sigma 135-400 apo


reso

Link Posted 04/06/2012 - 11:48
anybody used this lens? whats it like at 400
k5iis sigma 10-20 3,5 hsm sigma 15-30
pentax da 16-45 f4 tamron 17-50 2.8 pentax 17-70 f4 sigma 18-125 hsm sigma af 24 2.8 pentax f 35-70 pentax A 35-105 pentax da 55-300 sigma 70-200 apo ex 2.8
kenko pz af 1.5 tele tamron pz af 2.0 tele and a flash

Smeggypants

Link Posted 04/06/2012 - 16:44
reso wrote:
anybody used this lens? whats it like at 400

I have it and love it. it's excellent at 135 to 350 and then is less sharp at 400. It's not a problem in practise as I just limit it to around 350. It's a fairly rapid fall off begtween 350 and 400. Cropping at 350 is better than 400

Highly recommended. Given the great K-5 ISO performance I even use it indoors with no flash.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Algernon

Link Posted 04/06/2012 - 17:07
Reasonable performance in good light. Should be OK
in the summer at f/8.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Smeggypants

Link Posted 04/06/2012 - 17:41
I would say mine is way more than 'reasonable'
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Algernon

Link Posted 04/06/2012 - 17:48
Depends on what your using it for, I'm referring to birding
which does need good light with both the Sigma and my Tokina
80-400mm. You need something like the DA*300mm in poor light
but that's not as handy as a zoom.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Smeggypants

Link Posted 04/06/2012 - 17:54
Depends on the ISO performance of the camera too.

I would of course love a 135-400 F/2.8 straight through, but better ISO performance does compensate
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

reso

Link Posted 05/06/2012 - 13:43
thanks for the comments i will start saving

phill
k5iis sigma 10-20 3,5 hsm sigma 15-30
pentax da 16-45 f4 tamron 17-50 2.8 pentax 17-70 f4 sigma 18-125 hsm sigma af 24 2.8 pentax f 35-70 pentax A 35-105 pentax da 55-300 sigma 70-200 apo ex 2.8
kenko pz af 1.5 tele tamron pz af 2.0 tele and a flash

arno

Link Posted 07/06/2012 - 13:09
Any views on whether this is worth getting given I already own the 55-300mm? How do the two compare up to 300mm? If the Sigma comes off worse in that range, not sure it's really worthwhile for me

Algernon

Link Posted 07/06/2012 - 16:23
arno wrote:
Any views on whether this is worth getting given I already own the 55-300mm? How do the two compare up to 300mm? If the Sigma comes off worse in that range, not sure it's really worthwhile for me

It's worth it for the extra 100mm..... 300 is just too short
for wildlife.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

arno

Link Posted 07/06/2012 - 19:10
Cheers - the immediate "need" is some Olympics events I will be attending. This seems quite a reasonable way of getting some extra reach but if the quality falls away a lot approaching 400mm, I am wondering whether I would be better off just cropping the 300mm. I have a K5 so from a pixel point of view there is room for a bit of cropping

Blythman

Link Posted 07/06/2012 - 19:38
Not considered a Sigma 150-500?
Alan


PPG
Flickr

arno

Link Posted 07/06/2012 - 21:08
Considered, but it looks a lot bigger and more expensive

Mike_L_76

Link Posted 08/06/2012 - 00:53
I was very disapointed in my copy of the 135-400. Beyond 320mm it got softer to the point I didn't ever use it beyond 350mm, it needed to be stopped down to f8 to get satisfactory results. I'm very happy with the 150-500 I replaced it with.

Algernon

Link Posted 09/06/2012 - 14:56
Here's a couple I've posted before using the Sigma 135-400mm
on a Pentax K20D

Mallard at ????? unknown




Robin 1 at 400mm




-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

smudge

Link Posted 09/06/2012 - 17:54
If it is for Olympic events keep in mind that you will not be allowed to bring in any photo equipment more than 300mm long (physical length not focal length). Fortunately most lenses are shorter than that but when attached to the camera it could be a close thing.
Regards, Philip
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.