[Driline]

I'm looking for a stellar 300mm telephoto lens with Auto Focus to replace my Manual focus Tokina AT-X F4 100-300. I've found 2 candidates at similar prices and IQ. Which one would you recommend?

The really cool looking White powder coated Pentax F* 300 F4.5 ED or the highly prized and sought after Sigma APO 100-300 F4 EX DG ?

[Zav]

Can't you get a new DA* 300 for the price of these 2 used lenses? I remember the Sigma going for 1000 USD recently.

[nomadkng]

well I own the 100-300 and i'm just partial to zooms because of their versatility

I know the F300 weighs close to HALF the sigma, so if weight is a concern, you might want to consider the F300.

I bought a padded guitar strap to lug around my K5iis with the Sigma attached, and I have survived 4-5 hours of hand holding it

so I recommend the 100-300, the only problem is, finding someone to part with theirs.
I've had to designate in my will who get's mine and i'm contemplating putting in stipulations in the event foul play is suspected...

[DSims]

The F*300 is exactly the one I chose. I think it's slightly better in IQ than the FA*300/4.5, which in turn is slightly better than the DA*300/4. But each has minor advantages over the other two.

Certainly the F*300 is light (the lightest) and reasonable in size, and it qualifies as stellar in performance. I get better AF performance than on a DA*300 I tried side-by-side, and the image rendering has a little more impact and 3D look to me.

I've never seen any Sigma lens that renders as nicely as the F*300, but the 100-300/4 is apparently a standout among Sigma, as well as among zooms that can do 300/4. But zoom is probably its only upside compared to any of the Pentax AF *300 lenses.



I definitely want and use zooms at times (my favorite being the DA*50-135), but with the F*300 I believe I get more satisfactory results with whatever I can frame at its fixed 300mm that I'd get with, say, the well regarded DA*60-250. But I admit that for some people the DA*60-250 is perfect.

---

Last edited by DSims; 04-21-2014 at 04:20 PM.

[Miguel]

Which one would you recommend?

Well, what subjects are you shooting with a long lens? Sometimes a zoom is a better solution; sometimes not.

M

[Driline]

Well, what subjects are you shooting with a long lens? Sometimes a zoom is a better solution; sometimes not.

M

Wildlife and Train locomotives from my 12 story office building. Not necessarily in that order.

And just to prove I'm not blowing sunshine out of my orifice here are a few pictures from the Tokina. I'm assuming the IQ of the Pentax or Sigma will be better? I'm really looking forward to AF though for birds in flight.

[DSims]

Wildlife and Train locomotives from my 12 story office building. Not necessarily in that order.

I think the real question for you is whether you'll be happy with the IQ of the Sigma. If you are, and weight or other disadvantages are not a problem for you, then it's probably a good choice.



But if the IQ of the Sigma doesn't meet your fairly high standards, then its zoom capability is irrelevant.

You won't be unhappy with the IQ of the F*300; the only question is whether you'd be satisfied with the Sigma as well.

[Driline]

You won't be unhappy with the IQ of the F*300

IQ is paramount. Do you have a few pics to share?

[Miguel]

Wildlife and Train locomotives from my 12 story office building.

Thanks for the quick answer. So, you needn't track a lot of action like in sports, or BIFs? Seems like a stationary setup more or less. Why stop at 300mm? Have you considered a 400mm one instead? Maybe an older, but faster, manual focus lens. Perhaps you have a limitation I'm not aware of (besides budget), but I've never been all that satisfied with 300mm on an APS-C body, unless it was 2.8 and then I could stick a decent TC on it.

M

[Driline]

Thanks for the quick answer. So, you needn't track a lot of action like in sports, or BIFs? Seems like a stationary setup more or less. Why stop at 300mm? Have you considered a 400mm one instead? Maybe an older, but faster, manual focus lens. Perhaps you have a limitation I'm not aware of (besides budget), but I've never been all that satisfied with 300mm on an APS-C body, unless it was 2.8 and then I could stick a decent TC on it.

M

I've read on this forum that unless you want to spend as much money on a used car for a lens greater than 300mm with excellent IQ that its best to stick with a lens at around the 300mm range. The 2 lenses in question fit that bill. I am looking for Auto focus as my Tokina, while IQ is high, unfortunately is a manual lens.

