DA* 300 (or others) Advice Needed

It seems likely that some unexpected funds will arrive that will enable me to buy (subject to OH approval) a lens

In an ideal world I would probably want a DA* 135-300 or a DA* 135-400.

Such beasts do not exist and the DA* 60-250 has an unknown arrival date (I don't believe the latest roadmap), overlaps too much with the DA* 50-135 and is slightly too short at the long end.

I had been thinking about Sigma zooms but now I am thinking more about the new Pentax long primes.

I have narrowed it down to :-

Pentax DA* 300 F.4 1070g 184mm long
Sigma EX 100-300 F.4 1440g 227mm long
Sigma 120-400 (not yet available) F4.5-5.6 1750g 203mm long
Pentax DA* 200 F2.8 825g 134mm

I do not want to be restricted to having to use a tripod or monopod and in this respect the two Pentax lenses are shorter and lighter.

I am tempted by the DA* 300, partly by the images taken with it that have been shown on this forum.

All comments gratefully received

What do you mostly want to take pictures of with the lens?

I ask because I went down the zoom route and found that I was always using lenses at the long-end and therefore compromising on sharpness and available light. For that reason I switched to primes and used by legs if I was too close

Well i would go with either the DA* 300mm or the sigma 100-300f4
You need to ask yourself which lens will you get the most bang for buck.

The DA* looks like a fantastic lens going by the pics Chirpy has been showing us lately and its a fairly good weight for a lens of this size.
But will you get as much use out of it in comparison to the Sigma 100-300.
This looks like it will compliment your 50-135* perfectly and its half the price of the 300mm. The only down side is the weight of the Sigma.

I don't think i have helped you all that much as i can't decide which of the 2 i would choose
You have an envious and difficult decision to make good luck

With regard to Chirpy's question, wildlife and anything else, mainly at the long end that catches my attention.

In the summer, many photoraphs are taken from a moving boat, where the subject matter is almost always further away than would be ideal, so even with a 300mm lens, cropping is highly likely.

If I opted for a long prime, I would still have my old Sigma A 75-300 dating from the mid 1980's, which still works well but is obviously manual focus.

I have used the Sigma on the K10D and most images taken have been at the long end.

I am looking for the best possible quality of image (within reason) and I do not want to have to use a tripod (useless on a boat, but a monopod might work o.k.).

Anything longer than 400mm would be too long and indeed even 400mm may be optimistic for handheld

I think you have already decided so go get it. And good luck with your DA*300mm

Clarky,

In the UK (from SRS) the Sigma 100-300 is £759 and the DA* 300 is £899, so the difference is not enormous. Indeed the Sigma is more than the Bigma

How much better would the Sigma 100-300 be than my existing Sigma 75-300 :

Would I just be duplicating a zoom lens and only gaining autofocus :

Wow the Sigma price is surprising, I was going off e-bay prices.

I don't own either lens and just going off reviews, but i would expect the DA*300 to be marginally better than the 100-300f4 and both to be significantly better that your old Sigma 75-300. But again i don't own this lens either. So i am not much help i'm afraid.

The owners of the Sigma 100-300mm f4 do seem to like it - I think you'd see a significant difference between it and your older sigma zoom.

Remember, though that it weighs 1440g compared to 1,070g of the Pentax 300mm DA*. Also, the Pentax is weather sealed, has SDM, and has the Pentax quick-shift system which I've found extremely helpful when taking pictures of birds in trees and bushes where the AF cannot cope.

I have found that 300mm is a very practical long focal length on an APS-C sensor. 400mm and more tend to create difficulties, like needing a tripod except in very good light (I don't like to compromise by using high ISO settings).

Not only do you need a higher shutter speed on a 400, but you usually lose a stop too at max aperture.

And 200mm is too short for birds and small animals.

I also agree about zooms. With wildlife, you just want to get as close as possible, and would seldom use the shorter lengths.

The F* 300mm 1:4.5 is a superb lens, and I am sure the DA* will be too.

Plus, SDM and weather sealing are both useful to the hardy wildertog.

G

Looking at the pricing of some Sigma lenses, I find that in many cases the Pentax version is the same price as (or sometimes more than) the Nikon or Canon versions of the same lens and yet with the Pentax version you do not get the motor in the lens (for example).

It would be nice to think that if they leave some of the components out, the lens might be cheaper

I got one of the last of the pre-DG 100-300 f4 Sigmas for just under 500 GBP.....I also have a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro which I suspect is newer than your 75-300.. judging by the reports at the time the 70-300 APO Macro moved the goalposts for zoom lenses up to 300mm and it's a very good lens...I can't comment on the quality of your lens..

But I think you will notice a massive difference with the 100-300 EX, firstly the brighter view of the f4 maximum aperture, and ultimately sharpness. Weight and size is an issue, and I am thus more inclined to go out with the 70-200 f2.8 instead (my father has been loaned the 70-300)..

But having looked at the DA*300 I do fancy that.

But I am also intrigued by the Sigma 120-400 lens...

Peter

Sometimes I'm so daft. Remembered today that at work we have an account with Intro2020 (the Pentax distributors), and with my staff discount I could get the DA* 300mm for about £800, so I'm much more tempted again. (P.S. It's advertised in the latest P.U. mag at £849 from Digital Camera Exchange )

Anyway, having spent an hour or so shooting ducks at the local park with my Tamron 300mm, I managed about 30% of the shots in focus. Those out of focus were the fast moving, splashing about shots mostly, as well as trying to get them flying past. I'm wondering how the AF lens would cope with these, and whether the over all hit rate would increase.

And although results posted by others look very good, I still have that nagging doubt as to whether it would be sharper than the Tamron. Thing is, we all have our different ways of shooting, and processing a picture, so direct comparisons are near impossible. The only way I can see that I'll convince myself is to have a play with one in a proper scenario (not in a shop doorway in Watford ), process them for myself and compare.

So..., is there anyone with the lens who'd be willing to meet up and let me have a proper go of it? Not sure when or where, but I could probably work round most days, can do weekdays as well as weekends (although I work many weekend days).

I realise there are other benefits to the DA lens, but it's still an investment I have to be able to justify, and I'd prefer to ensure I'd be getting my money's worth, especially as the home situation has just changed and money's going to be a bit tight from now on.

Here are a couple of examples from my Tamron, full frame, then a crop shown at 100%.













Thanks,
Dan

I would expect the Tamron and Pentax lenses to be in a different league of performance. The DA* lens is a top quality professional standard optic. Tamron make good and sometimes very good serious amateur optics.

That's my perception anyway!

Sorry John, should have pointed out the Tamron is the 300mm f/2.8, very much a 'top quality professional optic' (of its day). I look at the shots I get from it and from a sharpness point of view, I don't really see that it could be improved upon, it's certainly sharper (I think), than any of my other lenses, when I get it in focus!

Purple fringing around specular highlights is an issue, and this wasn't something I could test when I was at SRS as it was a dull day, and there is a certain amount of longitudinal CA which I didn't notice with the DA*.

There are plenty of reasons to upgrade, but cost is a good reason not to. I just want to make sure I'll be getting value for money.

Dan

I'm not sure there's much difference in sharpness between them, once you stop the Tamron down a little. The biggest things for me are the obvious - weight, auto-focus, weight, SDM, weight, quick-shift focus and, oh, weight.

That said, I guess it depends how you intend to use it. I wanted the DA* to be able to use it as a walkaround lens, and it's definitely more versatile than the Tamron in that regard. If I were mostly going to stay in one spot, then the Tamron would seem an excellent, and cheaper, option.