Sigma 120-400mm or 150-500mm on Pentax

Setter Dog · 03-05-2015, 02:34 PM

I'm still trying to get my lenses kit lined up for my Pentax k50 and K3. I got the 18-55mmWR and 50-200MMWR with my K50 and the really nice 18-135mmWR with my K3. I had a 55-300mmWR for a few weeks but returned it. The focus was so incredibly slow that I became convinced I had a bad copy of the lens.

Since returning the 55-300WR, I've been using the 50-200WR on my K50. I am very, very surprised at the IQ, color etc that I get from this lens on my K50. This has given me pause about buying another moderate zoom. I think the 50-200WR will stay on my K50 on my trips to Teton/Yellowstone.

However, I know there are times when I'll want more zoom. I've always avoided the big lenses but am now rethinking the Sigma 120-400 and the Sigma150-500. I'd probably try to pick one up on eBay.

If anyone uses either of these lenses on a Pentax, can you confirm that the lens IS works? Are you able to hand hold these lenses? Is the IQ pretty good?

Any comments appreciated from users. Thanks, folks!

Jack

Last edited by Setter Dog; 03-05-2015 at 02:57 PM.

mohb · 03-05-2015, 03:09 PM - **1 Like**

Hand held at 1/125 and stopped down to f8. The IS seems to do its job because at 500 end it keeps the view finder image very still.

**boriscleto** · 03-05-2015, 03:24 PM

Couldn't be happier with the 150-500.

I shoot almost exclusively from a monopod, though that is mainly to rest my arms after they get tired from hand holding it...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/130-lens-sample-photo-archive/171934-sigm...g-apo-hsm.html

**rod_grant** · 03-05-2015, 03:30 PM

I haven't had the 150-500 very long and only used it a few times, but I am very happy with it.
(It is not a lens to going hiking with!)
This is an early hand held shot @ 440mm.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ml#post3166790

Have a look thought the 300mm+ lens club - you will find examples of images taken with either lens.

Last edited by rod_grant; 03-05-2015 at 03:48 PM.

Setter Dog · 03-05-2015, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by rod_grant

I haven't had the 150-500 very long and only used it a few times, but I am very happy with it.
(It is not a lens to going hiking with!)
This is an early hand held shot @ 420mm.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ml#post3166790

Have a look thought the 300mm+ lens club - you will find examples of images taken with either lens.

Wow! Thanks for the encouraging comments,...and Rod, thanks for the link to the 300mm plus club. I'll look at that,.....though what I've seen in these responses is pretty convincing!

Jack

mohb · 03-05-2015, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by rod_grant

(It is not a lens to going hiking with!)

I have taken mine for long walks in Lake district, this sheep seemed very interested in posing for me!

**rod_grant** · 03-05-2015, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by mohb

I have taken mine for long walks in Lake district

You must be younger and fitter!!
I know I will be tempted to lug it around a bit, but I also know I will sometimes regret it.

Your pic proves that landscapes don't always need UWA lenses.

VisualDarkness · 03-05-2015, 04:16 PM

I kind of miss my old 150-500. I would fr sure go with one of the 500mm ones instead of the 400mm. Once you go long and large enough the tiny size difference will be miniscule in the matter and the extra 100mm will most likely make it more inciting to use.

Setter Dog · 03-05-2015, 05:09 PM

I think I agree that the 500mm will be much more useful to me.

Jack

**robgski** · 03-05-2015, 05:38 PM

I agree that a zoom of 150-500mm is the best choice. I shoot nature and sports, my 55-300 is not enough.

SpecialK · 03-05-2015, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

I kind of miss my old 150-500. I would fr sure go with one of the 500mm ones instead of the 400mm. Once you go long and large enough the tiny size difference will be miniscule in the matter and the extra 100mm will most likely make it more inciting to use.

Same here about FL, except I don't really miss the 150-500 as that with the K5 was frustrating at air shows. By the time it was in focus I was looking at the tail end of the plane ...

Nice for static or slow-moving subjects, though.

VisualDarkness · 03-05-2015, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Same here about FL, except I don't really miss the 150-500 as that with the K5 was frustrating at air shows. By the time it was in focus I was looking at the tail end of the plane ...

Nice for static or slow-moving subjects, though.

I had no problems with the focusing speed as long as there was enough light.

normhead · 03-05-2015, 06:57 PM

I had two copies of the 120-400, one was DoA, and the other was way too soft in the long end. Maybe I got a bad copy the second time, I don't know. I decided to just upgrade to a DA*60-250. A move I've never looked back on. But people do seem happier with the 150-500.

