All Forum Comments
Comment by long_green_ears posted on Advice on upcoming lens purchase at 09/09/2009 - 13:59
MattMatic wrote:
Another vote for the SMC-DA*50-135. Unbelievable lens - couldn't do without it now!
It's wonderful for flowers and landscapes. Close focus distance isn't that close (but closer than some in that zoom range), so you won't get macro shots without extension tubes (which have to be used in manual focus mode BTW), or close-up filters.
Another bonus is that it's weather sealed Have taken shots in the absolutely pouring rain and loved it!
Matt
Hey Matt, thanks for your reply. I dont think that weather sealing is that important to me (although I may regret it later), right now I think my focus is on whether it serves my purpose. Obviously freebies such as weather-sealing would be more than welcome! Another vote for the SMC-DA*50-135. Unbelievable lens - couldn't do without it now!
It's wonderful for flowers and landscapes. Close focus distance isn't that close (but closer than some in that zoom range), so you won't get macro shots without extension tubes (which have to be used in manual focus mode BTW), or close-up filters.
Another bonus is that it's weather sealed Have taken shots in the absolutely pouring rain and loved it!
Matt
I had a look at your gallery, let me say you have some really nice pics there! I can see why you would say that the 50-135 is close-focussing-challenged (granted it was not intended to be a macro lens). Have you had any experience with the Raynox DCR250? Any idea how it would work in conjunction with the 50-135?
Comment by long_green_ears posted on Advice on upcoming lens purchase at 09/09/2009 - 13:58
nathanever82 wrote:
He said that he'll buy the tamron 90mm macro sometimes soon though
Thanks for noticing He said that he'll buy the tamron 90mm macro sometimes soon though
Comment by long_green_ears posted on Advice on upcoming lens purchase at 09/09/2009 - 13:53
Anvh wrote:
Bought the DA*50-135 for the same reason Nathan did over the 70-200.
The lens has not let me down so far, even shot some motorsport with it.
The lenses was a bit too short for that though but in the studio for portrait the lens is completely in his element.
For a walk about lens I would keep the sigma 70-300 for that, it's much lighter then the F/2.8 zoom lenses and more range so much more suitable for that job.
The Tamron 90 is a great macro just like all the other current macro lenses, there truly isn't a bad one among them so choose the one that feels the best.
You know Stefan, I'm actually pretty impressed with the results I get with my Sigma 70-300mm, although the performance at the extreme end is pretty poor. Its a great bang-for-buck lens and I'll definitely be keeping it with me! Now if only there was a way to hack the macro switch to workBought the DA*50-135 for the same reason Nathan did over the 70-200.
The lens has not let me down so far, even shot some motorsport with it.
The lenses was a bit too short for that though but in the studio for portrait the lens is completely in his element.
For a walk about lens I would keep the sigma 70-300 for that, it's much lighter then the F/2.8 zoom lenses and more range so much more suitable for that job.
The Tamron 90 is a great macro just like all the other current macro lenses, there truly isn't a bad one among them so choose the one that feels the best.
Comment by long_green_ears posted on Advice on upcoming lens purchase at 09/09/2009 - 13:52
nathanever82 wrote:
Hello,
I was also torn between the Pentax 50-135 and the Tamron 70-200. I didn't look at the Sigma one, because I actually don't like the feel of sigma lenses in general. but this has nothing to do with the quality of the lens.
I ended up buying the pentax, for various reasons, one being that if I ever wanted more reach (beyond 135mm) I could get the DA*200, or the 300. I actually prefer to have Pentax glass because it seems to retain its value a bit more. I bought the 50-135 at the old price (£549 i think) and because of the price rise I can now sell it for the same or almost...
Now, there are a few issues to consider.
Pentax is completely silent and has internal AF - which does go wrong occasionally as reported by threads around this forum. It is though an absolute joy to use. Its light, compact, smooth, and IQ comparable to a good prime lens.
The Sigma (and the Tamron) now seem to focus faster with the K-7 because of the camera's faster af motor, that is not used with the pentax lens. THe 70-200 is quite a bit heavier, but I believe it has a tripod mount (the tamron does) so it can be put on a monopod in a very balanced setup. The IQ seems to be comparable to the one of the Pentax.
