[ElJamoquio]

I try to shoot below 640 ISO, granted that's not always possible. Birds in flight are the troublesome shots, the sky, for some reason, is always purple

Just at high ISO? Have you done test shots of the same spot with different ISO settings?

Sounds like the white balance is a bit off...

Just at high ISO? Have you done test shots of the same spot with different ISO settings?

Sounds like the white balance is a bit off...

I have wondered about the white balance. I rarely trust the " auto" setting, I set it for the type of day I am shooting in, sunny for today. But I always have to correct the purple sky. Funny thing is if I shoot say 180 degrees right or left the shy color changes considerably. I don't know any other way to correct the balance in the camera, so I simply adjust it in Photoshop..
I have had shots with 400 ISO come out noisy, but in all cases it was in the shadows, the sunny areas are nice, the shadow areas are noisy. I am guessing that is just the nature of the beast, so to speak.

DeWolf

[ToyTank]

I have the sigma 18-250 "macro" it's my only lens with silent DC motor and it works fine with my K30. Pretty good all in one lens except it's slow on the long end, and focus breaths really bad, so you only get 250mm when focused to infinity.

PS.

Also I don't' know if it's fair to say the Pentax version has the motor removed, you could say the motor had to be added to canon/nikon models because canikon cut the motor out of the cheap bodies to save money. They don't have legacy glass support like Pentax, that's the primary reason I bought Pentax

[ElJamoquio]

I have wondered about the white balance. I rarely trust the " auto" setting, I set it for the type of day I am shooting in, sunny for today. But I always have to correct the purple sky. Funny thing is if I shoot say 180 degrees right or left the shy color changes considerably. I don't know any other way to correct the balance in the camera, so I simply adjust it in Photoshop..
I have had shots with 400 ISO come out noisy, but in all cases it was in the shadows, the sunny areas are nice, the shadow areas are noisy. I am guessing that is just the nature of the beast, so to speak.

DeWolf

Checking silly things - you aren't using a polarizer, are you? If not I'd chalk it up to WB...

Checking silly things - you aren't using a polarizer, are you? If not I'd chalk it up to WB...

Nope, no polarizer, this Sigma has the rotating front lens, kind of pointless to have a polarizer there

DeWolf

At that price range look at the DA*60-250

There is also a Sigma 100-300 f/4 which gets good reviews but I have no experience with it myself.

ok, after all the great help everyone has given, I have narrowed down a choice of 2 lenses.

Keeping in mind most of my shots are wildlife, so reach is good, but with reach you can lose detail.

Looking at the reviews on this site I am trying to decide between the Sigma 150-500 apo dg

Or the Pentax DA*60-250

sigma review Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

pentax review SMC Pentax-DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

This a tough call for me for the following reasons.

1 obviously I want a sharper image than the lens I have now can give. and the sharper lens according to the reviews is the Pentax DA* 60 250
2 I want the reach for some of the hard to get close to raptors and other wild life, hence the extra reach of the Sigma 150 500

Both of these lenses got good reviews, and according to reviews are close in sharpness, could a value of .7 difference really make a difference ?
Also I have read reviews on Sigma lenses where some say it depends on the copy you get, Is this also true with Pentax lenses ?
And finaly I am drawn the the complete Pentax on Pentax compatibility and matching as well as the weather resistance.
Perhaps there are users of both, with more recent input than the reviews that could help.
Granted I could buy one, try it and return it if I wasn't satisfied.
Even though I will lose some reach stepping down to 250mm it is a pretty small difference, and I do manage to get by with the 300 set at less than 300.
Sorry to drag on and on folks lol, I am leaning towards the Pentax, just for the quality and name and camera match.
But I don't have the kind of experience with lenses other of you have

Thanks again

DeWolf

[ElJamoquio]

Under 250mm the Pentax will blow away the 150-500.

I used the 60-250 briefly but wanted the f/2.8 in that range so I spent less and got the Tamron. If I'm at 250, 95% of the time I *really* want to be at 500, so I bought the 500.

If you're going to be spending most of your time under 250, definitely go with 250.

Under 250mm the Pentax will blow away the 150-500.

I used the 60-250 briefly but wanted the f/2.8 in that range so I spent less and got the Tamron. If I'm at 250, 95% of the time I *really* want to be at 500, so I bought the 500.

If you're going to be spending most of your time under 250, definitely go with 250.

I actually spend most of my time at 250-260, unless I am really close to my subject. At 250 how does the 60-250 compare?. If I did get the 500, it us unlikely I would use it higher than 400 most of the time.

Accuracy in autofocus is important as well. I am not so practiced that I can catch a flying bird manually focusing most times, but I am getting better at it

DeWolf

[interested_observer]

A while back I purchased a new Sigma 8-16, that appeared to not be a sharp and in focus as I thought. I used my K5's fine focus and adjusted 10 units and things became better. Rather than send the lens back and get another one, I called CRIS since they do warranty work for Sigma - as well as Pentax. They suggested dropping both the camera and lens off (I am in Arizona).

