Which lenny to pick!!!

SRS had some left at the end of last week .. they even had one on Ebay.

Seems they have all gone now from what I can see on their web site.

I have a 135-400 Sigma. Up until about 350 it is stunning quality. Over 350 it's better to shoot at 350 and crop.

Another poss spanner in bound....I think the speed the lens locks on in AF may be a bit of a red herring so far as the original target of the lens is concerned.

Isn't the tried and tested method of shooting motor sports based on staying in the same position and using MF and say F8 or F11 to get a reasonable depth of field before/behind the selected focal point? I'm sure I've seen this advocated on this forum.

I use the Sigma 135-400 as my long zoom when I'm overseas. Light weigth compared to the 150-500 and being an older lens, has an aperature ring so I can use it with my MZS. Have used both the 150-500 and the 60-250 at the same time - former on the K7 and the later on my K20D - when at Slimbridge back in August.


Steve

I'm back again.
I found this comparison on flickr and wondered how accurate you guys reckon it is? From the images it appears that the 60-250 isn't that good until you get up to f8 & the 50-135 might be considerably better and for distance the *300 or *200 and possibly a teleconverter?

I've looked on flickr and I'm not that convinced that any of the Sigma 500mm zooms are that sharp unless conditions are perfect and I would be gutted to spend that amount of money and get soft images.
Utterly confused

I have no idea what that particular tester did to make those comparisions. It says SR on, which it shouldn't have been if the camera was on a tripod. If it wasn't on a tripod then the test is meaningless.

The 60-250mm is an expensive high class lens and will be sharp.

However, bear in mind that very often at first people think long lenses are not sharp because of handling issues. Camera shake is an enemy as is aerial haze. Very long lenses are not easy to use well.

The 60-250 not only will be sharp - it is sharp. Astoundingly so. A superb and underrated lens.

John makes very valid points about long lenses - handling can be a problem.
I have both the 60-250 and the original Bigma (50-500, no HSM or OS), and I use both hand held, and can get good results. Putting them on a tripod and I get very good results - I am the problem, not the lenses when it comes to bad shots with them.

Absolute rubbish.

250mm @ f4



Peddle Car Grand Prix by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

250mm @ f4.5



Female Mallard - Ballard Lake Crop 2 by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

250mm @ f5



Barn Owl by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

love the barn owl mike, i would say go try the big siggys, i have had the 150-500mm and as said it needs stoping down at 500mm to f8 to get sharp images,
and i have the 50-500mm os at the moment and in my op, it has slightly faster af than the 150-500mm and its as sharp at 500mm wide open as the 150-500mm stopped down to f8,

What John and Mike said. Rubbish test.

My pick would be Lenny Henry.

Not mine .. can't stand the bloke.

Maybe Lennie Kravitz.

Ok, just had a message through Flickr from the person who did this comparison and thought I would just cut/paste it. I think it explains a lot and now we have the full story of his test.

Hi Mike.

I just saw that a user in your forum linked to a comparison by me with the DA* 60-250 The I saw things like rubbish test and so on.
But! You all haven´t seen that I compared one of the first 60-250 that I have seen in Germany in Dec. 2008 And, the important part, it was an pre series model. And after this comparison Pentax Germany told me that is has not the final quality.

So I told in April 2009 everywhere in the photo site that it is a pre series model, and that the later models will be much better.
www.flickr.com/photos/ossy59/3106390370/

Please move your mouse over the photo and see the upcoming text.

This comparison was a 10 Minutes test during a Pentax roadshow. Without a tripode, not really good weather, but with the SR and 1/1000s it was good enough to see what the lenses can. Depending on this comparison I decided to buy a DA*300, and not to wait for the DA*60-250 ...

I would be glad if you could write this in your forum Because later on I testet a "normal" DA60-250. And it is a perfect lens. For me a bit too expensive for a f/4,0, but with an excellent quality.
My test shots during another roadshow end 2009: www.flickr.com/search/?w=99703668%40N00&q=da60250+tekade&m=text

Thanks a lot nad greetings from Germany

Jürgen

Thanks for this clarification, I did think that there must have been something wrong because most of the sample shots I'd seen appeared pin sharp (for example). Apologies if I have upset anyone.
So I am now coming round to the idea that the *60-250 is the way to go and for distance maybe a *300 with a TC.
Thanks for your help as always folks.
But I still have an inkling for the Bigma

I don't see why you'd buy the *300 and the 60-250 unless the *300 was for commercial work. The IQ of the 60-250 is so high - right up to 250 (and it works so well with the AFA x1.7) that it makes the difference in both IQ and the extra 50mm superfluous to all except those needing the absolute highest quality. Certainly for another 1k quid !

Good point ... well made. I didn't think that using a TC on a zoom was any good. Can anyone post a link to some examples with both AFA1.7 & *60-250 please.

Thanks.