Sigma 170-500 vs pentax 80-320 vs sigma 135-400
Posted 27/07/2007 - 10:27
Link
I think the Bigma is really the best available by the time Sigma get more into the country you might have saved that bit extra. I don't think 320mm is long enough for wildlife, 400mm minimum really (500 is good). Otherwise you are still too close and they fly/run/bounce away.
I think the 135-400 is sharper than the 170-500 but, I'd wait for a few more replies.
I think the 135-400 is sharper than the 170-500 but, I'd wait for a few more replies.
Posted 27/07/2007 - 10:36
Link
Well until now, anything above 200 is great
been using a cheap sigma 28 - 200, so anything sharper/longer will make me a happy man.
So if the 135-400 is sharper, I'll just sneak the last 100mm like a ninja in the dusk...
been using a cheap sigma 28 - 200, so anything sharper/longer will make me a happy man.
So if the 135-400 is sharper, I'll just sneak the last 100mm like a ninja in the dusk...
K10D, Pentax 18-55mm, Pentax 50mm f1.7 M, Pentax DA* 300mm f4, Da* 50-135mm f2.8, DA* 16-50mm f2.8, Tamron 28-70mm f2.6-f2.8
Posted 27/07/2007 - 10:37
Link
I get really good sharp results from the Sigma 135-400.
Whilst heavy it is very fast and lets in good amounts of light.
If you're using DSLR it becomes about 200-600mm equiv.
Haven't tried the others mentioned but whilst the Bigma looks good I question if it can be hand held for any lenght of time
Whilst heavy it is very fast and lets in good amounts of light.
If you're using DSLR it becomes about 200-600mm equiv.
Haven't tried the others mentioned but whilst the Bigma looks good I question if it can be hand held for any lenght of time
Old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read.
Posted 27/07/2007 - 13:23
Link
I'm using the EX 100-300 f4, if you use it with a 1.4 EX converter then it becomes a 140-420, still at f 5.6 costant throught the whole zoom range.
Chunky lens though
Chunky lens though
Posted 28/07/2007 - 13:02
Link
Quote:
I'm using the EX 100-300 f4, if you use it with a 1.4 EX converter then it becomes a 140-420, still at f 5.6 costant throught the whole zoom range.
Chunky lens though
exactly what i was going to suggest - i'm keeping an eye out for one for myself
I'm using the EX 100-300 f4, if you use it with a 1.4 EX converter then it becomes a 140-420, still at f 5.6 costant throught the whole zoom range.
Chunky lens though
Posted 28/07/2007 - 15:08
Link
400mm was always considered a reasonable focal length for shooting wildlife pics on 35mm format. Taking the 1.5 crop factor into account, the 80-320 becomes 480mm at the long end and it is a compact lens to carry around.
I use the Sigma 135-400mm APO non-DG, which equates to 600mm at the long end with pretty reasonable results (camera and lens are fine, my technique and available time lets me down).
I think a K10D equipped with this lens makes a good wildlife combination. The lens has a built-in tripod mount too.
I use the Sigma 135-400mm APO non-DG, which equates to 600mm at the long end with pretty reasonable results (camera and lens are fine, my technique and available time lets me down).
I think a K10D equipped with this lens makes a good wildlife combination. The lens has a built-in tripod mount too.
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
52 posts
19 years
Denmark
I want to buy a decent zoom, my main goal is arround 400mm but if the pentax is sharper/better then it'll do just fine.
I am considering these lenses, bacause it's what's possible to find on ebay.
I would like a bigma, but its not easy to find, and a bit expensive.
If any of you have other ideas to lenses in the range please let me know.
Anyone has some input into which is sharpest ?
(want to shoot birds and wildlife)