[davek]

Don't leave your camera on a shelf with your new 50-135/2.8 lens on it.

Spent the past weekend canoeing in Algonguin park(Ontario, Canada).
Friday: rain on the way in.
Saturday: paddling around the lake with the camera and lens in the open bag before me. My brother-in-law has some pictures of me kneeling in the river with the camera to get shots of kids swimming. Had a great time.

Got back home Sunday afternoon. Downloaded images, nothing great. Set camera on 5 foot shelf in bedroom. 5am. Crash. Cat runs. The 50-135 lens now has a queer bend to it, and wobbles in all directions.

Insurance company says 'covered' (whew). Glad I paid the extra for the rider.

Because my Sigma APO 400/5.6 broke a month or so earlier, I'm going to submit a claim for both. From what I've seen, I'll probably limit out at 300mm.

So now I'm debating solutions. I loved the 50-135, but I'm also now looking for something with more reach. For the 2 months I had it, I was working well with the 50-135 on the 10D, the 21ltd on the DS and the FA28/2.8 in the bag.

1. DA50-135 & Sigma 100-300/4 would be a nice combo, but out of my price range.
2. DA50-135 & DA 55-300 is in my price range, but that's a signficant overlap in the shorter end.
3. Tamron/Sigma 70-200/2.8 and use my 1.7x is a possibility, but I'd lose weather sealing.

Any recomendations/ am I missing anything?

[Venturi]

OUCH! Hopefully the cat didn't lose too many of its 9 lives in the aftermath.

Well, you could always get a complete seamless range with
DA*50-135 + K 135-600 f/6.7

Seriously though, I'm sort of in the same boat (albiet sans busted glass to replace). 50-135 and/or 12-24 are next up on my roadmap and then I'm a bit stumped myself what to do about to flesh things out from 135mm to 300mm.
I'm not in a hurry (anymore) and I've got the DA 18-250 and a Tam 75-300 to keep the long glass LBA at bay, but eventually I'm going to want constant aperture zoom or maybe 200/300 primes. Whichever way I go I know it ain't gonna be inexpensive, so I'm taking my time and really trying to think it all through.

[MShawn63]

I have 3 cats which is why my cameras stay in the bag on the floor closed when not in use. I can't count the number of times my old Kodak bellows cameras have been bounced off the shelf.

For range I went this direction

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (looking to replace it with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8)
Pentax 50-135 f/28
Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6

I only have a little overlap in the short end.

[Canada_Rockies]

For what it's worth, I find that primes are still much better long lenses. In the range up to 200mm or so, zooms can produce very nice images, but I have yet to find a long zoom (and I include the Bigma in the group) that has the contrast and image quality of my old M 400/5.6.

I have not seen the results from the FA* 250-600 f/5.6, mind you, not to mention that my whole camera kit is worth about the same as that one lens, and weighs less. That is one impressive hunk of glass, all 5.4 kg of it. That's 11.9 pounds, folks.

It might be worth waiting for the Sigma 120-400. It's one of the very, very few long zooms that managed 4 stars from Chasseur d'Images*. The Canon 100-400 did not make the cut in the recent issue.

* Chasseur d'Images rates equipment on a 1 to 5 star scale, 5 being excellent and 1 being, uh, not good. Only 4/5 star lenses get the "approved" badge on their tests.

[davek]

I'm not in a hurry (anymore) and I've got the DA 18-250 and a Tam 75-300 to keep the long glass LBA at bay, but eventually I'm going to want constant aperture zoom or maybe 200/300 primes. Whichever way I go I know it ain't gonna be inexpensive, so I'm taking my time and really trying to think it all through.

Thanks for that Venturi. I can see the wisdom of sitting back and take my time on this, then I won't end up with something that I'm looking to upgrade from (like I've done before)...

I have 3 cats which is why my cameras stay in the bag on the floor closed when not in use. I can't count the number of times my old Kodak bellows cameras have been bounced off the shelf.

For range I went this direction

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (looking to replace it with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8)
Pentax 50-135 f/28
Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6

I only have a little overlap in the short end.

For what it's worth, I find that primes are still much better long lenses. In the range up to 200mm or so, zooms can produce very nice images, but I have yet to find a long zoom (and I include the Bigma in the group) that has the contrast and image quality of my old M 400/5.6.

I have not seen the results from the FA* 250-600 f/5.6, mind you, not to mention that my whole camera kit is worth about the same as that one lens, and weighs less. That is one impressive hunk of glass, all 5.4 kg of it. That's 11.9 pounds, folks.

It might be worth waiting for the Sigma 120-400. It's one of the very, very few long zooms that managed 4 stars from Chasseur d'Images*. The Canon 100-400 did not make the cut in the recent issue.

* Chasseur d'Images rates equipment on a 1 to 5 star scale, 5 being excellent and 1 being, uh, not good. Only 4/5 star lenses get the "approved" badge on their tests.

Mshawn & Rockies.... As Venturi has mentioned, patience might be my best bet here, save some more, and as you suggest look toward the 120-400. Thanks for the feedback.

[Canada_Rockies]

I just got my weekly email from PopPhoto, and it appears the new Sigma 150-500 has resolved many of the issues I had with the 170-500. I still don't like the variable aperture, but the price is right.