16-45 mm or 50-135mm

Where are you Leech?

here

In denmark

Oh,if you were near London,I would have let you test my 55-300.Denmark is a little far.

hehe, nice. Thanks..

Thought I would try to find some pics taken with it on the net.

But thanks, appreciate it

Well in the beginning I just thought that it would be stupid to buy anything less than da* because they're affordable (or something ).

And I wouldn't want to make a half solution. (been doing that a lot in the beginning of my "photo-carreer")

I honestly don't know how well this will show the lens quality, as there seems to be some motion blur or the focus is otherwise not quite right. (camera was on a tripod with 2 second timer for mirror lockup)

Anyway, the 300mm with the Pentax is completely different than with the Tamron. With the lens at 300mm with the Tamron is only 180-200mm on the Pentax. So the Pentax gets much closer to the subject. Again, how do you truly compare the two lenses when they do not even match focal length closely.

Another thing to notice is the Pentax gives a more color accurate image, the Tamron lens is rather yellow.

Anyway, I cropped the images to be about the same size. The images are not 100% pixel, so take it for what its worth...

Tamron @300mm cropped



Pentax @30 cropped



Tamron @300 full image



Pentax @300 full image

yeah, that Tamron is a bit yellowish
but the 55-300mm seems nice.

a thought just struck me, (though a bit expensive)

What about the 50-135 w. a 1.4 or 1.7 extender ?

Yeah, a bit expensive. Got the 50-135 with a 2x tele-converter. I wouldn't say the quality is bad, and perhaps the tele-converter is poor to start, but I think I prefer the 55-300 natively.
Of course, the 55-300 with the 2x converter really brings things in close. Just a tad soft, no auto focus, several stops darker, and there is no way I can hand-hold for photos at 600mm. But the K10D still thinks its a 300mm lens, so shake reduction doesn't do much to help.

Thats why I would go for a 1.4 tele-converter.

Once read that a 2.0 tele-coverter really worsens the optical performance of a lens to the point where it's visible on the photos.

The light will probably be pretty good, so you shouldn't need a particualrly fast lens.

Deppending on how paranoid I was feeling about salt spray and missing shots, I'd either take 18-55 + 55-300 or 18-250.

this is the best result I've ever managed

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/thatguypinchedmyname/web-dolphin.jpg[/IMG]

can't remember the settings, but it was taken with an MZ-7 and Sigma 28-200.

Very nice, and thanks for the pics.

Well today I ordered the da* 50-135mm from SRS.

I thought alot about which lens to choose, and ended up with the the da* mainly because of future use.

So thanks everyone for your sugestions. Hope I'll be posting som great pics from Greenland.

wow, I have just now received my new da* 50-135mm.

Thumbs up to SRS for being so fast, and thus making it possible for a dane to recieve his items under two days after ordering it.

Not even the german-private post-systems can keep up (usually takes 7 work days).

I'm totally shockly amazed

We4ll,Well, we'll do anything to get back a bit of our Danegeld.

G