Cheap long lenses?

I would like to get a 300/400mm lens, particularly for wildlife.
The easy answer is a nice new DA300 but there are a few hundred reasons why that can't happen this side of a lottery jackpot!
Whilst I realise that quality often goes with price, sometimes there are little jems around in the second hand market that may do the job for less.

So the question is, what less expensive lenses over 300mm have people used that still gave good image quality even though they didn't cost a lot?

I've taken a lot of pictures with the Sigma 70-300mm zoom (DG APO), and am always impressed with its performance considering it only cost me a little over £100, and you can probably get one cheaper still second hand on ebay or similar. It has a switch which gives it a macro function between 200 and 300mm. There are a few pictures in my portfolio (mostly animals) which were taken with this lens... big cats and birds

Hope that helps

Mat

I believe the Tamron is a bit better on the long end then the sigma 70-300 though, the DA55-300 is even better but a bit more expensive.

For something else then the "budget" lenses you can also go for a bit longer sigma lenses, 120-400mm or 150-500mm.

I have the sigma 70-300 but I find it's not too briliant at the longer end, especially when the light is less than ideal.

I was thinking more of some of the older pentax or other manufacturers prime lenses. Maybe the Takumars or eastern european offerings. Manual focus is ok and I have an m42 adaptor for my k10. Any suggestions?

I don't believe there is something like a bad prime.
Simply search for the range you want and then look for feedback for that lens, but like said you're pretty safe of buying a prime lens.
Good luck with hunting


ps. You can look at pentaxforums.com for users lens feedback.

I had a Pentax K 300mm f4 and I found it quite reasonable ... although it was prone to pretty bad CA.

There are several options in M42 land - Pentax did a nice Takumar 300/4 which you can pick up for £100 - £150 (example) or for slightly less there's the Russian Tair 3S (300/4.5) as supplied with the Zenit Photosniper kits (example).

Either would probably be an improvement image-wise over your Sigma, but neither are exactly lightweight options so only take them out after eating your Weetabix...

if a zoom is your choice then the cheapest & sharpest at 300m is the Tamron - unfortunately the copy I owned did suffer quite bad CA

I found the Sigma too soft above 240mm....

I now own the Pentax 55-300 & it's the best "consumer" zoom choice, unfortunately also the most expensive by some margin

Simon

Bob,

Sigma 400mm MF on ebay at the moment?

Regards
Doug

Thanks for the help.
I think I am really looking for a prime lens.
Does anybody have experience of some of the older MF lenses, especially regarding sharpness at larger apertures.

Both the Takumar and the Tair lenses I linked to are sharp at larger apertures - to the point where they're perfectly useable wide open (although with all old lenses there's always a possibility that it's been mistreated at some point in its life which could lead to misaligned elements, etc - especially if it's been dropped so caveat emptor!).

On the minus side both will show greater CA's than modern designs like the DA*300, but this is easily fixed in PP these days so it's not such a big deal.

I've also had old 300/400mm lenses from Sigma, Vivitar and Pentacon pass through my hands and I wouldn't recommend any of them - performance being no better than the current Tamron 70-300, but without the modern conveniences that lens offers.

In terms of bang-for-buck you wouldn't go far wrong with a Tair (if you can find a nice clean non-abused example) and the same goes for the Tak (which gives you an extra half-stop of speed but will cost you slightly more). Happy hunting!

Is there ANY lens longer than 300mm that doesn't cost a lot? I don't remember seeing one.

Yep. Vivitar 400/5.6 is probably about the cheapest you'll find in K mount. I sold a mint-ish one for £30 on eBay and that was about £25 more than it was worth to be honest...

The problem with lenses like that is that you'll get better results from a (comparatively) cheap 70-300 like the Tamron and cropping them. To get better results than the Tamron on a tight budget there are far fewer options (the Tair or Takumar I mentioned being probably the best bets).

Also there's the bother of carrying a huge great thing about.

...That reminds me of mirror lenses. That would be a compact and sometimes cheap option, though not necessarily any good in terms of image quality.

Quite. Unfortunately the laws of physics dictate that a 300mm lens with an aperture of f/4 is going to be rather on the large and heavy side.