da*300 f4?

This is/has turned out to be extremely interesting.....

I have the Sigma 150-500 os to use with my k5.

I feel I could lose the flexibility of the zoom & the in-lens os, to gain the lightness of the 300, along with the iq, obviously.
As long as I can achieve similar images by cropping, with as good as, if not better iq, printed (by me) to A4.

I find myself oscillating between the two.
It won't be an either/or choice, however.

Not in the short term, certainly!

In making decisions, as in most things, there's no gain without pain.....

Thanks for all your help fellas!


Roger

I love my DA*300. I marry it up with the 1.7AFA which hardly effects the IQ, but makes it an f6.7. That needs decent light, but alone, or with the TC, the 300 is an awesome lens.

I have neither lens but

I did not buy the 150 - 500 despite having saved up for it as I read that it is in reality nearer to 450mm not 500mm and as you need to wind in back to 450mm on it's scale to retain sharpness it is best at around 400mm in reality (apparently)

I bought a very old 400mm to play with - loved it so much I have kept it

David has seen this lens and shared the odd comedy comment about it's looks or was that my looks

I have a very old Tokina 300mm an would like to test it against the da* 300 to check how far behind it lacks as to be honest it is very good but how good is what I would like to know

My own limited experience would make me fall on the side of primes every time except for flexibility - the number of people who have asked me how to zoom and do not realise that my walking back and forth is a demonstration amazes me

One day I expect I will buy a da* 300mm f4 - but not yet as I am only have way towards my 10-20 + 20-40 combination

Stuey is right - the Siggy is best stepped back just a little from its max telephoto setting and I think it is actually only around 480mm fully extended, so 450 would be a good average when stepped back. It is pretty sharp at this setting, but not in the same league as the DA*300, which is to be expected.

I also have a very old prime 300mm, a beautiful slab of milled aluminium which is a Tamron 300mm F5.6 Adapt-a-matic. This lens cannot compete with the DA*300, again this is to be expected, and has to be stopped down to F8 or so to become sharp. However, it has other qualities and although the DA*300 has nice bokeh, the old Tamron is much better in this regard and is capable of dreamy photos. The Tamron also has a lovely subtle way with colours and contrast, whereas the Pentax is much more 'full on'.

To get back to the point of this thread, is it worth spending to get a DA*300 if you already own a Siggy 150-500? My personal opinion is 'absolutely yes'. You can do things with this lens that could not be attempted with the 150-500.

Regards
David

I may post some photos here....but not just at this current moment. Too much vin rouge.

Or ..... bide your time and keep a look out for a Sigma 100-300mm f4

Very very close to the DA* 300mm IQ wise at full stretch, faster focus speed, has the flexibility of the zoom and takes the new Pentax 1.4x very well.

I think I said almost half price. If you use SRS as an example. The DA*300 is £949 and the 150-500 is £649. Not including the £100 claim back from Sigma. Making them £549.

If you also add the 1.4 converter to the DA* you can add a further £379 - 10% = £341

DA*300 is £949-10% = £854

I've not seen any tests that have actually measured the actual
focal length, but would be surprised if Sigma were selling a lens
that was so far out of Spec.

The DA*300mm will only be close to 300mm at INF due to it being
an IF lens. I compared mine with my A*300mm once at 6M and it
was 10-15% less than the A lens. The A*300mm was once measured in
an AP test and found to be 315mm at INF. In practical terms it
meant that at 6M you would need to move in closer by 500mm
to fill the frame the same as the A*300mm does at 6M.

--

I will have to find the links but there are a few tests which compare the 150-500 to other 500mm lenses and suggest that they 150-500 is nearer 450mm than 500mm - I will see what I can find.

Simonarron's shots of the Heron illustrate how handy a
zoom lens is even if it's only 100-300mm

He also seems to make good use of it with motorsport

--

There is a place for both the 150-500 and the DA300

In most cases with birds the lens is never long enough and the bird is smaller in the frame than wanted. The additional size of the bird in the viewfinder at 500mm, or even at 450mm lends itself to more accurate focusing.

The DA*300mm produces stunning images but I sold mine due to lack of use and I wanted a K-5 II, which gets a lot more use.

Your example shot in your initial post would have been much better had the bird actually been in focus. It looks to me like either the focus point was on the tree, or your lens is back-focusing. Have you adjust the AF?

Mike
Have you been able to compare the results from the Pentax 1.4X TC and Sigma's own 1.4X TC with the Sigma 100-300 F4?
( I have the 100-300 & the Sigma TC, and bought a Sigma 150-500 recently and would appreciate any comparative info!)

John

As I've mentioned a few times over the years my Sigma 135-400 is really good up until about 350. I falls off from then on to 400. I did a test and 350 cropped is better than 400. For this reason it's pointless shooting at 400.


This seems to be a commend trend amongst Sigma Zooms. the 17-70 falls off from 60 to 70 and the several models of telephoto zooms appear from anecdotes of owners to exhibit the same issues.

however the lenses are great value for money