**clackers** · 03-05-2015, 08:27 PM

Boriscleto is the master of that 150-500. I find it's a bit soft for me beyond 400, but my skills are not yet up to it - here's a heavy crop of a nesting falcon a long way away ...

**Des** · 03-05-2015, 08:39 PM

PF lens threads go like this: "Should I buy lens A or lens B?" After lots of conflicting advice about Lens A and Lens B, someone inevitably pops up with Lens C, Lens D or Lens E.

So that's my role now.

Why not consider a 300mm prime with a teleconverter, or a 400mm f5.6 prime? If you are happy with the 50-200 (or get a good copy of the 55-300), it can adequately cover the shorter lengths anyway.

A DA*300 f4 and a 1.4 TC would be much lighter than a 1900g 150-500 and give an effective 420mm f5.6. Even with the TC, image quality would be at least as good as the Sigma zooms, with quiet SDM autofocus.

F*300 f4.5 or FA*300 f4.5 would be other options; some people argue that the IQ is even better, and the F is particularly light weight.

I have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 Tele Macro (77mm filter) and it's a gem of a lens. (See the photos by Gary Chalker in the 300mm+ lenses thread mentioned above.) It can be used with my Kenko 1.5 TC for the equivalent of 600mm f6.7 - although I haven't used it enough yet to comment on that combination. They are hard to find but have tended to go for around $US600. There is an cheaper older version with a 72mm filter, and a Tokina equivalent, but they aren't quite as highly rated.

I had a long zoom but the 400 fills the role nicely. For wildlife shots, I am mostly chasing more length, so not having zoom is no great disadvantage. My 55-300 fills the shorter telephoto end anyway. And the relatively short MFD of the 400, together with its light weight (<1300g) makes it quite usable.

03-05-2015, 02:34 PM	#1
Setter Dog Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Orange County California Posts: 117	Sigma 120-400mm or 150-500mm on Pentax I'm still trying to get my lenses kit lined up for my Pentax k50 and K3. I got the 18-55mmWR and 50-200MMWR with my K50 and the really nice 18-135mmWR with my K3. I had a 55-300mmWR for a few weeks but returned it. The focus was so incredibly slow that I became convinced I had a bad copy of the lens. Since returning the 55-300WR, I've been using the 50-200WR on my K50. I am very, very surprised at the IQ, color etc that I get from this lens on my K50. This has given me pause about buying another moderate zoom. I think the 50-200WR will stay on my K50 on my trips to Teton/Yellowstone. However, I know there are times when I'll want more zoom. I've always avoided the big lenses but am now rethinking the Sigma 120-400 and the Sigma150-500. I'd probably try to pick one up on eBay. If anyone uses either of these lenses on a Pentax, can you confirm that the lens IS works? Are you able to hand hold these lenses? Is the IQ pretty good? Any comments appreciated from users. Thanks, folks! Jack Last edited by Setter Dog; 03-05-2015 at 02:57 PM.

03-05-2015, 08:39 PM	#15
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	PF lens threads go like this: "Should I buy lens A or lens B?" After lots of conflicting advice about Lens A and Lens B, someone inevitably pops up with Lens C, Lens D or Lens E. So that's my role now. Why not consider a 300mm prime with a teleconverter, or a 400mm f5.6 prime? If you are happy with the 50-200 (or get a good copy of the 55-300), it can adequately cover the shorter lengths anyway. A DA300 f4 and a 1.4 TC would be much lighter than a 1900g 150-500 and give an effective 420mm f5.6. Even with the TC, image quality would be at least as good as the Sigma zooms, with quiet SDM autofocus. F300 f4.5 or FA300 f4.5 would be other options; some people argue that the IQ is even better, and the F is particularly light weight. I have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 Tele Macro (77mm filter) and it's a gem of a lens. (See the photos by Gary Chalker in the 300mm+ lenses thread mentioned above.) It can be used with my Kenko 1.5 TC for the equivalent of 600mm f6.7 - although I haven't used it enough yet to comment on that combination. They are hard to find but have tended to go for around $US600. There is an cheaper older version with a 72mm filter, and a Tokina equivalent, but they aren't quite as highly rated. I had a long zoom but the 400 fills the role nicely. For wildlife shots, I am mostly chasing more length, so not having zoom is no great disadvantage. My 55-300 fills the shorter telephoto end anyway. And the relatively short MFD of the 400, together with its light weight (<1300g) makes it quite usable. Last edited by Des; 03-05-2015 at 11:35 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Whats better for motosports on K30, Sigma 150-500mm or 120-400mm	GixxerMKD	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	03-24-2014 12:14 PM
Sigma 120~400 OR 150~500	pntxjack	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	02-24-2014 09:36 AM
Sigma 50-500mm vs 150-500mm or Pentax DA 55-300mm with 1.4 TC?	mikejustice	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	12-18-2009 07:59 PM
Wanted - Acquired: 100-400mm, 100-500mm, 150-500mm or similar K-mount lens	GibbyTheMole	Sold Items	8	12-03-2009 11:52 AM
SIGMA 120-400mm，150-500mm for Pentax	yakiniku	Pentax News and Rumors	13	12-10-2008 02:20 PM

