Any info on the forthcoming 130-370mm zoom?

yomer · 12-05-2012, 05:24 PM

I'm actually debating with myself on weather to buy a Sigma 120-400, a Pentax DA 55-300, or wait next year for the yet to be known DA tele lens. This is so frustrating.

Unsinkable II · 12-07-2012, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by yomer

I'm actually debating with myself on weather to buy a Sigma 120-400, a Pentax DA 55-300, or wait next year for the yet to be known DA tele lens. This is so frustrating.

Maybe my 55-300 isn't great; I've had nothing to compare it to until my 50-135.

At 135mm and cropping it is beating native 300mm.

SteveTheOldMan · 12-07-2012, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Clinton

I see that you catch my drift.

Yes indeed. The problem is we're as diverse as Nikon/Canon shooters without the vast numbers to make it profitable for Sigma/Tamron to sell a more complete line to us. To be honest, I'm surprised Sigma makes a 300 f2.8 for the k-mount.

yomer · 12-07-2012, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Unsinkable II

Maybe my 55-300 isn't great; I've had nothing to compare it to until my 50-135.

At 135mm and cropping it is beating native 300mm.

Really? It seems like a big stretch. Do you mean cropping the photos of static objects/landscapes? My plan is to acquire a lens to capture indoor and outdoor events, such as family gatherings, school plays and games. Last on my list are the static objects and landscapes. Do you still think that the 50-135 would beat the native zoom of a 55-300mm?

Unsinkable II · 12-07-2012, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by yomer

Really? It seems like a big stretch. Do you mean cropping the photos of static objects/landscapes? My plan is to acquire a lens to capture indoor and outdoor events, such as family gatherings, school plays and games. Last on my list are the static objects and landscapes. Do you still think that the 50-135 would beat the native zoom of a 55-300mm?

As I said, perhaps my 55-300 is at fault, though I've been very satisfied with what it has produced.

I just think that the 50-135 is so optically superior that it really does make up the lost ground by cropping, at least with my 16MP K-30, when not needing to print/display big.

Certainly, the 55-300 is now being left behind for any future school plays and family gatherings. Outdoor games? Perhaps still the 55-300.

VoiceOfReason · 12-07-2012, 08:32 PM

I have my Sigma 150-500, but a WR 135-400 would be nice.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Any info on this lens, I checked the reviews already	littledrawe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	04-08-2014 07:30 PM
Soligor 24mm f2.5: Any Info On This Lens?	snake	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	08-07-2012 01:02 PM
Any info on the Sigma 28mm F1.8 II Aspherical (58mm)	dgaies	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-29-2010 02:19 PM
Any more info on the Ltd. Silver K7?	Mark Morb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	03-15-2010 06:45 AM
Any info on Sigma Zoom AF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6?	EsBee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	05-30-2009 11:53 AM

12-05-2012, 05:24 PM	#31
yomer Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 37	I'm actually debating with myself on weather to buy a Sigma 120-400, a Pentax DA 55-300, or wait next year for the yet to be known DA tele lens. This is so frustrating.

12-07-2012, 09:01 AM	#32
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Originally posted by yomer I'm actually debating with myself on weather to buy a Sigma 120-400, a Pentax DA 55-300, or wait next year for the yet to be known DA tele lens. This is so frustrating. Maybe my 55-300 isn't great; I've had nothing to compare it to until my 50-135. At 135mm and cropping it is beating native 300mm.

12-07-2012, 09:40 AM	#33
SteveTheOldMan Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Central MA, USA Posts: 63 Original Poster	Originally posted by Clinton I see that you catch my drift. Yes indeed. The problem is we're as diverse as Nikon/Canon shooters without the vast numbers to make it profitable for Sigma/Tamron to sell a more complete line to us. To be honest, I'm surprised Sigma makes a 300 f2.8 for the k-mount.

12-07-2012, 09:59 AM	#34
yomer Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 37	Originally posted by Unsinkable II Maybe my 55-300 isn't great; I've had nothing to compare it to until my 50-135. At 135mm and cropping it is beating native 300mm. Really? It seems like a big stretch. Do you mean cropping the photos of static objects/landscapes? My plan is to acquire a lens to capture indoor and outdoor events, such as family gatherings, school plays and games. Last on my list are the static objects and landscapes. Do you still think that the 50-135 would beat the native zoom of a 55-300mm?

12-07-2012, 07:34 PM	#35
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Originally posted by yomer Really? It seems like a big stretch. Do you mean cropping the photos of static objects/landscapes? My plan is to acquire a lens to capture indoor and outdoor events, such as family gatherings, school plays and games. Last on my list are the static objects and landscapes. Do you still think that the 50-135 would beat the native zoom of a 55-300mm? As I said, perhaps my 55-300 is at fault, though I've been very satisfied with what it has produced. I just think that the 50-135 is so optically superior that it really does make up the lost ground by cropping, at least with my 16MP K-30, when not needing to print/display big. Certainly, the 55-300 is now being left behind for any future school plays and family gatherings. Outdoor games? Perhaps still the 55-300.

12-07-2012, 08:32 PM	#36
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I have my Sigma 150-500, but a WR 135-400 would be nice.