75-150mm and 50-135mm

<p>Given I have the 75-150mm Series E, would purchasing the 50-135mm f3.5 be too redundant ? I ask because I see it in plenty of John Shaw's books, and it seems to be an old lens that works well with Nikon DSLRs. I don't know if the same holds for the Series E. With a DX body, the 50-135mm becomes a 75-200mm field of view. Not a bad range to have.<br>

If anyone has used both, how different is the picture quality ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I suggest finding a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, equal to 75-225. I've been using it with a D70s and find it to be an excellent lens. Between that and a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC, the long standing pro f/2.8 range of 24 through 200 is covered for a Dx sensor (25.5-75 and 75-225).</p>

<p>I own both lenses, but I can't offer advice. I got the 75-150 first and it takes up so little space in my camera bag that I've never given the 50-135 a fair shot. I <em>will </em>do a head-to-head comparison some day, but I'm in no hurry.</p>

<p>I took these with the 75-150 using a 4T close up lens, D200:<br /> <img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/128853737/large.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/128853738/large.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br />So yes, I'd say the lens you already own works fine on a dSLR.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have owned both for some time, used them on D200-D300. Both are very good lenses, close to primes for optical quality. But both are difficult to use due to MF, at least for me. The 50-153 is better built, but it's heavier and somewhat front-heavy. The 75-150 was the one which came with me on mountain trip, so I finally kept it and sold the 50-135. The humble Series E also survived a couple of 80-200 2.8 in my bag, as they were really big and heavy and had close to no advantage in image quality. ALso, AF was unreliable at close focus and 200 mm on my bodies. The current challenger is the new tamron 70-300 VC, which is almost as compact, with great performance and much more FL. Image stabilization is great, AF is dependable and image quality seems great also. Time will tell, but I can't see me parting from my 75-150.<br>

Have fun,<br>

Marco</p>

 

<p>Both are great lenses and I own both.<br>

Redundant? Yes of course. But prices are low and IQ is excellent even by todays standard - so why not get both :-)<br>

Both lenses typically show a very easy moving zoom mechanism. Can be a problem when pointing the lens down hands off on a tripod.<br>

Would I sell one of them? Given the low price only to a good friend.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have had both. I kept the 75-150mm because it is lighter and smaller. The long end is more important to me than the 50-75mm range. I don't use the 75-150mm much but it works well.</p>

<p>I have the 50-135mm AIS lens and am continuously amazed at its image quality. I use it on my D700. Very sharp lens with beautiful color rendition. Only concern of course is that it is manual focus and my eyes are 55 years old now, so I am lusting after something in AF. And, of course, those AF lenses are 10X the price of the old 50-135mm. Check out Bjorn's site to see what he has to say about the 50-135mm.</p>