Doug, you could look at the 70-200 MM F2.8 Simga HSM II Lens. I bought one and like it so far. With a 1.4 convert, it will become a 120 mm to 300 mm F4.0. Not as pricey as the 50-250 Pentax unit. I do not have the 50-250 lens but there is one thing I do not like. That is the way the lens opens up. long barrel comes out from main part. I could be wrong. I know Paul has one, ask him about that.To me that might and will get in the way when I shoot sports in a location where there are other photographers trying to get the same shot..I would rather have an internal focus lens..Joe P.S. here are a couple of shot taken with the Simga just after I received it.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9262999 http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9401091 http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9262974 ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[email protected]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 9:51:17 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: I've got a hole in me arsenal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Brewer" Subject: I've got a hole in me arsenal > so I'm looking at either the DA Star 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM or the DA > Star 60-250mm F4 ED (IF) SDM and the prices are way different, 500 > smackers worth at B&H. Is the 60-250 really that much better, and keep in > mind that linear thought and I rarely collide. > > For the difference, I could also get the 21Ltd and a grip for the K-7. > > What to do, what to do? Doug, I didn't have to make the decisions you made, as I already have the 21mm. I haven't handled the 50-135 all that much. I had a pre production unit on loan from Pentax Canada (via my pusher) for a while sometime before the lens was officially released to the world, and that is my only experience with it. I thought it was an excellent lens, but also a lens that shared the same problem that I think 80-200mm lenses have on the 135 format, which is that they just don't have enough reach for my taste. I have an 80-200/2.8 lens which is just about the perfect telephoto zoom on the cropped sensor camera, but for the size, a little more reach would be nice. This was why I was so impatient about the 60-250. The 60-250, I am sure you have handled one, is a pretty chunky lens. Much bigger, IIRC than the 50-135. As far as optical quality is concerned, I doubt that there is a great deal of difference between the 50-135 and the 60-250. Both are fine optics. I wanted the extra reach, so I chose to wait for the 60-250. No regrets, it's a terrific optic. I guess, think back to your film days, did you find that often the 80-200 range of zooms was to be too short to float your boat? If so, then the 60-250 is the answer, no doubt about it. It has plenty of reach. Having said this, I couldn't live without the vertical grip now for what I shoot. I've been doing a fair number of model shoots, and in this type of photography the vertical camera orientation is what I use almost all the time. The grip rules. However, if you spend most of your time shooting landscapes off a tripod, there is no pressing reason to get the grip, so it comes down to the 21mm lens. Do you favour wide angle shots or long telephoto shots more? Does your photography style allow for stiched images? If so, then you can use a longer lens most of the time to emulate the 21. I suspect that for most people, the 50-135 coupled with the DA21 will probably be the more useful lens combination.. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
