Having just upgraded to a silver K-5 (woo-hoo!), I'm beginning to lust for a tele lens to shoot birds. I currently have a DA 55-300mm, which is a fairly nice consumer lens, but nothing more. But what would you recommend as a replacement? Some recommended lenses are a bit too expensive at 1.5k€ or more. Is there anything worth upgrading to well below 1k€? How about the older Bigma 2nd hand?
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
What tele lens for shooting birds on a budget?
- Thread starter emr
- Start date
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/.../141340-sale-pentax-400mm-f5-6-worldwide.html
If you can live with manual focus, this should be a good lens at a good price,
David
If you can live with manual focus, this should be a good lens at a good price,
David
Hi all,
In response to this general quetion and Bart inquiring about the Sigma 50-500 os(new bigma) I thought I would chip in.
I got the bigma about four weeks ago and my thoughts thus far are-
Its well made,i would say that there's no real difference between it and my Sigma 10-20 f3.5 ex.(my only point of ex lens comparision) .I believe sigma have dropped the ex prefix for any non constant aperture lens but other than that its hard to see much difference.I did however try a 150-500 os a couple of months ago and i think its a little better made than that, imho.
The optical stabilisation is quiet and the image in the viewfinder is remarkably still:thumbup:I personaly think its worth around two stops, I think Sigma talk about four stops(maybe I'm not steady enough)obviously the use of a monopod or partial support improves things further.I have had the odd sharp shot at 200th sec but I prefer to keep above 320th sec,even so I'm quite happy with that:thumbup:.Its worth mentioning that its said that in lens o/s is better than in camera once one gets above 300mm ish and from my brief totaly unscientific test on this,I agree.
In response to this general quetion and Bart inquiring about the Sigma 50-500 os(new bigma) I thought I would chip in.
I got the bigma about four weeks ago and my thoughts thus far are-
Its well made,i would say that there's no real difference between it and my Sigma 10-20 f3.5 ex.(my only point of ex lens comparision) .I believe sigma have dropped the ex prefix for any non constant aperture lens but other than that its hard to see much difference.I did however try a 150-500 os a couple of months ago and i think its a little better made than that, imho.
The optical stabilisation is quiet and the image in the viewfinder is remarkably still:thumbup:I personaly think its worth around two stops, I think Sigma talk about four stops(maybe I'm not steady enough)obviously the use of a monopod or partial support improves things further.I have had the odd sharp shot at 200th sec but I prefer to keep above 320th sec,even so I'm quite happy with that:thumbup:.Its worth mentioning that its said that in lens o/s is better than in camera once one gets above 300mm ish and from my brief totaly unscientific test on this,I agree.
So,is it sharp?at 500mm? thats what this lens is all about for me,anything else is a bonus,anything less is a compromise,thats how I approached this lens!
I did a brief focus test and found that it back focused by -6 on the k5.Went off with friends to a nature reserve,came back happy looked at my shots did a better focus test and found it actually front focuses by+6:ROTFL:
A wet grey day here-perfect these shots all today I hope they show a real world test,atleast my world:loco:
1st shot taken from 8 meters ish at a 15 degree decline.bolt is approx 30mm long.raw file untouched.
2nd shot is a crop,arond 100% and processed to my tastes as if I went out to get that shot.
3rd is a bird that obligingly landed 4m behind the chain/shed so around 12 meters and again a downward angle.raw file untouched.
4th shot a crop and process (to my tastes)to make the best of it
I did a brief focus test and found that it back focused by -6 on the k5.Went off with friends to a nature reserve,came back happy looked at my shots
did a better focus test and found it actually front focuses by+6:ROTFL:A wet grey day here-perfect
these shots all today I hope they show a real world test,atleast my world:loco:1st shot taken from 8 meters ish at a 15 degree decline.bolt is approx 30mm long.raw file untouched.
2nd shot is a crop,arond 100% and processed to my tastes as if I went out to get that shot.
3rd is a bird that obligingly landed 4m behind the chain/shed so around 12 meters and again a downward angle.raw file untouched.
4th shot a crop and process (to my tastes)to make the best of it
Last edited:
So what do i think so far?
Its ok
I paid £940ish from SRS.
I think that as I learn to use this lens to its advantages and not its weaknesses it will prove to be ok for the money:thumbup:
Its a "light hungry lens" a phrase i read that is accurate.
Its best stopped down to atleast f8 by when it reasonably sharp.
Its heavy,but then its going to be.
All things considered its a lot of glass for the money and I havnt even touched on its other focal lengths:thumbup:
It goes without saying that my thoughts are by no means definative or comprehensive,just an honest opinion
Bart,I cant comment on the 120-400? other than to say that for me thats a bit too close to 300mm and pentax's own 300mm prime or the lenses mentioned above and cropping in imho
Hope this helps ,for those on a similar road.:salute:
Regards
Malcolm
Its ok
I paid £940ish from SRS.
I think that as I learn to use this lens to its advantages and not its weaknesses it will prove to be ok for the money:thumbup:
Its a "light hungry lens" a phrase i read that is accurate.
