[Reptilezz]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Hey everyone,

I was just wondering if qnything like a 100-400mm lens exists for pentax? I know there is a sigma 120-400 and i will probably get that if there is nothing else, but was curious as to if there was anything else in the 400mm range.
Ps, i will be using it on a k5II

Thanks

[jatrax]

AFAIK the Sigma 120-400 and 135-400's are the only lenses in that range for Pentax.

There is a 120ish to 380ish lens on the Pentax lens road map but no one knows if it will ever be released and if so at what price.

You might also consider the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 models, in some cases they are rated higher than the -400 ones. But those reviews are somewhat subjective so YMMV.

[Reptilezz]

AFAIK the Sigma 120-400 and 135-400's are the only lenses in that range for Pentax.

There is a 120ish to 380ish lens on the Pentax lens road map but no one knows if it will ever be released and if so at what price.

You might also consider the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 models, in some cases they are rated higher than the -400 ones. But those reviews are somewhat subjective so YMMV.

Thanks, i have considerd those lenses but they seem very big and heavy.

[jatrax]

but they seem very big and heavy.

That's because they are, LOL

I have Sigma 50-500 and it is definitely a tripod mount for me, just too much lens to casually tote around.

[Reptilezz]

That's because they are, LOL

I have Sigma 50-500 and it is definitely a tripod mount for me, just too much lens to casually tote around.

Do you think one could hand hold a 120-400? Thanks

[scratchpaddy]

Do you think one could hand hold a 120-400? Thanks

You can handhold anything if you're dedicated enough...



Seriously, though: the 120-400 is 1,750g. The 50-500 1,970g, and about 10% bigger. Not much difference, IMO. If you can afford it, I would just get the 50-500. I can't speak from experience, though, as I'm more of a wide-angle guy.

[Reptilezz]

You can handhold anything if you're dedicated enough...



Seriously, though: the 120-400 is 1,750g. The 50-500 1,970g, and about 10% bigger. Not much difference, IMO. If you can afford it, I would just get the 50-500. I can't speak from experience, though, as I'm more of a wide-angle guy.

Holy s#!T thats huge! The 50-500 is a bit expensive as i can get the 120-400 for $800, and the 50-500 is about $1500. What about the 150-500? Is it f5.6 at 400?

[Achromatter]

Hey everyone,

I was just wondering if qnything like a 100-400mm lens exists for pentax? I know there is a sigma 120-400 and i will probably get that if there is nothing else, but was curious as to if there was anything else in the 400mm range.
Ps, i will be using it on a k5II

Thanks

You didn't mention any aperture limitations, so how about this: Vivitar Series 1 100 400mm F 4 5 6 7 AF Lens FOR Pentax | eBay

EDIT: I just read the whole listing, and in the description it seems it's for Nikon, but in the heading and the decription window it says Pentax, <shrug> Sorry!

[Reptilezz]

You didn't mention any aperture limitations, so how about this: Vivitar Series 1 100 400mm F 4 5 6 7 AF Lens FOR Pentax | eBay

EDIT: I just read the whole listing, and in the description it seems it's for Nikon, but in the heading and the decription window it says Pentax, <shrug> Sorry!

All good, thanks for the reply. I think ill just go with the 120-400 or 150-500

[TenZ.NL]

Holy s#!T thats huge! The 50-500 is a bit expensive as i can get the 120-400 for $800, and the 50-500 is about $1500. What about the 150-500? Is it f5.6 at 400?

No, it`s F6.3 from >300mm. You need to stop down to F8 anyway to get decent sharpness over longer distances. But due to the OS I have no difficulties shooting it handheld.

BTW: there is a sigma 100-300 F4 in the marketplace: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/233080-sale-s...-300mm-f4.html

[snostorm]

Hi Reptilezz,

If you consider the used discontinued market, Tokina used to make an 80-400 f4.5 -5.6 AT-X AF. There were two versions, the first did not have a tripod ring, and the second did. IIRC, V1 had a screw in hood and the V2 had a bayonet hood. I have a V2. It's a good lens, a bit heavy, but that has to be expected since the Tokina AT-X Pro series lenses are built like tanks, and it's still a bit lighter than its contemporary, the Sigma 135- 400. There are still ongoing disagreements as to which one might be better optically, they are that close. From what I've seen, the new 120-400 is slightly better optically, but you really have to look hard to see a difference, and a little PP can make any differences essentially vanish. These would be your least expensive alternatives as the discontinued Tokina 80-400 and Sigma 135-400 probably go for between $400-600 in good shape. Note that any price ranges quoted are just guesstimates from what I've seen offered -- I've just been a casual observer of the markets for these lenses for quite a few years. . .

If you are looking for the best alternative zoom at ~400mm on the long end, I'd suggest a Sigma EX 100-300 f4 APO or APO DG. Both are screw drive lenses, and thus could be paired with a 1.4x AF TC. Probably the best one for this lens would be a Sigma EX 1.4x APO or APO DG AF TC. This would give you a 140-420 f5.6. It would be the same speed at the long end, but a bit slower at the short end, but it's also an internal zoom and focus lens, so the barrel does not extend to either zoom or focus. this is important for handling since the balance doesn't change. It's a bigger and heavier lens than the other xx-400 zooms, but it's obviously optically superior to any of the rest by a margin. Most place this lens in the same class as the Pentax, Canon, and Nikon OEM 300mm f4 primes, and although not quite as good optically, it's really nitpicking to cite the differences in performance, IMO. This is probably the most expensive alternative since the lens seems to be holding at $1000 and up, and the TC would cost another $100-200 used.

