Super zooms

Bear in mind the Sigma 100-300 is heavy too at 1.44kg. The 120-400 is 1.64kg while the 150-500 is 1.78kg. In comparison the Pentax 55-300 is only 0.44kg

Indeed it's not a light lens but I beleive the balance is a b it better though then the 150-500, that one has one massive front element.


I'm installing some of the photographic software i hadn't done yet after that i'll upload a photo.
Don't have one with the 1.4 converter though, sorry.

I should have a 1.4x for my 100-300 soon.

at 250mm, 1/320, f5 (!!), ISO 125:




that's on a Monopod. It really is a heavy thing; it brings the weight of a gripped K5 rapidly towards 3kg.

I can do some 100% crops, but to be honest, if you're worried about weight, then the best thing really is the 55-300 as everything else weighs a ton.

Another alternative which isn't *quite* so heavy is the Tok 80-400. Having until recently had one of those, I think it's really rather good and certainly holds its own against the 100-300, considering it's half the price - at least - and here's the proviso - on a K5. Because the 100-300 is a constant f4 and the Tok needs to be stopped down to f8 at least, meaning that where I can use the f5 of the 100-300 and complain because only the rear of the car is in focus (my fault), at f8 the whole thing works:
300mm, 1/800, f9, ISO640:



I like the compactness of the Tok (it fits in a Lens Case 4S, whereas the 100-300 needs a 4 - it's nearly a foot long) but it's still 800g or so and without the collar I'd find it unmanageable after a time. The Siggy was an opportunity to be taken and so far I'm reasonably impressed. However, it's neither cheap nor light and I can see me going for a 70-200 or even a 55-300 to complement it at some point for the times when I simply don't want to lug it around...

Bret

Sigma 100-300mm f4 with Sigma 2x teleconverter.
600mm handheld ... AF is a bit sluggish though.



Fallow Deer in the New Forest by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

Thanks Stefan,Bret and Mike I will check out the Tok Bret suggested. However looking at the shot of the Deer with the pentax and converter this looks a very good option. Would a 1.4 give a better IQ and also how much focal length would I loose compared to a 2x converter. Thinking back to the show I would imagine a focal length of 400 to 500 would have got me the shots I missed from the show by cropping the origanal photo tight to the plane.
Regards Ian

Sorry should have read Sigma and converter.
Ian

the 1.4 / 2x comparison was posted recently by - i think - thoughton - and the 1.4 is slightly better than the 2.x. I'm interested to see how the 100-300 behaves with a 1.4 on the back, as I will have the combo hopefully in a couple of weeks.

100-300 x 1.4 = 140-420mm / f5.6

Bret

Thanks Bret that reach would probably have got the photos I missed on the day.
Ian

I am (weather permitting) going to be using the Sigma 100-300mm f4 and 1.4x teleconverter at the Bournemouth air show next week rather than the Bigma. I want to see how they compare IQ and AF wise and as it is on for 4 days it seems the ideal opportunity.

Here's another vote for the Tokina 80-400. Solid build, very usable images once stopped down a bit, and a great long zoom. I think there's one on ebay at the moment 330597880388 that looks like a good copy.
Looks like the seller also has a classic 35-105 A series. Hmmmm, might even throw a bid on......

Regards

Quick and dirty test of the 100-300mm f4 with 1.4x teleconverter.
Nothing done apart from the crop ... af speed was reasonable, if it can lock onto a seagull then it should be ok with a jet or suchlike. Needs a bit of PP work though.

450mm f/11 1/400



Sigma 100-300mm f4 test by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr



Sigma 100-300mm f4 test by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

Thanks Mike thats good of you to share these they look fine to me Im going to weigh up the pros and cons between using a converter or have a look at a 150 500 or similar and see how I manage the weight.
Ian