the definition of assume, just proved I don't remember everything I know) that the telephoto zooms you mentioned would be heavier than the camera bodies. So I do think a 300 zoom is long telephoto since your FOV would be equal to a 450 mm lens or over 7 power of magnification. I own my beast of 800 mm for specific use trying to catch eagles at great distance in their nests. No I have not had success in that quest as yet. Eagles do not seem to trust humans and purposefully place their nest in locations that are very difficult to see or get to by humans. That lens is difficult to work with due to it's length but gives amazing long range results. At present I do not own a zoom as long as a 300. Somewhat because I can't see my liking a dark zoom lens at those focal lengths. However I am willing to have a lens sticking out well in front of the body and being much heavier than the body. I also am used to handling much heavier cameras from my film days. Perhaps it is why I own 4 tripods and a monopod.
04-19-2010, 08:17 PM   #52
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by kacansas03 Quote
I just can not imagine limiting my lenses to weighing less than the camera body and being very short.
FWIW, none of the lenses I use regularly weigh anywhere close to the weight of the lightest DSLR ever made. This includes lenses up to 200mm. In fact, none of them are even *half* the weight of my camera, and even the heavier telephoto lenses I don't use that much - M200/4, Vivitar 500/8 mirror - weigh considerably less than the camera. In any case, sure, long telephotos do generally need to be heavy, but that's not the subject of this thread. It's possible to put up with heavy long telephotos because there is little choice, but still reject the notion of a heavy standard zoom.
04-19-2010, 08:33 PM   #53
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
FWIW, none of the lenses I use regularly weigh anywhere close to the weight of the lightest DSLR ever made. This includes lenses up to 200mm. In fact, none of them are even *half* the weight of my camera, and even the heavier telephoto lenses I don't use that much - M200/4, Vivitar 500/8 mirror - weigh considerably less than the camera. In any case, sure, long telephotos do generally need to be heavy, but that's not the subject of this thread. It's possible to put up with heavy long telephotos because there is little choice, but still reject the notion of a heavy standard zoom.
Yes you are right and I have not been honest with myself in this question. If I was to rate my use of lenses then 80% of the time I use my K100D the lenses are the same weight of lighter. I should say this to correctly state my use of the camera since I have used the 18-55 kit lens a lot on the camera in the 4000+ frames I have shot with it. Plus I think it would be accurate to state that about 800 frames have been shot with other lenses. But I do still want the AF walk around lens that is faster when zoomed than the kit 50-200 lens. Now about 95% of the time that I use my film cameras I have used heavy lenses. But that is true because so many were heavy lenses. Plus I still stick to my statement that I feel I can handle and I am comfortable with a heavier, longer lens on my cameras due to so many, many years of just that kind of use with my film cameras both Pentax and Canon. No I do not have a Canon DSLR and will probably only buy one if my financial situation permitted the purchase of one of Canon's full frame DSLR. Hence I would really rather spend that money with Pentax when(whisper if) they come out with a full frame digital camera. The appearance of the medium format digital from Pentax gives me hope for a full 35 mm frame Pentax digital.

04-19-2010, 09:49 PM   #54
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,864
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
That's the problem for me, because I like it when my camera weighs more than my lens, and I usually like to have the smaller types of cameras, not the bigger and bulkier ones. That's the problem that I had with the Canon 28-135mm, it was way too front heavy and it extended way too far, and I always would bump it on things.
That's how the Pentax-A 28-135/4 is - 77mm filter size, really front heavy, and that's at 28mm. I don't see a lightweight lens in this class, though the balance varies a lot.

When I use this type of lens, adding a hotshoe flash improves the balance. The next day, everything from wrist to shoulder remembers that weight.
04-20-2010, 03:26 PM   #55
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
That's how the Pentax-A 28-135/4 is - 77mm filter size, really front heavy, and that's at 28mm. I don't see a lightweight lens in this class, though the balance varies a lot.

When I use this type of lens, adding a hotshoe flash improves the balance. The next day, everything from wrist to shoulder remembers that weight.
I do know about the older manual focus lenses and own several models including a couple in this zoom range. However this thread is more about Auto Focus lenses that are fully functional on a Pentax digital body namely my K100D and upcoming K-x. I think that I have found one preferred lens in the rare Sigma of 24 to 135 mm zoom range an f2.8 maximum aperture. Also a second one in the Tamron of the same focal range but f3.5 and up maximum aperture which would probably be all right for my use since I consider this an outdoor walk around zoom range. I always have a camera bag with me which can carry longer zooms or primes plus I sometimes have my photo back pack on as well but it is harder to get a lens out of it quickly. Anyone else with input on this range will be very welcome.
04-20-2010, 03:30 PM   #56
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
I now have realized that I may also want a fast defined as maximum aperture of more than or equal to f2.8 wide angle, even perhaps more than 18 mm, to somewhat less wide angle zoom for indoor work. When I was using film I usually did this with a fast 24 mm prime since fast wide angle was hard for the regular 35 film days too. My really big problem in this focal range is price. Just Can Not afford a Pentax. So I wonder what other brands are out there that are good enough for low quality 4 x 6 snap shot prints.???????
04-20-2010, 03:55 PM   #57
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
35mm f1.4

Does anyone own and use the Pentax SMC M series 35 mm f1.4 lens???? Now that would work fairly well as an indoor snap shot lens if it gave a half way decent snapshot wide open and has a decent focusing range. i will not need to be too close to anything since the intention with this lens is to catch Christmas moments and birthdays and the like. Anyone????
04-20-2010, 04:44 PM   #58
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by kacansas03 Quote
Does anyone own and use the Pentax SMC M series 35 mm f1.4 lens????
There is no real evidence that such a lens existed as anything but a prototype. At most, if rumors are to be believed, a grand total of 5 of these lenses were ever made. So I'm sure if one ever turned up, a collector would pick it up immediately for many thousands for dollars. The M35/2 is the best you can reasonably hope for here.
04-20-2010, 04:48 PM   #59
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by kacansas03 Quote
I now have realized that I may also want a fast defined as maximum aperture of more than or equal to f2.8 wide angle, even perhaps more than 18 mm, to somewhat less wide angle zoom for indoor work. When I was using film I usually did this with a fast 24 mm prime since fast wide angle was hard for the regular 35 film days too. My really big problem in this focal range is price. Just Can Not afford a Pentax. So I wonder what other brands are out there that are good enough for low quality 4 x 6 snap shot prints.???????
f/2.8 wide angle zooms that are wider than 18mm and cheaper than Pentax': I think that's pretty much just the Tamron 17-50.
04-20-2010, 05:07 PM   #60
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
There is no real evidence that such a lens existed as anything but a prototype. At most, if rumors are to be believed, a grand total of 5 of these lenses were ever made. So I'm sure if one ever turned up, a collector would pick it up immediately for many thousands for dollars. The M35/2 is the best you can reasonably hope for here.
Well I am greatly disappointed with that piece of news. Can you tell I am hunting a fast lens for use indoors. Plus I really do not need a very sharp lens because I intend to use the thing for snapshots. Well I will keep hunting. I guess I have to keep looking a third party lenses.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, k-mount, lens, mm, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Wide Angle Zoom? JamesD Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 11-07-2009 03:52 PM
Wide-to-medium Tele zoom (DA 16-45mm, DA* 16-50 or DA 17-70mm?) tlwyse Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 07-08-2009 06:36 AM
Good Budget Wide Angle Zoom FckShoes Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 10-10-2008 05:25 AM
Wide & Tele Zoom Lens ugaarguy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 01-26-2007 09:47 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top