Da* lenses

I wouldn't think you'd need to have them all. Obviously it depends on your shooting style:

*55

Suprised noboby wants this one! I very much like this lens and find it a good companion to a wide prime (or the GR)

1) 16-50, 50-135 and 300, or
2) 16-50, 60-250

I don't think you need both the 300 and 60-250. The 50-135 is the perfect companion to the 16-50. They make a nice travel set.

The 16-50 is much maligned, but I find it superb. The rendering is particularly good. I don't feel I'm compromising anything on IQ if I use it in preference to a prime. It is quite expensive and I think people expect it to be perfect for the money. But like (m)any lenses it is weaker at the extremes. The 18-135 can give it a good run for the money at wider angles and f5.6-f8, but I find the 16-50 is better over a wider range.

Sums up my position on the matter almost precisely ( ...I'd want to add in the DA12-24:roll

How does the 50-135mm stack up in reviews? Are similar things said, or is there a really impressive set of comments?

The 16-50mm being weak at the edges at open aperture might or might not be a weakness. It might make a very nice portrait lens at 50mm for exactly that reason. When stopped down it might have amazing performance. Lenses can be designed like that, and it's the one thing that is very rarely brought out in reviews.

I don't have one, I do have the 16-45mm f/4, so I can't comment beyond that, but users seem to rate it very highly.

My impression, bolstered by a quick look over some reviews, is that the 50-135 has had a much more positive press. It isn't without the compromises that any lens design has to grapple with -- eg it's criticized for being a little soft wide open at 135mm -- but overall it's a 'thumbs up' from its reviewers. Your point about a designer's intentions for a lens is valid and may well explain what the reviewers have identified as weaknesses in the 16-50. It's hard to know for sure.

If you read the reviews you might think that the 16-50 is "unusable" wide open at 16mm. I shot this just messing about. I'm not saying it shows off what the lens is capable of, or that this picture is going win any awards. Obviously most of the picture is deliberately out of focus, but I kind of like the toy lens, tilt shift feel it's created.

DA* 16-50mm, 16mm, f2.8, ISO1600



Who would shoot a landscape, wide-open, handheld at ISO1600? Sometimes I think there are too many "rules" of photography....

"Reviews" said the same about the 'edge softness' of teh Sigma 30/1.4 wide open. Reviewers who obviously had no idea of the intended design, which wasn't to shoot images that were raxpr sharp right across the frame. You certainly don't need maximum resolution for bokeh anyway


I would. I really like your image. It's got depth and character. Something many f8-f16 sharp eight across the frame, maximum DOF, landscapes lack.


What Rules?

After a couple of forum members have bought the 50-135mm this last month and seen the results I have started to think this maybe my first DA* lens I buy, anyone compared it to the Sigma 50-150mm or own/owned both.

More importantly how do they compare for handling ie size, weight and AF speed.

Apart from the 50-135mm and 300mm the rest of the range of DA* range doesn't really interest me as I have the rest covered by my cheaper lenses and as I tend to shoot 90% Jpegs I doubt I would be able to tell the difference.

Thanks Smeg.

In answer to the OP's question on "if money no object" would I have all the DA* lenses? Well if I had a very large wad of money just for lenses, then the answer would be yes. I have just two (50-135 and 300) so I would spend the great wad of money for the others, as well as all the Limiteds I currently don't have, and the 1.4x converter, the 100 macro and the 560mm.

The 16-50mm controversy will rage on forever I think. Myself I thought it was a wonderful piece of glass and shot some of my best work with it too.

I for got this one, I use mine mostly for gigs.

There's been little mention of the 60-250 f4 here. How do people rate it or isn't it a lens you would consider for whatever reason you might have.

I've started thinking about it to replace my Sigma 70-300 which is disappointing. It's slow to focus & IQ, particularly at the long end, pretty ordinary. The downside to the 60-250 is the weight & the price......

The 60-250 is highly regarded as a lens, I nearly went for one instead of the 300mm, However I went for the 300mm for the extra reach and I already have the 55-300 for zooming. Still, one day I will get the 60-250 to replace the 55-300 for speed.

Indeed. If I was starting from scratch and had a reasonably unlimited budget I would instead get the 50-135, the 300 and the 1.4x converter for an integrated range of lenses at the longer end. Plus the 55-300 for a light carry around alternative.

At the moment I don't have any of those .... except the 55-300.