03-05-2015, 03:09 PM - 1 Like	#2
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	Hand held at 1/125 and stopped down to f8. The IS seems to do its job because at 500 end it keeps the view finder image very still.

03-05-2015, 03:24 PM	#3
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Couldn't be happier with the 150-500. I shoot almost exclusively from a monopod, though that is mainly to rest my arms after they get tired from hand holding it... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/130-lens-sample-photo-archive/171934-sigm...g-apo-hsm.html

03-05-2015, 03:30 PM	#4
rod_grant Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wangaratta, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,951	I haven't had the 150-500 very long and only used it a few times, but I am very happy with it. (It is not a lens to going hiking with!) This is an early hand held shot @ 440mm. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ml#post3166790 Have a look thought the 300mm+ lens club - you will find examples of images taken with either lens. Last edited by rod_grant; 03-05-2015 at 03:48 PM.

03-05-2015, 03:34 PM	#5
Setter Dog Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Orange County California Posts: 117 Original Poster	Originally posted by rod_grant I haven't had the 150-500 very long and only used it a few times, but I am very happy with it. (It is not a lens to going hiking with!) This is an early hand held shot @ 420mm. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ml#post3166790 Have a look thought the 300mm+ lens club - you will find examples of images taken with either lens. Wow! Thanks for the encouraging comments,...and Rod, thanks for the link to the 300mm plus club. I'll look at that,.....though what I've seen in these responses is pretty convincing! Jack

03-05-2015, 03:46 PM	#6
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	Originally posted by rod_grant (It is not a lens to going hiking with!) I have taken mine for long walks in Lake district, this sheep seemed very interested in posing for me!

03-05-2015, 03:56 PM	#7
rod_grant Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wangaratta, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,951	Originally posted by mohb I have taken mine for long walks in Lake district You must be younger and fitter!! I know I will be tempted to lug it around a bit, but I also know I will sometimes regret it. Your pic proves that landscapes don't always need UWA lenses.

03-05-2015, 04:16 PM	#8
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	I kind of miss my old 150-500. I would fr sure go with one of the 500mm ones instead of the 400mm. Once you go long and large enough the tiny size difference will be miniscule in the matter and the extra 100mm will most likely make it more inciting to use.

03-05-2015, 05:09 PM	#9
Setter Dog Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Orange County California Posts: 117 Original Poster	I think I agree that the 500mm will be much more useful to me. Jack

03-05-2015, 05:38 PM	#10
robgski Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,817	I agree that a zoom of 150-500mm is the best choice. I shoot nature and sports, my 55-300 is not enough.

03-05-2015, 06:11 PM	#11
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Originally posted by VisualDarkness I kind of miss my old 150-500. I would fr sure go with one of the 500mm ones instead of the 400mm. Once you go long and large enough the tiny size difference will be miniscule in the matter and the extra 100mm will most likely make it more inciting to use. Same here about FL, except I don't really miss the 150-500 as that with the K5 was frustrating at air shows. By the time it was in focus I was looking at the tail end of the plane ... Nice for static or slow-moving subjects, though.

03-05-2015, 06:18 PM	#12
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Originally posted by SpecialK Same here about FL, except I don't really miss the 150-500 as that with the K5 was frustrating at air shows. By the time it was in focus I was looking at the tail end of the plane ... Nice for static or slow-moving subjects, though. I had no problems with the focusing speed as long as there was enough light.

03-05-2015, 06:57 PM	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I had two copies of the 120-400, one was DoA, and the other was way too soft in the long end. Maybe I got a bad copy the second time, I don't know. I decided to just upgrade to a DA*60-250. A move I've never looked back on. But people do seem happier with the 150-500.

03-05-2015, 08:27 PM	#14
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Boriscleto is the master of that 150-500. I find it's a bit soft for me beyond 400, but my skills are not yet up to it - here's a heavy crop of a nesting falcon a long way away ...