Its best stopped down to atleast f8 by when it reasonably sharp.
Its heavy,but then its going to be.
All things considered its a lot of glass for the money and I havnt even touched on its other focal lengths:thumbup:
It goes without saying that my thoughts are by no means definative or comprehensive,just an honest opinion
Bart,I cant comment on the 120-400? other than to say that for me thats a bit too close to 300mm and pentax's own 300mm prime or the lenses mentioned above and cropping in imho
Hope this helps ,for those on a similar road.:salute:
Regards
Malcolm
ps. I dont know why that Great Tit has only got one legmaybe it had something to do with the parrot on its shoulder that I cloned out:ROTFL:
Oh, and heres one from my first trip out when i had the focus fine tune 12 points out:ROTFLyet another nearly shot)
Malc.
maybe it had something to do with the parrot on its shoulder that I cloned out:ROTFL:Oh, and heres one from my first trip out when i had the focus fine tune 12 points out:ROTFL
yet another nearly shot)Malc.
Last edited:
Knorp
Well-known member
Hi there Malcolm,
thanks a lot for all your effort, I really appreciate that.
Having the lovely DA*200, a 300mm lens is just a tiny bit too close.
So I'm looking for something at least 400mm, hence my interest in the 120-400 and 50-500 Sigmas.
The problem with these affordable lenses, according to different reviewers, is that they degrade IQ-wise quite quickly when extended.
But I can't deny that your BIGMA shots are very good.
Well, perhaps I'd better think it over a little longer ...
All the very best.
thanks a lot for all your effort, I really appreciate that.
Having the lovely DA*200, a 300mm lens is just a tiny bit too close.
So I'm looking for something at least 400mm, hence my interest in the 120-400 and 50-500 Sigmas.
The problem with these affordable lenses, according to different reviewers, is that they degrade IQ-wise quite quickly when extended.
But I can't deny that your BIGMA shots are very good.
Well, perhaps I'd better think it over a little longer ...
All the very best.
My pleasure Bart
Perhaps more in line with the O/P's posting and addressing the 400mm aspect as well as Roy's blunderbus point.
I did have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 a/f non apo prime bought for £120 from a camera fair, which punched above its weight sometimes and was extremely hand holdable.it did suffer from horrendous purple fringing but that could be addressed in post p. Just another option.:thumbup:
Regards
Malc
Perhaps more in line with the O/P's posting and addressing the 400mm aspect as well as Roy's blunderbus point.
I did have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 a/f non apo prime bought for £120 from a camera fair, which punched above its weight sometimes and was extremely hand holdable.it did suffer from horrendous purple fringing but that could be addressed in post p. Just another option.:thumbup:
Regards
Malc
Knorp
Well-known member
Hi there Roy,
Agreed, the crop factor is something not to be ignored, but as I explained to Malcolm I feel a 300 is a bit too close to my 200.
Kind regards.
Knorp
Well-known member
What a gorgeous bird and a fine shot, Malcolm !My pleasure Bart
Perhaps more in line with the O/P's posting and addressing the 400mm aspect as well as Roy's blunderbus point.
I did have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 a/f non apo prime bought for £120 from a camera fair, which punched above its weight sometimes and was extremely hand holdable.it did suffer from horrendous purple fringing but that could be addressed in post p. Just another option.:thumbup:
Regards
Malc
Yes, perhaps I should have a look at a prime tele lens.
Oh boy, aren't the options endless ?
Kind regards.
Many thanks Bart,Roy,Joe.
Funnily enough I've just sold that 400mm sigma and wouldnt you know looking through some shots to try and show as best as I can its quite a viable lens, I kind of wish I still had it
Then low and behold a trip that included poping in to my local camera shop today and they have the APO version for sale.Just tempting me the little so and so'soke:
So,one more and then I'll stop it I dont know how to include the exif details,(I think because the forum software is resizing them for me?)but they are-
pentax k5,sigma 400mmf5.6 non apo.iso 100,f5.6 1/2500sec.
Regards
Malcolm
Funnily enough I've just sold that 400mm sigma and wouldnt you know looking through some shots to try and show as best as I can its quite a viable lens, I kind of wish I still had it
Then low and behold a trip that included poping in to my local camera shop today and they have the APO version for sale.Just tempting me the little so and so's
oke:So,one more and then I'll stop it
I dont know how to include the exif details,(I think because the forum software is resizing them for me?)but they are-pentax k5,sigma 400mmf5.6 non apo.iso 100,f5.6 1/2500sec.
Regards
Malcolm
jonoslack
Active member
Oh hell
Now I want a long lens as well - Malc you have a great deal to answer for.
Wonderful pictures
I have more of an immediate problem in that we have a goldfinch nesting just below our bedroom window - so 500mm ain't required, but how to shoot it without disturbing it (if you see what I mean!).
Now I want a long lens as well - Malc you have a great deal to answer for.
Wonderful pictures
I have more of an immediate problem in that we have a goldfinch nesting just below our bedroom window - so 500mm ain't required, but how to shoot it without disturbing it (if you see what I mean!).