For me it came down to focal lenght. I can use the 50-135 for indoor portraiture in my home studio, and in the 6-7 metres of the room where I shoot, I can perfectly fit half body / headshot detail. If I had the 70-200 I would simply struggle in my home studiosetup.
Another great use for my DA* is live music. ANd there too, depending on the size of the venue, if you are under the stage in the press pit the 50-135 is absolutely perfect even for headshots of the performers. If you are much further away, the 200mm of the sigma might help, but only to a certain extent - i.e. there isn't much difference between the 2.
You can also consider that at the telephoto end of things perspective doesn't really change very much, and with the K-7 you can heavily crop details of an image.
THe Pentax is now more expensive than the Sigma (i believe) and that might come in play, if you also have to buy the K-7.
I think that you should make your choice depending on where you shoot the most. If you do outdoor sports then surely the extra reach will benefit. But consider that if you are serious about sports you will surely also need a 300+ mm, and therefore it won't make much difference.
I wrote a lot, hopefully giving you something to think about. I suggest you go to SRS and try both lenses out, and see how they feel. AH on this point. WHen I bought the 50-135 i was only shooting on a K10, and the belance was spot on with the pentax and also the sigma/tamron. Now with the K-7 being smaller, and a tad lighter, I believe that handheld (with no grip) its great with the pentax, but the other 2 (or the 60-250) would be a bit unbalanced if not used on a monopod or with the battery grip.
Kind regards,
Nathan, first off let me thank you (and everyone else) for your kind and constructive inputs.Hello,
I was also torn between the Pentax 50-135 and the Tamron 70-200. I didn't look at the Sigma one, because I actually don't like the feel of sigma lenses in general. but this has nothing to do with the quality of the lens.
I ended up buying the pentax, for various reasons, one being that if I ever wanted more reach (beyond 135mm) I could get the DA*200, or the 300. I actually prefer to have Pentax glass because it seems to retain its value a bit more. I bought the 50-135 at the old price (£549 i think) and because of the price rise I can now sell it for the same or almost...
Now, there are a few issues to consider.
Pentax is completely silent and has internal AF - which does go wrong occasionally as reported by threads around this forum. It is though an absolute joy to use. Its light, compact, smooth, and IQ comparable to a good prime lens.
The Sigma (and the Tamron) now seem to focus faster with the K-7 because of the camera's faster af motor, that is not used with the pentax lens. THe 70-200 is quite a bit heavier, but I believe it has a tripod mount (the tamron does) so it can be put on a monopod in a very balanced setup. The IQ seems to be comparable to the one of the Pentax.
For me it came down to focal lenght. I can use the 50-135 for indoor portraiture in my home studio, and in the 6-7 metres of the room where I shoot, I can perfectly fit half body / headshot detail. If I had the 70-200 I would simply struggle in my home studiosetup.
Another great use for my DA* is live music. ANd there too, depending on the size of the venue, if you are under the stage in the press pit the 50-135 is absolutely perfect even for headshots of the performers. If you are much further away, the 200mm of the sigma might help, but only to a certain extent - i.e. there isn't much difference between the 2.
You can also consider that at the telephoto end of things perspective doesn't really change very much, and with the K-7 you can heavily crop details of an image.
THe Pentax is now more expensive than the Sigma (i believe) and that might come in play, if you also have to buy the K-7.
I think that you should make your choice depending on where you shoot the most. If you do outdoor sports then surely the extra reach will benefit. But consider that if you are serious about sports you will surely also need a 300+ mm, and therefore it won't make much difference.
I wrote a lot, hopefully giving you something to think about. I suggest you go to SRS and try both lenses out, and see how they feel. AH on this point. WHen I bought the 50-135 i was only shooting on a K10, and the belance was spot on with the pentax and also the sigma/tamron. Now with the K-7 being smaller, and a tad lighter, I believe that handheld (with no grip) its great with the pentax, but the other 2 (or the 60-250) would be a bit unbalanced if not used on a monopod or with the battery grip.
