I've owned the 50-500 and currently own the 150-500. From my experiences with these lenses, the 150-500 is much better (a lot sharper throughout the range) and is also cheaper. I'm delighted with the performance of the 150-500; but was extremely disappointed with the 50-500. It could have just been a poor copy, but I can't verify this. Also, the 50-500 is a lot more expensive.

You could well find a mint or near mint 150-500 for less than £500, mine cost £350 from a fellow forum member and it's virtually brand new, not a mark on it anywhere. I would highly recommend it.

Regards
David

For me the answer to the question posed is a qualified 'No'. I use Photoshop, but I don't replace skies, I don't add objects that weren't there, I very rarely remove anything (except sensor spots).

I do enhance contrast, levels and saturation, I do a bit of dodging and burning and I do work with layers sometimes. My objective always is to make the final image as close to what I saw at the time as I possibly can; whether I'm successful or not is subjective.

I am in the camp of many others who have posted in this thread in that I believe in honesty and if someone has dropped in a sky or made clouds where there were no clouds, then they should say so, particularly on a website like this one.

Regards
David

YES!! It is much improved, with all lenses I have tried so far. It is much more 'confident', i.e. locks on with less 'hunting' and also is capable of locking on in very dim light indeed, without the AF Assist. It is also more accurate; you will probably find your lenses need little or no fine AF adjustment.

It's also faster to focus, not massively so in terms of the actual speed it moves at, but because of the afore-mentioned improvements it invariably locks focus quite a bit quicker than the K-5. BTW, I have K-5 Mk1 and K-5IIs.

Regards
David

I would second what Pirate has said above, and also say that the 55-300 is a great lens, whether in DA L or DA form (both have identical optics) and it is miles ahead of the Sigma 70-300. It gets even better on the latest K-5II variants - at last it is a reliable and accurate focusser, albeit a bit noisy on the screw drive.

Regards
DAvid

Thanks Shaun, very short and sweet and to the point. We all have our own ways of working with our images and your tutorials have been a great help to me to guide me in a certain direction, so I can then try out different techniques.

Regards
David

I can hardly catch my breath Cliff!! Not thinking about jumping ship just at this moment as I've only just bought the IIs!

BTW, thanks to Drew (AndrewA) and Emma (fourfivesix) for a couple of great transactions on the battery and the flashgun.

Regards
David

I would disagree to some extent with PeterKr's views on the 55-300. It is nowhere near as good as the Sigma 150-500 as a wildlife lens, even when you disregard the focal length difference. The 55-300 is a fantastic lens - very sharp and contrasty, but is poor for wildlife simply because it does not focus fast enough or quietly enough. I does tend to 'hunt', although this is much less on the most recent bodies such as the K-5IIs. I find it much more suitable as a walkabout lens.

Regards
David

I can give you some unbiased advice on the Sigma 150-500 lens, although mine is the 'non OS' version, but I believe the optics are the same and the HSM motor is the same.

I find the lens very good and optically is far superior to the Sigma 50-500 I previously owned. Focussing is reliable, not massively quick, but fast enough and locks on well with my K-5IIs, K-5 and K-x. The lens is very sharp, particularly between 200 and 450mm, it's a little softer at 500mm, but still very good. Colour rendition is beautiful, very clean and realistic, a little 'cooler' than Pentax colours but this is not a criticism as I like the Sigma's colours.

I have no idea about the future of Pentax, but I am not worried and I don't think they are about to close down! Regarding Full Frame, I think it is likely in the next year or so, but this doesn't interest me at present as I am delighted with the performance of my Pentax APS-C cameras.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards
David

Darren, you won't get F1.4 because you lose 2 stops of light with a 2x Teleconverter. Also, realistically, you won't be shooting at F1.4 for macro work anyway because there will be no depth of field! You'll probably find that F11 to F16 is required, this is why you need a light source such as a powerful diffused flash and this is why members on here have emplyed all sorts of DIY and non DIY methods to light their macro images.

Regards
David

That looks like a really great setup Peter, can you post a couple of example images shot this way?

Regards
David