The last alternative would be a 70/80-200 f2.8 screwdrive AF constant aperture zoom with a 2x AF TC, which will also get you to 400mm f5.6. Personally, I don't like this alternative as well as most of the 2x TCs aren't very good optically. I've not tried these, but the Kenko 2x PZ MC7 AF TC and the Sigma EX 2x APO and APO DG AF TCs are probably the best, with the Sigma probably being a bit better. This is really a matter of personal preference though, and I'm not really partial to 70-200 f2.8 zooms even though I do own one -- a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 AT-X Pro AF V2. The only lens to avoid in this class would probably be the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 APO Macro, as this model "upgrade" from the original APO model was universally panned for being noticeably softer. Also avoid the HSM models because there are no 2x AF TCs that will work reliably with HSM (not even the "PZ" models that have the electrical contacts that can drive the in-lens motor), so it has to be a screw drive AF model if you want to get to 400mm. This is probably a middle alternative with the lens at $500-700, and the TC probably close to $200.

Scott

[Reptilezz]

Hi Reptilezz,

If you consider the used discontinued market, Tokina used to make an 80-400 f4.5 -5.6 AT-X AF. There were two versions, the first did not have a tripod ring, and the second did. IIRC, V1 had a screw in hood and the V2 had a bayonet hood. I have a V2. It's a good lens, a bit heavy, but that has to be expected since the Tokina AT-X Pro series lenses are built like tanks, and it's still a bit lighter than its contemporary, the Sigma 135- 400. There are still ongoing disagreements as to which one might be better optically, they are that close. From what I've seen, the new 120-400 is slightly better optically, but you really have to look hard to see a difference, and a little PP can make any differences essentially vanish. These would be your least expensive alternatives as the discontinued Tokina 80-400 and Sigma 135-400 probably go for between $400-600 in good shape. Note that any price ranges quoted are just guesstimates from what I've seen offered -- I've just been a casual observer of the markets for these lenses for quite a few years. . .

If you are looking for the best alternative zoom at ~400mm on the long end, I'd suggest a Sigma EX 100-300 f4 APO or APO DG. Both are screw drive lenses, and thus could be paired with a 1.4x AF TC. Probably the best one for this lens would be a Sigma EX 1.4x APO or APO DG AF TC. This would give you a 140-420 f5.6. It would be the same speed at the long end, but a bit slower at the short end, but it's also an internal zoom and focus lens, so the barrel does not extend to either zoom or focus. this is important for handling since the balance doesn't change. It's a bigger and heavier lens than the other xx-400 zooms, but it's obviously optically superior to any of the rest by a margin. Most place this lens in the same class as the Pentax, Canon, and Nikon OEM 300mm f4 primes, and although not quite as good optically, it's really nitpicking to cite the differences in performance, IMO. This is probably the most expensive alternative since the lens seems to be holding at $1000 and up, and the TC would cost another $100-200 used.

The last alternative would be a 70/80-200 f2.8 screwdrive AF constant aperture zoom with a 2x AF TC, which will also get you to 400mm f5.6. Personally, I don't like this alternative as well as most of the 2x TCs aren't very good optically. I've not tried these, but the Kenko 2x PZ MC7 AF TC and the Sigma EX 2x APO and APO DG AF TCs are probably the best, with the Sigma probably being a bit better. This is really a matter of personal preference though, and I'm not really partial to 70-200 f2.8 zooms even though I do own one -- a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 AT-X Pro AF V2. The only lens to avoid in this class would probably be the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 APO Macro, as this model "upgrade" from the original APO model was universally panned for being noticeably softer. Also avoid the HSM models because there are no 2x AF TCs that will work reliably with HSM (not even the "PZ" models that have the electrical contacts that can drive the in-lens motor), so it has to be a screw drive AF model if you want to get to 400mm. This is probably a middle alternative with the lens at $500-700, and the TC probably close to $200.

Scott

Thanks. I would love a 100-300 f4 but they are really hard to come by and are usually over $1000. I think ill go with the 120-400 or the 100-300 combo if i can scrape up some more money. Thanks

[Digitalis]

I would love a 100-300 f4 but they are really hard to come by and are usually over $1000

But the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG is TOTALLY worth it:

[Lowell Goudge]

Thanks. I would love a 100-300 f4 but they are really hard to come by and are usually over $1000. I think ill go with the 120-400 or the 100-300 combo if i can scrape up some more money. Thanks

You can also look for an early sigma APO 70-200/2.8 EX. They are the sharpest of all the sigma 70-200 zooms and like the 100-300/4 can be paired with sigma TCs. That's what I use, but like the 100-300 they are somewhat rare and command a healthy price

[Racer X 69]

You can handhold anything if you're dedicated enough...

Holy crap! That thing is freakin' huge!

Seriously, though: the 120-400 is 1,750g. The 50-500 1,970g, and about 10% bigger. Not much difference, IMO. If you can afford it, I would just get the 50-500. I can't speak from experience, though, as I'm more of a wide-angle guy.

What? You haven't put something together with the paper towel tubes, cannibalized lens elements and Scotch tape yet?