No problems with this sort of work, as long as something is not moving fast towards the lens you will be fine. 150-500 would be far too long and clumsy for this type of shoot.

Cheers
David

Great shots George, the obvious one that makes the eyes bulge is number 10 (!), but apart from this one I particularly like the ones from around the pits area, number 4 catches the eye.

Thanks again for inviting us down on the Saturday and thanks for sharing these excellent shots.

Cheers
David

Lens sold to MattyH

Cheers
David

I think these are really good Paul, the pans are very crisp and sharp, everything is well composed and well exposed. I'm a little surprised no-one else has commented?

Regards
David

Sorry to have not commented so far Tim! I will add my vote for the last image, to me it has more drama and interest with the warmth of the first rays lighting up the distance.

Regards
David

I will add my voice to the 'DA55-300 hates filters' brigade! It's true, for some reason this particular lens does not take a filter very well at all and the very first thing you should do is get rid of this!

I think you might be surprised about what a difference it makes.

Regards
David

I find it easier to shoot the same images at different calibrations, then compare them side by side in the Photoshop 'tiled' view at various magnifications. This gives direct comparison between the images on the same computer screen. Once I've narrowed down a range of adjustments, I'll re-shoot a few more at the narrower range and then choose the best compromise at different focal lengths. This doesn't take long to do and has always worked for me.

Regards
David

Thanks Dr O, I will do my best to do it justice!

Thanks to Neil (gtis), Mike-P, PeterE and Dave (DCWeather) I've located and ordered a DA*300. Can't wait to get my hands on it, watch this space for some images.

Regards
David

That's a really difficult question. I've always found the Pentax DA 17-70 to be a reliable performer, except on my first K-5 on which it didn't focus properly, but that was the camera, not the lens. The Sigma is cheaper and based on my tests it is as sharp or slightly sharper than the Pentax at most focal lengths. It's not all about sharpness though, the Pentax has a way with colours and contrast that eludes the Sigma, but this can be adjusted in post processing.

If I had to give an opinion based on value for money, the Sigma would win, but if cost is not a big factor it would be a draw for me.

Yes, good point Smeggy, the Sigma focusses much closer than the Pentax and is almost like a macro lens. This adds versatility and the nice smooth bokeh is another advantage for close focussing.

Cheers
David