[StephenA]

Hi All,

I've got a Pentax K-r with the standard 18-55 Lens and also a Sigma 70-300mm DG Lens. I'm very happy with this kit and the Sigma supports a bit of Macro in 200-300mm range which I've used to do some close up insect photography.

I've been given a secondhand Pentax 50-200mm DAL Lens as part of my birthday present which means that between this and the Sigma, I'm kind of doubling up a bit and feel that I should probably not keep one of them. I do like the Sigma's flexibility but do you guys think the DAL is significantly better in terms of quality. I like to do a range of wildlife pics (ranging from seals, birds and insects) which would be my main use for the lens.

Is there any merit in keeping both?

Any opinions welcome.

[twitch]

I don't think there is much of a difference between those 2 in IQ, but the Sigma has the better reach. The DA L 55-300 is better than both though, my suggestion is perhaps you sell both and buy a DA L 55-300. You might have to tip in $50 or so though?

[northcoastgreg]

I agree with the previous poster: sell both telephotos and chase after a DAL 55-300.

[mbukal]

I agree with the previous poster: sell both telephotos and chase after a DAL 55-300 or better DA 55-300 because quick shift and iron mount and lens hood

[StephenA]

Thanks guys, I hadn't thought of the 55-300 DAL. Do you guys know how this lens is on Macro (I like my bugs). The Sigma has a Macro switch capability between 200-300mm range, does this one have anything similar?

[boriscleto]

Thanks guys, I hadn't thought of the 55-300 DAL. Do you guys know how this lens is on Macro (I like my bugs). The Sigma has a Macro switch capability between 200-300mm range, does this one have anything similar?

The 55-300 does not have a macro capability. I believe it is 1:3 at 300mm (.28x magnification). The addition of a Raynox will take it to 1:1 or greater.










Flickr: Search bmcgann1's photostream

[StephenA]

Thanks for the info everyone, I think I'm going to stick with the Sigma. I like it's Macro capability and I don't really want to spend much cash at the moment.

[Philoslothical]

Stephen, I'm in much the same place right now. I have the same Sigma, and usually I'm quite pleased with it considering its price. It's much sharper below 200mm than it is at 300mm though. I'd suggest, if you can swing it, grab a Raynox anyway and use it with the Sigma. It would give you more flexibility on the focal length you use for bugs, and get you closer at the same time.

[epqwerty]

Word of warning a raynox adapter is not the ame as the sigma macro. Im not saying that raynox is bad but your working distance with it is severe.y limited while the sigma acts like a normal macro lens should work. But it is only 1:2 not 1:1 magnification.

[Philoslothical]

Right, the minimum focusing distance of the Sigma is substantial due to its focal length, but that also costs you a lot in stability. It's a lot harder to keep a 300mm (effectively longer than that when in macro mode) lens stable compared to your usual ~100mm macro lens.

It's a good tradeoff to get closer to the subject and have greater handheld stability. He'll also get sharper images, even with the Raynox added, because he can use the Raynox near the 70mm end of the lens' focal range, which performs significantly better than the 300mm end.

I'll agree it's a different way of doing it though. For a lens this physically long, it makes sense. Extensions sure wouldn't, between light loss and difficulty stabilizing it. When it comes right down to it, any method of pushing a lens beyond its rated magnification will require you to get a lot closer to subject.

[epqwerty]

Agreed at 300mm the sigma is hard to handhold when lacking light. But at 200 it is perfectly good in most conditions. But at 70mm with the raynox good to use. But definitely they are different in use method so be warned.