Need advice re long telephoto lenses

Hi,

I would like to get some advice from the long tele enthusiasts please........  I'm planning to try some bird and wildlife shots to add to my nature photography interests.  (Most of my experience is landscape, travel and macro).  I've nothing longer than a 100mm macro at the moment.  I've previously owned 50-150s and 70-200s and know they're nowhere near long enough.

I've done some research of the lenses available.  I can't afford super teles at all and I hate the mirror-tele look.

• The Pentax 55-300 is the cheap option, but 300mm is its poorest performing FL. 
• I might be able to afford a used FA or DA 300mm at around $800-1100.  They seem to have excellent reports. They're only 300mm, but are AF, and both have excellent IQ.
  
• The older MF Pentax M and A 400mm's come up reasonably regularly in ebay, where a good A400 might be $600. MF is a bit slow.  Although they're sharp, PF is reported to be an issue. 
• The Sigma EX 100-300/4 appears to be excellent, but that's still only 300mm.  They're discontinued and used ones are very rare.
• The last Sigma APO 400/5.6 is reported to be outstanding, but they're also discontinued and again, used ones are very rare. 

What would you recommend to a photographer needing a long tele from scratch?  Buy the DA or FA300?  And then either crop or use teleconverters?  Or buy an old Pentax A 400mm for the extra reach?  Is that extra reach worth the loss of AF and any more PF correction needed?

What are the better third party teleconverters for AF? And for MF - I'm guessing Pentax's A series converters are as good as any?   And do any of you know if the Pentax AF 1.7 teleconverter will work effectively on long f4 - 5.6 lenses?

Any comments appreciated.

Thanks, Rod

I recommend that you wait until CP+ (starts Thursday) to see if the long awaited Pentax 1.4X SDM compatible teleconverter becomes available. Then, if it does become available, to see how well it works with the DA*300/4 lens. If it does not become available then come back into the forum and ask your question again.

Cheers.

Ron

--
Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'
'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx

There may be variety in the quality control of the lenses, and I may just have a good copy, but I've been very pleased with my DAL 55-300. As long as there is plenty of light, my pics at 300mm are very sharp with great contrast. I have had excellent results with sports photography using this lens as well as with distant landscape features.

It's a bit more than you've indicated you're want to spend, but WAY longer in focal length, and the person who convinced me to buy the following lens is the same one who just suggested you perhaps wait to see if Pentax comes out with a 1.4 TC and pair that with the DA* 300mm F4, which will make it almost as slow of a lens at 420mm as the lens I'm about to reccomend is at 500mm (750 effective)... That lens, is, of course, the Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3, aka the Bigma...

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50-500mm-4-5-6-3-Telephoto-Pentax/dp/B003A6H2JS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359429854&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma+50-500+pentax

It's almost $100 less than it was when I bought mine a little more than a year ago. This lens is a bit heavy, but no beast, and it comes with its own well-padded case with a carry strap, so you don't have to put it in your main bag, if you don't have the room. Pretty decent lens, although you need fairly good light. But then the 300 with a 1.4 TC is going to be effectively a F 5.6 lens (or thereabouts), which is only half a stop faster than 6.3, and still 80 mm (120 effective) smaller. And I'm guessing that if you buy a DA* 300 new, plus the TC, you'll spend very close to as much as what the Bigma costs. Also, if you go to Sigma's website and look at their video for this lens, they say this is in their "pro" line of lenses and it therefore comes with a 3-year warranty -- not the paltry ONE year we get with ALL the Pentax lenses!

As for the 55-300, for the $$$ you can't beat it. I have one, and it's a great lens to have for when you want to go for a walk with just one lens and have a decent telephoto range and get at least decent quality pictures. Only at full crop will you see much difference between it and the DA* 300.

Apologies for all the bolding in the last part of the paragraph above. I tried to bold just the word "great," and the BOLD stuck on me... Couldn't get it to UNDO.

At any rate, the Bigma is your other best option. I have all three of those lenses... 55-300, DA* 300 and Bigma. Lately I've used the DA* 300 the most, but that's primarily because my gimbal head on my big tripod is set up for it, so I'm keeping it mounted on that.

Ron, what was that mount I should get for the Bigma, again? You told me when I bought the Gimbal head, but I forgot. I need to get it so I can use that. When the camera is mounted with that lens on that head, the balance is PERFECT! I can hope only that I can get the Bigma to balance that well, as my prior attempts with the Bigma on a tripod have been somewhat less than spectacular.

Jeff

--
A word is worth 1/1000th of a picture... Maybe that's why I use so many words!

Hi Jeff,

I am not sure I remember what you are talking about. However, I use the RainbowImaging 100MM LP-100 Lens Plate Quick Release Arca Swiss with my Bigma on my Wimgerly Gimbal. I suppose the 115MM LP-115 Lens Plate Quick Release Arca Swiss would also work quite well.