Kind regards,
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I wont be doing and sports photography and little portraiture. As I mentioned earlier, my interests lie in landscape, macro and a some walkabout(is that asking too much?I dunno :/ )
You make very pertinent comments regarding the price and weight of both my choices. From my research, the Sigma weighs in at almost 1.4kg! (close to twice the weight of the Pentax). That being said, I have tried out the Sigma on a K10D and it is admittedly a tad heavy and cumbersome, but I guess its something that could be managed with time and a monopod =). The lack of OS on the lens make it less appealing as well considering that it isnt easy to handhold!
As regard price, the Pentax costs almost 300AUD more compared to the Sigma (I'm Down Under ATM) which translates into a lot more accessories (or even a secondhand prime!) When considered together with the price of a K-7 body, I suppose I would want to keep the cost down as far as possible.
BTW could I get everyone's opinion regarding the build quality of the 50-135? The reason I ask this is lately I keep coming across issues regarding QC, focussing problems, SDM malfunctions etc....quite a turn off if you know what I mean. Now I know that every lens manufacturer has their own share of problems, but you'd think that perhaps Pentax might have wanted to put a tad more effort into their PRO line of lenses? I suppose the days of Super Taks are gone...(I still have a M135/3.5 and SMC Super Tak 200mm/F4 still going strong)
@Nathan: One more thing, could you tell me why you considered the Tamron version rather than the Sigma version (apart from the handling issue)? From what I've read on DP review, the Sigma has a more superior AF than the Tamron (which had dismal AF). Additionally, the problems associated with the Sigma @ the extreme tele end were induced by shooting FF.
Now I'm not knocking the 50-135, I've seen what it can achieve and I'm duely impressed to say the least. However I think one of the reasons why I'm leaning towards the Sigma is that it would forseeably be useful in my macro pursuit as well (which I think the Pentax would be hardpressed to fufil), assuming of course that I hadn't acquired the Tamron 90mm.
Comment by long_green_ears posted on Advice on upcoming lens purchase at 09/09/2009 - 13:50
Greetings all! Am currently torn between several purchase options and would appreciate it if guys could give me your 2c thanks =)
My current setup
1)K100D
2)EF500DG Super
3)SMC-P 50mm 1.4
4)Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
5)Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro
I'm looking to purchase a K-7 at year's end (hopefully there'll be some great Xmas deals) and will be looking to acquire a lens with it. I'm currently looking at the following:
1)DA* 50-135mm
2)Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 / II
I currently tend to shoot more landscapes and macro (mostly flowers but others as well). I figure that my 17-50mm will cover most of my landscape needs, and I'm currently quite "into" macro at the moment. The downside, to me, of getting the Sigma would be that I would be uncovered in the 51-69 range. However the extra reach of the Sigma would be somewhat beneficial for macro.
Another consideration I have would be that it should be able to accompany me on "walkabout" shoots, ie also suited to more general purposes as well.
As you have probably observed by now, I'm pretty much torn between the 2 choices. Hopefully one of you knowledgeable fellows out there can help with some constructive advice thanks!
p.s. I'll be getting a Tamron 90mm in the near future (if that bit of info is relevant at all)
My current setup
1)K100D
2)EF500DG Super
3)SMC-P 50mm 1.4
4)Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
5)Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro
I'm looking to purchase a K-7 at year's end (hopefully there'll be some great Xmas deals) and will be looking to acquire a lens with it. I'm currently looking at the following:
1)DA* 50-135mm
2)Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 / II
I currently tend to shoot more landscapes and macro (mostly flowers but others as well). I figure that my 17-50mm will cover most of my landscape needs, and I'm currently quite "into" macro at the moment. The downside, to me, of getting the Sigma would be that I would be uncovered in the 51-69 range. However the extra reach of the Sigma would be somewhat beneficial for macro.
Another consideration I have would be that it should be able to accompany me on "walkabout" shoots, ie also suited to more general purposes as well.
As you have probably observed by now, I'm pretty much torn between the 2 choices. Hopefully one of you knowledgeable fellows out there can help with some constructive advice thanks!
p.s. I'll be getting a Tamron 90mm in the near future (if that bit of info is relevant at all)
Comment by long_green_ears posted on Advice on upcoming lens purchase at 09/09/2009 - 09:53
I'll say the DA*50-135, one of best lenses you could buy.