Which lenny to pick!!!

Hi All,
I am hoping to get a bit of a bonus in the next few months and want to spend it on a lens.
I would like a 500mm or that sort of range but I also would love to have the DA*60-250.
So do I go for the Bigma or the 60-250 as the biggy covers the same focal range.
But the 60-250 has WR and I will be using it for karting shots.
I could go for the DA*300 too again WR & karting & then I could use a teleconverter and get the extra range, but then I lose the flexibility of the zoom range.
Ohhhh what to dooooo
Help me out guys..... (and girls)

Sigma 100-300mm f4 and 1.4x teleconverter.

That is a very difficult question to answer, if you could manage with 60-250mm then that is the lens you should go for. it will be much easier to handle when panning karts, the 300mm is by all accounts a superb bit of glass and an good choice if you can live with the fixed focal length.
The Bigma is a beast of a lens and extremely light hungry and it only opens up to f6.7 despite the claim that its f6.3, and the max aperture drops to f6.7 as soon as you reach the 300mm mark so unless the light is good your going to struggle with fast shutter speeds needed to catch karts.

Mikes suggestion has merit.

I am currently using the DA 55-300 and it does a remarkable job considering its modest cost, but as you suggest fatspider it does get difficult to capture these little flying machines when the light is poor, so maybe the F4 & WR and flexibility of the 60-250 would be the way to go. But then what do I do about the extra range? Could I use the tc on this?

Another thing to consider is the space you'll need. The Bigma (or it's near cousin the 150-500) really needs support in the form of a good monopod, which means you'll be less crowd tolerant than if you are using the DA60-250 or Mike's suggested combo, both of which are OK unsupported.

Part of the reason for choosing one lens rather than another is the amount of use you'll get out of it. The DA60-250 fits well with the DA16-50 and will, as a combo, meet a good chunk of the range of uses most of us will have for our kit.

Ultimately, it depends on your budget and how much it matters to you to have capital tied up in lenses you don't use regularly


Steve

OK, Thanks Steve good point(s) well made. So it looks like the 60-250 is coming out on top, which I am quite glad of actually, now to satisfy the range ... what of the mirror lenny's I keep seeing advertised on fleabay. I understand they have some odd bokeh (how is that pronounced btw) but I don't mind that too much from the examples I've looked at on Flickr etc. and could you recommend a good one? i.e make / range. Sorry to go on but I don't want the horror of buying something I don't like as justifying the expense is already causing the wife to pull faces of anguish.

I have all three (or rather the Sigma 150-500) for wildlife and birds. I use the Sigma most, then the 300. I find I rarely use the 60-250.

Now Oggy's gone and thrown a spanner in the works... because now I'm now thinking if I swap the K-7 for the K-5 I could use that massively impressive high ISO capability and then one of the Sigma 500s comes right back into the mix even if it is only 6.7.
See what I mean ... and there's the addition of the 100-300 that Mike mentioned earlier... what to doooo.
I will say that I do have to crop the 55-300 quite a lot to get a decently framed shot and a 500 would mean I get a lot closer to the action.

I rarely use my 60-250mm or 300mm with TC, the Bigma gets more use when the light is good because of its range but for decent length with good IQ then the Sigma 100-300mm f4 (with 1.4x TC when needed) is the lens of choice.

Even with the K-5 and good light the Bigma is fairly slow to focus which may be a pain with Karts.

Slow to focus ... aaaghhh
you are slowly bringing me round to the 100-300 + tc it is V important to get the fast focus.

Sorry Steve.

The big Sigmas are indeed light hungry and the truth is that whether it's F6.3 or F6.7, at 500mm, neither will produce a great picture. I get decent results at a maximum of F8, and good results at F9 or smaller.

The advantage of the 150-500 if you do not need 50mm is that it is substantially cheaper. Still a beast though.

One of the nice things about big Sigmas is that the tripod collar doubles as a substantial carrying handle which makes it easier to carry.

Just seen Mikes post. The 150-500 focusses faster on my K20 than my Pentax lenses (SDM or screw) It is HSM though. Mike - is your Bigma screw? I believe the newer ones are HSM so they might be faster. Worth a little investigation.

So what I'm probably looking at then is a 60-250 to cover the closer stuff and then maybe later on poss next year a siggy 500 but the 150-500 hsm not the 50-500. unless Pentax bring out something around the 400mm range in the mean time ... now wouldn't that be nice

Sorry Steve - no. A year ago that was the case, but both have been revised so they both have HSM. Both now have image stabilisation as well.

I think Mike and I have come to the conclusion that there is not much to choose between them at the long end.

Sorry to be a party pooper, but unless you find a place that actually has the mighty Sigma 100-300 F4, you will have no chance. I know, I have tried.... Sigma UK don't even have any in stock, and its no longer listed on the web site.
Yes, the Jacobs web site does show it on a K mount, but having enquired, nothing, nil, nada...

Positive side is that both the Sigmas 120-400 and 150-500 are getting good reviews, even if they are not a constant aperture.

Hope this helps.