They found that the lens was 45+ units off in focusing. The reset up the lens, tested it against the optical standard, checked out the body - it was on spec, so everything is now wonderful.

If you buy a 60-250 new, and are not satisfied, I would consider sending both the body and lens to CRIS on warranty. The worst that can happen is that with shipping (insured) both ways you looses a couple of weeks shooting and they find that everything is in spec.

[ElJamoquio]

I actually spend most of my time at 250-260, unless I am really close to my subject. At 250 how does the 60-250 compare?. If I did get the 500, it us unlikely I would use it higher than 400 most of the time.

Accuracy in autofocus is important as well. I am not so practiced that I can catch a flying bird manually focusing most times, but I am getting better at it

DeWolf

If I was looking for a lens only to 250, I'd get the 250.

Accuracy of the 60-250 didn't blow me away in dim light, in fact I was disappointed, but I think it'd do fine in brighter light, and at f/4 at 250 you'd be way better off than the 150-500 (f/5.6 or f/6 or something at that focal length).

Really with your parameters the only possible way I'd get the 150-500 is if I didn't care about weight and wanted to future-proof against the coming FF camera.

That said, if you disagree, I have a marvelous (really) 150-500 for sale.

Well I am leaning ore towards the 250 now, and have gone through my pics, most seem to be 260 pr less, a few at 300.
Based on the comments on the lens build and sharpness, and the opinions of people here.
While going through the pics I took recently I did notice something, maybe I am wrong, but does this pic look like it is front focusing?
I cant recall if it was manual focus or auto. check the pine needles in ref to the Osprey, don't they appear sharper ?

100% crop, no PP

DeWolf

yes granted I though I asked this and covered this before with the pictures of the ruler.
Perhaps what I am seeing is the contrast issue ? sorry, I am thick at time. < most the time>
although this is AF focused on the birds neck. My apologies if I'm just not getting it.
DeWolf

[tibbitts]

Depth of field is very thin in these situations, and it's difficult to know exactly what even "center point" autofocus will focus on (closest feathers, farthest, etc.) Just my opinion, but it does look like the branch below the bird is sharper than the bird's head; certainly the head isn't sharp. None of the needles look especially sharp to me. I think you should test by autofocusing on a flat subject exactly parallel to you. I'd say a brick wall, but usually the mortar is offset from the brick, and that's not ideal. You want something perfectly flat. Make sure the camera is firmly planted on a very heavy tripod, and there's no wind, traffic vibrations, you lock up the mirror, etc. If that's sharp, then you've got some kind of technique issue - you might try live view focusing, etc., or you might just need to experiment with placement of the focus point. It's important to have the subject be at the same distance as subjects you actually shoot - you can't trust autofocus to have the same accuracy or adjustment requirement at 10ft as at infinity.

Depth of field is very thin in these situations, and it's difficult to know exactly what even "center point" autofocus will focus on (closest feathers, farthest, etc.) Just my opinion, but it does look like the branch below the bird is sharper than the bird's head; certainly the head isn't sharp. None of the needles look especially sharp to me. I think you should test by autofocusing on a flat subject exactly parallel to you. I'd say a brick wall, but usually the mortar is offset from the brick, and that's not ideal. You want something perfectly flat. Make sure the camera is firmly planted on a very heavy tripod, and there's no wind, traffic vibrations, you lock up the mirror, etc. If that's sharp, then you've got some kind of technique issue - you might try live view focusing, etc., or you might just need to experiment with placement of the focus point. It's important to have the subject be at the same distance as subjects you actually shoot - you can't trust autofocus to have the same accuracy or adjustment requirement at 10ft as at infinity.

I would estimate that Osprey was about 100-130 ft away. I have some particle board I can put a printed test pattern on the same distance away, if I can get sunny weather again .
I keep the AF set to single point <spot> and usually the AE set to multi segment, but using the AF point as its source in the settings.
I am assuming since the AF fine adjustments in the menu only affect AF, that I will shoot the shots with AF. Although, even on MF the shots never come out better than what you've seen there.

DeWolf

[ElJamoquio]

Depth of field is very thin in these situations, and it's difficult to know exactly what even "center point" autofocus will focus on (closest feathers, farthest, etc.) Just my opinion, but it does look like the branch below the bird is sharper than the bird's head; certainly the head isn't sharp. None of the needles look especially sharp to me. I think you should test by autofocusing on a flat subject exactly parallel to you. I'd say a brick wall, but usually the mortar is offset from the brick, and that's not ideal. You want something perfectly flat. Make sure the camera is firmly planted on a very heavy tripod, and there's no wind, traffic vibrations, you lock up the mirror, etc. If that's sharp, then you've got some kind of technique issue - you might try live view focusing, etc., or you might just need to experiment with placement of the focus point. It's important to have the subject be at the same distance as subjects you actually shoot - you can't trust autofocus to have the same accuracy or adjustment requirement at 10ft as at infinity.

The usual test is a ruler at a 45 degree angle.