[Wulifou]

some times pros are discussing things mortals can't see and it is not important to them.

Wachix,

I'm by no ways whatever a pro, and a couple of weeks ago, I would have fully agreed with your statement. I yawned over discussions about edge-corner-pixel-isolated-sharpness. But then a friend of mine (much more experienced photographer) showed me some real-life examples between several lenses. And since then, well, I'm looking differently at pictures. I think that considering the price of such lenses as the Sigma/Tamron 70-200 or DA* 50-135, one should be very demanding. You will probably keep the lense quite a long time and take thousands of pictures with it. Changes are high that your way of judging a picture will become much more demanding and accurate over time, so even if for now the differences between the lenses are not obvious, they might become one day.

[Wulifou]

And by the way, vroom, congrats for your new lense I hope you'll enjoy it a long time

[vroom_skies]

I'm also considering the Sigma over the Pentax 50-135.

I have read tho on FF/BF issues and very soft at the 200mm end from 2 separate reports, whereas the Pentax is quickly gaining legend status.

The Sigma also does not have Weather Sealing and is significantly larger nor has the specialist lens coatings (oils,dust etc).

Anyone here with real world use of both these lenses for comparison?

Here in SA they are basically the same price.

Yeah, I know what you mean. For the record I wouldn't be scared to take this lens out in bad weather. I've taken the kit lens out in heavy rain and it was fine, so I have no doubt this lens would do great. However it would be nice to know that you have a fully sealed kit with the DA*.

Vroom,

I have same issues as you. Sigma seems to be fine, but all reviews and forums say that it has worst IQ (not bad at all, but in comparison with other same class glass), especially at 200.

What do your experiments show? Where are a lot of samples done by pros, and all seems to be almost perfect. But in reality that's not the case, because a lot depends on photographers skills. So if real person makes photos the result is much closer to the result I'will get.

Could you publish few photos on internet? It would be big help. Because, some times pros are discussing things mortals can't see and it is not important to them.

Yeah, I had a very hard time with this decision since I couldn't really find any solid reviews and photos to compare. In all honestly I think all three of these lenses are above me. They should all be able to reproduce great results and frankly I'm not a pixel peeper, so I'm content with the performance so far. It would be nice to get to use the DA* at some point (which I'm sure will happen). I wish the Pentax was 50-150 in stead of 135, it may not seem like that much but it would have been a much easier decision for me if it was lol. It's just that 135-200 seems like a large gap and I'm not keen on cropping my photos to get the shot I might have been able to get otherwise, even if it is a little bit softer.

Wachix,

I'm by no ways whatever a pro, and a couple of weeks ago, I would have fully agreed with your statement. I yawned over discussions about edge-corner-pixel-isolated-sharpness. But then a friend of mine (much more experienced photographer) showed me some real-life examples between several lenses. And since then, well, I'm looking differently at pictures. I think that considering the price of such lenses as the Sigma/Tamron 70-200 or DA* 50-135, one should be very demanding. You will probably keep the lens quite a long time and take thousands of pictures with it. Changes are high that your way of judging a picture will become much more demanding and accurate over time, so even if for now the differences between the lenses are not obvious, they might become one day.

That is sort of the way that I see it. The Sigma offered me the most at this point in my photography journey and when I have the money to throw down for a specific type of lens I'll do it then. Such as get the DA* 50-135, DA* 300 & a true macro lens. As of right now the Sigma covers all those bases, granted in a jack of all trades form, but it does. I really think that's the main reason why I got the Sigma over the DA*, sure the DA* had the weather seals, name, etc, but there were just some things it couldn't do. Such as the reach, which I find my self using quite often.

And by the way, vroom, congrats for your new lens I hope you'll enjoy it a long time

Why thank you. I hope to as well.

Here are some test shots. I apologize for already processing them and the small size. However the processing was fairly light & I hope they give you a general indication. If you want me to take any specific shots just ask and I'll do the best I can. All EXIF data is intact if you wanted to check it out.









Hope that helps
Bob