Answers on a postcard please??

My wife and I are visiting Trinidad & Tobago next year and will be doing a number of birding trips. Currently have DA18-250 and FAJ75-300 lenses but tempted to look for something better for a trip like this where one is likely to encounter shy birdlife in sometimes relatively low light.

Current thinking:

Sigma 100-300mm F4 EX DG IF - £809 (SRS)

- F4 throughout range but not SDM/HSM

Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS HSM - £599 (SRS)

Sigma 150-500mm F5.6-6.3 APO DG HSM - £699 (SRS)

- might this be a bit “slow” in jungle conditions?

Pentax smc DA* 300mm f4.0 ED(IF) SDM - £909 (SRS)


Am thinking quietness of SDM/HSM would be an advantage in shooting birds?

The longer zooms get one closer and are cheaper, but f4.0 looks attractive in lower light jungle conditions.

Would welcome your thoughts....

Given that the light in Trinidad is pretty good, the big Sigmas should be in their element but one thought on the 150-500, for an extra £50 you could get the optically stabilised version which allegedly is better than the Pentax system (4 stops against three). I would check that out.

Got it right first time ... also works very well with the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter. Fast focus as well.

They only had one left when I visited a few days ago. And that's the last one ever.

I can't speak for Trinidad but I do travel to the more remote areas of Jamaica from time to time and there are a couple of other factors you may want to consider if you are not part of an organised photo trip. The Pentax is a smaller more discreet looking lens whereas the big Sigmas are more obviously expensive looking kit that may attract the attention of undesirables. In any event it makes sense to carry your gear in a plain rather shabby bag. It only takes one dodgy character to ruin your trip. I imagine that for birding you will use your lens at the long end most of the time anyway and the relative smallness and light weight of the Pentax could be an advantage if you are hiking a lot.

Hi Stoupaduck

I cannot comment on hsm etc or decent converters but I will mention weight/ length and usability.

I bought some old lenses partly as I did not want to buy the Sigma 150-500 and find that due to it's size and weight that it was left on the shelf far too often.

I am not suggesting you buy the same lenses mentioned below I am just making a size/ weight point.

Tokina RMC 300mm f5.5 m42 mf - length 18.5cm and weight 746g both including caps.

NPS 400mm F5.9 m42/mf - length 35cm and weight 1449g again both weight and size including caps.

The Tokina can be used hand held and be kind of concealed in a coat etc and is really easy to carry around and use all day without issue.

The NPS is a totally different proposition, almosty always has to be used with a tripod, cannot be dangled from the camera and strap so you always have to support it due to it's weight and size - I love this lens but it is far more awkward than I would have thought prior to purchase.

Personally, if I had to carry a lens around all day I would choose a far lighter option than the 2kg Sigma 150-500mm if I could.

Therefore, I would suggest that you pick the lightest and shortest lens that you can that will meet you image quality and focal length requirements.

Hope this helps


Stu.