All Forum Comments
Comment by Mongoose posted on Ultra Tele lens at 24/11/2006 - 09:02
this is still a way off but my finances demand that I start saving for these things early!
Basically I am concious that the last time I was there 320mm was not always long enough. Since then I have gone to a *ist DL2 with 50-200 as my longest truly good lens. Technically I could mount the 80-320 but the 50-200 is so much better that it's not really worth it.
So I am thinking of adding to my current twin lens kit. The current contenders are
Sigma 135-400 - Perhaps a little short, but the cheapest option
Sigma 170-500 - focal length right on the money
Sigma 50-500 - a bit pricey but from its reputation, just wow!
Any alternative suggestions would be greatfully received, but keep in mind that I am not a rich man and the above are already pushing the limits of what I can justify, the 50-500 particularly.
Does anyone have any experience of the above or similar lenses? I need something that can be hand held at need, and which can be carried around all day. I am no stranger to carrying heavy lens kit bags but I like having two shoulders the same height off the ground if you see what I mean!
Comment by Mongoose posted on Ultra Tele lens at 24/11/2006 - 00:08
First, power zoom has not been fully resurrected. The power contacts are there for the new lenses, and the old PZ lenses can tap the power for the zoom motor, but the K10D body provides no functionality.
Comment by Mongoose posted on pentax 16-45 vs. Sigma 17-70 at 24/11/2006 - 11:54
Oh and Pentax do (or did, I guess probably not anymore) make both M42-K adaptors and 645-K adaptors. My M42-K ring is a genuine Asahi Pentax item.
The thinking might well be that those who want DA* lenses probably have a K10D anyway, and they are probably right.
Comment by Mongoose posted on pentax 16-45 vs. Sigma 17-70 at 24/11/2006 - 09:56
[edit] I just found another site that the 16-50 will be a new DA* lens with USM motor, it looks the same as the Tokina lens... Will these USM lenses work on the older bodies? Or are they exclusively for the K10D and upwards?
[/edit]
The Nikon USM lenses don't work with old Nikon AF bodys, but Pentax backward compatibility has always been a cut above Nikon so who knows.
Comment by Mongoose posted on pentax 16-45 vs. Sigma 17-70 at 23/11/2006 - 23:54
Comment by Mongoose posted on pentax 16-45 vs. Sigma 17-70 at 23/11/2006 - 11:18
It might also be worth thinking about something really wide like the Pentax 12-24 if you can afford it. That way you aren't doubling up on focal lengths in the same way as you will with the 16-45 28-75 pair. edit: oops just saw your £200 max, thats pretty much out of the question then!
Comment by Mongoose posted on Wide angle at 24/11/2006 - 00:20
Comment by Mongoose posted on Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG APO at 22/11/2006 - 17:21
Oh and I went for the 16-45 F4 and 50-200 F4-5.6 lenses
.
The 16-45 is an excellent choice. I'm not so sure of the 50-200, that's a long zoom range.
If you're into serious photography, it helps that the camera can take all sorts of old lenses going back to the 1970's. And if you get the adapter, you can use all those fantastic M42 screw mount lenses.
Such quality in such a small light package and at such a price is rare.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Another Newbie at 14/12/2006 - 12:19
Comment by Mongoose posted on Another Newbie at 07/12/2006 - 16:45


I've hand held my 200m M series prime on a 2x TC (400mm F8 ) with a pretty good success rate, it just lacks some contrast. I also have a walking stick with a camera thread on the top for some much needed support, so hand holding would literally be for when its that or nothing.
I'm still torn between the 170-500 which fits right on the top end of my lens collection, and the 135-400 which I feel I can reasonably hand hold throughout its range.