50-200 or 75-300, to go with 17-70?

So I've heard so much positive about the Sigma 17-70 Macro that I am strongly leaning toward getting this as my default lens and bypassing both the kit lens and the 16-45, not to mention the two mid zooms on the Pentax roadmap. The question then becomes what to buy for a tele zoom. My original plan was to go with the little 50-200 as my longest lens (since I don't intend to seriously go after wildlife or birds or baseball players). But since the 17-70 overlaps substantially with the 50-200, I'm thinking it might be worth going for a 75-300.

So, do you fine gentlefolk know of any 75-300 that delivers bang for the buck comparable to the 50-200? If so, does it weigh far more? I think I saw somewhere that Sigma's 70-300 weighs more than double what the 50-200 does. What about the FAJ 75-300, is it cheap and crappy or is it decent?

I thought about the same thing not too long ago.

I went with the DA 50-200 only because based on reports here, it would be better in low light than the 70-300.

The zoom I need at this point is all indoors in low lighting.

If one of my children starts sports where I need to cover a full soccer field or tennis court (outdoors), I'll probably pick up a 70-300.

I have the 17-70 as my main lense. Yes, there's a little overlap... but not much.

--
Mary
K10d, Sigma 17-70, DA 50-200, Zenitar 16mm FE
Fuji F30, Panny FZ3

IMHO: After considering similar options for telephotos, I selected the Sigma 70-300. The primary consideration was the added range. An additional consideration in selecting it was its additional weight vs some of the "competition" which helps reduce small movement due to increased at-rest inertia (just like in other shooting sports, for example). I'm very alert to reducing pack weight with portaging gear in backcountry situations but thought the added weight would be worthwhile in my case.

Keep shootin'

John

So if you 'need' the extra range, than get the 70-300. I've seen lots of great pics in this range, even at 300mm.

But do consider the following: the DA 50-200 is not much bigger than the kit lense so it's pretty small and compact, not to mention light.

The 300 zooms are normally a bit larger.

Even my main lense (Sigma 17-70) is heavier than my 50-200.

--
Mary
K10d, Sigma 17-70, DA 50-200, Zenitar 16mm FE
Fuji F30, Panny FZ3

I started thinking "If I have 50-200, maybe it'd be simpler to get a 300 prime." Then I checked the prices on those. They cost five or ten times what the zooms go for!

I chose the 17-70 Sigma because it gives a good usable range for walk-around, and the Pentax 50-200 because it had glowing reports, and so did the Sigma. The overlap is an advantage, allowing a little wiggle room and cutting down excessive lens changing. Somehow, a 200mm (i.e. 300mm to a 35mm user) telephoto is the most I can hand hold, even with SR. (Can anyone show me different?)

For a very useful minimum kit this seems to fit. Of course, I'm not a birder or a sports guy. Anything longer is tripod country for those of us who are looking for that really high quality that I pay for in these lenses and camera.

--
Former Pentax owner

Minolta abandoned the market, and Sony hasn't done it well enough yet. Pentax here I come. On K10D order!

I have the Sigma 75-300 DG Macro super which I use for critter shots and air shows. I'm still waiting for my DA 50-200. My opinion is that if want light, go for the DA50-200mm. I only use the Sigma if I want extra reach (usally at around 300mm).
Nols
--
'Ask not what your camera can do for you...' (oh well, you know how this ends)

Well the DA50-200 is the best zoom you can buy for pentax in that range right now.
Besides in the 50-70mm overlap the DA50-200 is a better lens and faster too.

I'm not sure why people worry about overlap or gaps when it comes to lenses. often it may mean taking a few steps forward or back.

--
Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
The Blind Pig
http://www.jeber.com/Members/Justin/Gallery/
Photobucket
http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/justin-23/

paulkienitz said:

Sigma's 70-300 weighs more than double

Click to expand...

I have the Sigma 70-300mm DL, and have tried the APO DG version. At 300mm both are relatively soft especially at wider apertures.

I'm selling the DL that I have because I just bought the Tamron version. It is substantially sharper at the wider apertures at 300mm. I've also seen a lot of results on this forum demonstrating this. It does 1:2 macro, and will macro focus from 180mm-300mm unlike the Sigma that starts at 200mm.

It is comfortably lighter than the Sigma, but still easily substantial enough for stability. In the US, it comes with a 6 year warranty (Sigma is 1?), and is less expensive than the Sigma at $149. Very well built lens.

Larry

paulkienitz said:

My original plan was to go with the little
50-200 as my longest lens (since I don't intend to seriously go
after wildlife or birds or baseball players). But since the 17-70
overlaps substantially with the 50-200, I'm thinking it might be
worth going for a 75-300.

Click to expand...

From information posted on this forum, the Pentax 50-200 and Tamron 70-300 both get excellent reports. You won't be disappointed with either of these. If the extra length isn't a major requirement, then the smaller size and weight of the Pentax 50-200mm is definitely worth considering. From the specs the comparison is:

Tamron 70-300: 435g, 76.6 x 116.5mm
Pentax 50-200: 261g, 63 x 83mm

The extra size and weight difference could mean the 300 gets left at home more often.

The overlap is good - you will probably change lenses less. The 50-200 is not too long to use indoors, but still gives good tele range.

Some people on this forum have both - I'm thinking about that myself.

--
John

I currently use the Sigma 17-70 and the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro.

The Sigma 70-300 DG APO lens is the most bang for your buck. Images taken between the focal lengths of 70-200 are excellent and comparable to the DA 50-200 I think the sweet spot is around the 100-130 focal length. This lens is softer on the long end when compared to the Tamron 70-300 Di but with less CA. If it's stopped down when using the focal lengths from 200-300 then it's fine.

Basically the Sigma 70-300 DG APO and the Tamron 70-300 Di are probably the most bang for your buck in this focal range. I believe the Tamron will be a little bit cheaper too.
--
see my gallery - http://www.jmeelo.com

----