To get perfect balance with an IF lens on my gimbal I can adjust forward or back, and up or down. You need to adjust the up/down so that the rotation point is through the horizontal center of the lens. With the Bigma or any lens that changes length with focal length settings or focus settings, I usually try to adjust the point on the gimbal at near where I will probably be using it the most. So, for the Bigma I set the lens to 500mm when I make my adjustments.

I'm sorry if what I have written is not what you asked for.

Cheers.

Ron

--
Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'
'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx

Jeff,

The only other thing I can think of that I sometimes use with my Bigma as well as my 300 and 400mm lenses is The Acratech GV2 Ballhead is uniquely designed to function both as a ballhead and as a Gimbal head. When in the Gimbal position the lens stays where you point it, no tightening of the ball is necessary.

Cheers.

Ron

--
Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'
'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx

I have not tried this combination so maybe others can vouch for it's usefulness, but the Tamron 70-200+2xTC would offer a 600mm eqiv and keeps AF @F5.6. How much IQ would degrade of course depends on the TC. My next lens will likely be the tammy and I may just get this combo if there is a good TC to pair it with.

Of all those I prefer the Sigma 100-300/4. More versatile than a 300mm prime and hardly any drop in IQ (actually scores better at 300mm than many primes). And with a good 1.4x TC on it still produces very good IQ. Street price if you can find one is around $700-$800. Finding one in Pentax mount is the main issue. Think of it as a longer 60-250/4 with the same IQ but no weather-sealing.

Kent Gittings

I have compared the Sigma 70-200/2.8 + 2x vs the Sigma 100-300/4 + 1.4x. I prefer the later. With the crop it becomes a 210-630/5.6 (224-672/5.6 on Canon). While both lenses are best without TCs at F5.6 the 100-300 is better wide open at F4 than the 70-200 is at either F2.8 or F4. That is comparing the two from the same era, meaning the 70-200 is the better pre-macro version of the lens and the 100-300 is either the pre-DG or DG version of the lens. The latest Tamron 70-200/2.8 is slightly better IQ wise than even the older Sigma 70-200. Still putting a 2x TC on a lens causes more IQ degradation than putting a 1.4x TC on a lens. I used nothing but F2.8 pro lenses in my later film days and carried both a 1.4x and a 2x TC. In a 15 year stretch I used the 2x less than 6 times while the 1.4x got used quite a bit. Right now I own a 1.4x in each of my systems but won't buy a 2x (maybe a Canon EF 2x II or III as they are the best TCs around).
But you have to go with the lenses you can acquire and a Sigma 100-300/4 in Pentax is not as easy to come up with.

Kent Gittings

The Sigma APO is cheap, I got mine a short while ago for 300 bucks. It's a decent performer. In high contrast scenes (=white birds) it suffers from some PF and significant haloing of the whites. It's sharp though, and some careful post-processing will give you goodresults. It works well with the Sigma TCs (at least the 2x which i have, so the 1.4x should be better). Mine is just the APO version, with 72mm filter thread. Reportedly, the AF apo tele macro is quite a bit better. But i couldn't get my hands on one...   On my APO, the MF ring is very light, which makes hand-holding even easier. It's also very sharp wide open, and only gets a little bit sharper stopped down. PF goes away at f/11. Here are some of my threads.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50463062

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50469938

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50474658

Having said all that, i think the DA* 300 is a better choice if you can spring for it. Ron will tell you what TC to use with it, if he hasn't already. It will focus much closer too, the APO 400 has an MFD of 4 meters. But can you get closer to the birds?

Also consider the Bigma 50-500.

At the very least, the APO will let you know if you want to spend the bucks for a better (=1300$) or much better (>5000$) lens... You can always sell it again at negligible cost.

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Pentaxian with chronic LBA
Corfu, Greece

A Pentax Q with the K adapter? That is a 5.5x magnification from there.

--
It's not about the tool, its how you use it

My Q is in the mail! 

But you'll need a good fast lens, because diffraction is already lurking at f/2.8, obvious at f/4, and a killer at f/5.6... (Correct me if i'm wrong, i haven't tried it for myself yet).

That said, i've seen better pictures of the moon with the Q+DA*300, than mine are with the K5+Sigma APO 400 f/5.6 and Sigma 2x TC

Here is mine, for the record.

800mm

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Pentaxian with chronic LBA
Corfu, Greece

Call B&H in New York and ask if they will do a better price on the Sigma 50-500 for Pentax Mount and you may get it a few $100 cheaper than listed online.

