[RGlasel]

This lens 60-250 mm is not available at the largest retailer in Canada

Funny that Don's and McBain's in the west both stock it.

[Suhail]

Funny that Don's and McBain's in the west both stock it.

Henry's has it, but is not available in store shopping.

I will get my hands on something very soon. There have been great suggestions and what I have learnt is that I need to buy something quick and start practicing on it asap.

[GeneV]

A lot depends upon what you want to spend and what you want to carry. For the price and weight, there is nothing like the DA 55-300. Is it a lens that a pro for National Geographic might have used? Not really. However, I am constantly amazed at the quality for the price, and you can wear it all day without fatigue. If you are happy with the quality of the 18-135, you will be more than pleased.

[DSims]

Visual Darkness,

I was looking at DA*300, but with a 1.4 x TC it touches $2,000 in Canada, plus tax. It is lightly an expensive proposition for me.But this combination will surely be different from other members of the group and I may stand out hahaha.

As long as you're getting expensive, how about this I just saw today:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/94-pentax-price-watch/251792-sigma-apo-30...sm-pentax.html

Even though I'm often not a big Sigma fan it looks awfully good - take a look at the sample photos and reviews.


Justification: since you're spending so much on the tours, you need to have the right lens, right?

In any case, it looks like a great lens, great deal (compare to Amazon at $3400 right now), it's in Canada, and it should work quite well if you dial in the AF adjustment on the camera: Sigma Lens: Primes - Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

[cali92rs]

From what ive seen, you get really close to the polar bears in Churchill on those trucks. A 300mm would probably be much too long in that case. On your other trips, you probably want as long of a lens as you can afford.

[Suhail]

A lot depends upon what you want to spend and what you want to carry. For the price and weight, there is nothing like the DA 55-300. Is it a lens that a pro for National Geographic might have used? Not really. However, I am constantly amazed at the quality for the price, and you can wear it all day without fatigue. If you are happy with the quality of the 18-135, you will be more than pleased.

GeneV,

I carry 18-135 mm wr due to the constraint of having a particularly rough lifestyle, not particularly for quality. I am sure I will not be doing wildlife photography in adverse weather conditions. So DA 55-300 mm wr is a no no for me. It neither offers me quality nor the distance.

---------- Post added 02-16-14 at 06:45 PM ----------

As long as you're getting expensive, how about this I just saw today:

[/url]

Seems like a great lens, but it is rather too expensive for me given that I will not be a professional wildlife photographer at all. Wildlife photography comes second to my prime interest of hiking and observing nature.

---------- Post added 02-16-14 at 06:52 PM ----------

From what ive seen, you get really close to the polar bears in Churchill on those trucks. A 300mm would probably be much too long in that case. On your other trips, you probably want as long of a lens as you can afford.

And this is what is killing me in terms of decision.So for polar bears I intend using 18-135 mm at up to 60 mm fl because I have heard that the lens offers good quality up to that range. Beyond that range is the question.

Since I don't plan to show close ups of wildlife, instead showing them from a distance covering their habitat as well, I think Pentax DA 60-250mm, 300mm or Sigma 150-500mm (at smaller FL) could be good.

Btw, I have written to the tour asking them their opinion of what lens to carry as well.

[cahudson42]

An off-the-wall suggestion, but have you considered buying a Q with its 5.6x crop factor and a $30 Fotodiox adapter? Less than the cost of of good long lens - new Q body about $100. With 02 still about $200. Check out the Q forum and the 'adapted lenses' thread there. Some stunning shots with a DA* 300.

I use an inexpensive but great M42 Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 preset with my Q quite often for nature shots (mainly birds). Preset really works much easier than the A/M switch - and the 5.6 Tak 200 is sharp to begin with.

Q body won't take up any more space/weight than a long lens - for sure. And with it, your 18-135 becomes a 100-700mm. Maybe no need to buy any more lenses?

Worried about IQ? Maybe then go Q7 (but a lot more $$ right now than Q - still, compared to a good super-tele??). And/or the genuine Pentax K/Q adapter for maybe $210 - with its additional shutter flexibility...

I usually shoot a K-01 and my great old Tak M42s, but found for birds my 300mm F4.0 simply wasn't long enough, even at 450mm equivalent. Also, using M42s exclusively, there isn't much available on the wide end. The Q and 02 solved both problems for me.

If you do go Q, I found I had to think a bit differently with it. I could be sloppy framing with the K-01 and then crop and never really see the difference. Same with ISO. With Q, frame/select FL so you NEVER have to crop (well, crop much..:>). Force ISO low, low, low, Like 125. Avoid the temptation to let it drift up - use tripod, building, stabilization, multiple shots - whatever it takes to keep ISO low...

Have fun!

---

Last edited by cahudson42; 02-16-2014 at 11:34 PM. Reason: add Q use

[Suhail]

An off-the-wall suggestion, but have you considered buying a Q with its 5.6x crop factor and a $30 Fotodiox adapter? ........ Avoid the temptation to let it drift up - use tripod, building, stabilization, multiple shots - whatever it takes to keep ISO low...

Have fun!

Haha! I have been studying this option for last few days. Interesting, but I am still missing on the tech involved here. I will take a few more days and then go out shopping with one of the options from this thread.

Thanks for explaining it in detail.

[jddwoods]

I have DA* 200 mm and I really like the lens both that it is easily hand holdable and F 2.8 fast. Sometimes though, it just doesn't seem to have enough reach. I am considering the 1.4 TC when it is out but I am also considering another lens with greater reach. One possibility is the Sigma 120 - 400 DG HSM. Does anyone have any experience with that Sigma? I am in no rush at this time, so I can wait. I also have and recommend the DFA 100 mm WR. This is a really sharp lens when you don't need the distance. It is super sharp, quick focusing (as a telephoto) and very compact. Between these two I have my wildlife kit for 95% of my needs. Its the remaining 5% that I am still interested in.

[MetteHHH]

I will cast another vote in for the DA* 300mm, which is my favourite lens. Couple it with the TC, and you have the same range as the Sigma 150-500mm.

I sold my Sigma 150-500mm after a few months of owning the DA* 300mm, because my new lens was both a lot more wieldable, better AF on my K5 and has superior IQ. If you need to go below 300mm, the Sigma is of course more versatile - I rarely do for wildlife shooting.

[Suhail]

I will cast another vote in for the DA* 300mm, which is my favourite lens. Couple it with the TC, and you have the same range as the Sigma 150-500mm.

I sold my Sigma 150-500mm after a few months of owning the DA* 300mm, because my new lens was both a lot more wieldable, better AF on my K5 and has superior IQ. If you need to go below 300mm, the Sigma is of course more versatile - I rarely do for wildlife shooting.

MetteHHH,

Thanks for making my job a bit easier. It is way lighter lens than Pentax DA 60-260mm or Sigma 150-500mm.