Is there room for two?
Posted 31/10/2011 - 10:00
Link
Well, from what you're saying there, it comes down to length doesn't it? If the 135mm reach is enough for you in lower light (and obviously you have the prime so probably have some idea) then get the pentax 50-135.
If you think you need to go out to 200mm get the Tamron.
They're both very well regarded lenses, you can't really go wrong with either. Obviously with the pentax you get the benefit of silent focusing and weather sealing, as well as it being a little lighter.
In the end I personally decided to get the sigma 70-200 HSM. I wanted the reach out to 200mm, but I also wanted the silent focus.
If you think you need to go out to 200mm get the Tamron.
They're both very well regarded lenses, you can't really go wrong with either. Obviously with the pentax you get the benefit of silent focusing and weather sealing, as well as it being a little lighter.
In the end I personally decided to get the sigma 70-200 HSM. I wanted the reach out to 200mm, but I also wanted the silent focus.
Posted 31/10/2011 - 10:07
Link
I'd buy one of those I think any combo is a bit pointless as they overlap so much. The 50-135 is a brilliant lens - got one - but you seem to have most of it covered by the 55mm and 90mm lenses of yours.
In your shoes I'd buy the 70-200 . You can always crop a bit the 16mp of your K-5 to get the same field of view of the 55-300 from a pic taken with the 70-200. I'd only get the 55-300 if I was worried about size/weight.
If at a later date you think you absolutely need 300 you can always buy the 55-300 or complement your 70-200 with a DA* 300
In your shoes I'd buy the 70-200 . You can always crop a bit the 16mp of your K-5 to get the same field of view of the 55-300 from a pic taken with the 70-200. I'd only get the 55-300 if I was worried about size/weight.
If at a later date you think you absolutely need 300 you can always buy the 55-300 or complement your 70-200 with a DA* 300
Posted 31/10/2011 - 10:21
Link
I think the 2.8 for low light and dof are high on my list, and as you say I can crop to get the extra reach. It might make the 90 and 135 redundant, although both have lovely qualities.
Thanks for your thoughts guys, I did go to Jessops in Brum and tried a few shots with the 50-135, 55-300 and 200. There wasn't a great deal between them IQ wise with my shots, or hugely different AF speed, although the 50-135 and 200 felt smoother in use.
I need to handle the Tamron,or Sigma equivalent and then make a decision.
Nigel
Thanks for your thoughts guys, I did go to Jessops in Brum and tried a few shots with the 50-135, 55-300 and 200. There wasn't a great deal between them IQ wise with my shots, or hugely different AF speed, although the 50-135 and 200 felt smoother in use.
I need to handle the Tamron,or Sigma equivalent and then make a decision.
Nigel
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
210 posts
15 years
West Mids.
8-16 Sigma
18-55 kit
28 2.8AL
55 1.4
90 Tamron macro
135 2.5 Ashai Pentax
All on a K5
I still haven't scratched the longer lens itch. I want something for indoor school assembly shots, and thought the 135 would be okay, but focus is hard with my eyesight in low light. Also something for wildlife and outdoor action.
So would a Tamron 70-200 2.8 macro and the DA 55-300 be a good and reasonable combination, or would the Pentax 50-135 and 55-300 be better?
Funds aren't limitless and happy to buy secondhand or wait for one or other.
Nigel