--
-
Gear Listed in "About Me"

A 50-500mm is not quite as long as is claimed. The Bigma is an internal-focus lens, therefore gradually loses focal length at subject distances below infinity. Here are some numbers that one reviewer came up with:

At infinity ~ 485mm

• At 25m ~ 465mm
• At 7m ~ 435mm
• At 2.5m ~ 385mm

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/sigma_50-500_os_hsm_review2.html

The difference between a 300mm f4 prime and 1.4X TC is 1/2 stop, f6.3 vs. 5.6, which matters to me. What I find is that I sometimes don't even have enough light for decent shutter speeds at f5.6, in the woods, or in twilight. The advantage with my 300mm primes is that I can remove the TC and I have a 300mm f4 lens again. OTOH, the Bigma is still f6.3 at 300mm, 1-1/2 stops behind. This versatility (longer & slower vs. shorter & faster) is something I need for my particular shooting conditions.

--
Dan

if you enquire on the pentax user uk site there are people on there who swear by the DA 300mm plus pentax 1.7 converter, reckon an awsome combination. might afford it myself one day and in uk we get 2yrs warranty from pentax pro dealers i believe

--
Arijit

Some time ago I posted similar answer in PF forum Birding group. Not messing with crippled PF links there is direct copy-paste version below. Please note that some of my points are already discussed somewhere above.

Here you go:

First of all let's agree on one thing: a prime lens is always better than zoom. I wouldn't talk about zooms here. Someone may comment on it.
I also won't talk about good quality MF lenses paired with Pentax 1.7x AFA converter. Despite the fact that AFA is exceptional tool, it won't give you shot to shotAF stability and action style shooting speed. Sooner or later you'll be thinking about upgrading to regular AF lens. There are too many limitation in a crippled AFAFA offerings.
In 300mm range there are a few options. The best IQ is considered to be delivered by DA*300/4. However, it is SDM lens (a bit slower AF maybe, and possibleSDM failures with older versions at least) and it doesn't work well with existing teleconverters (Note: Pentax may deliver SDM compatible TC this year).
F* or FA* 300/4.5 are also exceptional lenses. They are both light, fast enough, great with TCs (instant upgrade to 420/6.3), and are very capable to deliver outstanding image quality.
There are a few 300/2.8 lenses available (Pentax and Sigma). Both are great, but expensive, bulky and heavy. My opinion here is. If someone is OK with spending $3K-$4K on 300/2.8, Sigma 500/4.5 is always a better choice.
Among many birders 400mm is considered as an optimal FL. It's OK for small birds and a bit long, but still useable for large ones. It depends on the average weather conditions how fast the lens do you need. However, for the Pentax users there are only two good AF lens choices: very expensive (and not as sharp as 300mm sibling) FA*400/5.6 and very rare, but unbelievably great old Sigma 400/5.6 TeleMacro (77mm filter size only). They both are a bit slow but compact and lightweight.
Then there is Sigma 500/4.5. It is amazing lens, but the price tag is $5K. The new Pentax 560/5.6 is even more expensive, and it is still unknown how good/bad is it.
I never saw FA*600 in my life. So, let me stop here.
Good luck,

SG

Addition thoughts from my today perspective:

Before owing Sigma 500/4.5 I was using exclusively FA*300/4.5 standalone or with the best selected 1.4x TC. This choice used to give me more flexibility over slightly sharper DA*300/4 and I chose FA* over DA* deliberately for more freedom of TC use.

Now when I have the 500/4.5 I may swap my FA*300 for DA*300 to get better sharpness at shorter end.

Hi Rod

I can only comment on the following Pentax MF lenses;

K300mm f4 - cheap, not bad but prone to CA/PF in high contrast situations

A*300mm f4 - superb. I paid just under £400 for mine. I do hear the F*300 f4.5 is a little better and you get AF, but it costs more.

M-400mm f5.6 - I haven't had any problems with CA or PF on mine. Cost me £250.

If I had the money I'd get the DA*300.

Cheers,

Rod

--
All I want is a digital back for my trusty K1000 . . .

I have an A*300 f4 and a DA*300. There are times when AF helps, e.g. flitting chickadees, BIF, sports. I would not be happy at all with a long tele that requires manual exposure. Exposure can change by as much as 5-6 Ev for a tree branch framed against the sky vs. in the woods. The extra steps of MF plus the Green button make a manual lens too slow for my uses.

I have noticed a lot of fringing in M and A 400mm photos compared to the A*300. The DA*300 shows the least fringing by far, especially when you add a TC. The other reason I prefer the DA* to the A* is the 1:4 magnification. I like to shoot flowers, dragonflies and butterflies with a tele, and the DA*'s closeup ability facilitates this use. Magnification was a deciding factor in getting the DA*300mm vs the 60-250. I value magnification more than I value zoom.

Mostly I value pixel level sharpness, which is why I returned the Sigma 150-500 and why the A*300mm has pretty much displaced my 55-300mm.

--
Dan

Nice moon shot! The last time I've taken something as close to that is when I had a bridge superzoom

--
It's not about the tool, its how you use it