---------- Post added 04-21-14 at 06:28 PM ----------

So, you needn't track a lot of action like in sports, or BIFs

Well the whole point is once I obtain an auto focus lens ..... I can start doing those things.

[ElJamoquio]

Steps I would go through:

1) DA*300. Don't know how much it costs any more.
2) K-3.
3) T/C (would probably skip this one)
4) Sigma 500 F/4.5 (would probably skip this one)
5) Nikon + Nikon/Sigma used long lens of your choice.

[Miguel]

I'm assuming the IQ of the Pentax or Sigma will be better?

It depends on what you need to do with the image. If your goal is simply to show shots on a website, then the differences may not be all that significant. If you are shooting a predictable object such as a train that regularly passes by on the same set of tracks, then you can prefocus quite well with your manual lens and obtain a good shot. If you want to capture more erratic things like action sports and birds in flight (smaller than herons which are very easy to capture with a little practice), then you will need both a camera body with predictive AF capabilities and a lens that mates well with it.

I'd suggest you rent a Pentax 300mm f4 for a few days, and then rent the latest version of the Bigma (50-500mm). That will give you a low risk way of assessing how well your skills, tools, and objectives fit coherently.

I owned the Sigma 100-300mm f4 and used it with a K-3. I no longer own either as I was disappointed with both tools for telephoto work. A len's value is relative to the platform choices, while the Sigma is highly valued in the Pentax universe, it is not as esteemed in the Canon world where I now reside. I found the image quality to be OK but not as good as my 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L lens. The old-style screwy focusing was too noisy for birds and slow compared with what I know. More frustrating was that the K-3's pretty good AF system was being held back by aging technology that I believe was not in the camera target design requirements. Perhaps after you rent a few lenses, Pentax may finally come out with a tele-zoom that adds the value to the K-3 that the camera deserves. I also own the Tamron 150-600mm f6.3 for EOS (itself imperfect, but really good for more static shots) and it is a shame that it is not out for K-mount.

Getting into long telephoto lenses is a commitment of time and money (and energy because the things weigh a fair amount), and it helps to have a clear sense of your shooting objectives. That may mean losing any religious sense of brand loyalty. The gentleman above listed Nikon as an option, and I would add Canon to that list. There are just a lot more choices and better quality ones at that. Contrary to some popular opinions here, the cost of getting good-to-high quality telephoto lenses (and the bodies that work with them) is notably less when you look beyond the Pentax neighborhood.

Hope this helps.

M

[ElJamoquio]

I would add Canon to that list.

Yup. The only reason I didn't was the super-telephotos from Canon are generally more expensive than Nikon. Of course the OP should do some comparison shopping.

For me, running two systems was cheaper + higher quality than purchasing Pentax's 560mm F/5.6, and/or the Sigma 500mm F/4.5 (commands ~$1k more on the used market in K-mount than in F-mount).

[Miguel]

the super-telephotos from Canon are generally more expensive than Nikon.

Depends. 100-400L new=$1700/used1200; Nikon 80-400mm (nicer new version) new=$2700; used I have not seen. Canon 400mm f5.6 new=$1350/used 950 (really good, light lens, no IS which is why it is cheap).
Tamron 150-600mm new=$1069 only in EOS now; Nikon, Sony next month maybe. . .This is the bargain, but the AF can be maddeningly off, depending on the model. Handheld, IS and USM included, at 600mm can be amazing for the cost. Sometimes.

M

[Kayaker-J]

I'm looking for a stellar 300mm telephoto lens with Auto Focus to replace my lmanual focus Tokina AT-X F4 100-300. I've found 2 candidates at similar prices and IQ. Which one would you recommend?

The really cool looking White powder coated Pentax F* 300 F4.5 ED or the highly prized and sought after Sigma APO 100-300 F4 EX ?

Hi. May I ask for some advice? I will not be photographing demanding longer telephoto subjects in the foreseeable future, so I simply wanted a low cost, comfortably totable 100-300mm tele zoom option that could better the economy consumer plastic things, primarily for landscape and distant architectural details. I have K-3 and Oly E-PL5 digital bodies and my "Nikon Museum" pieces in 35mm. I'll be modding the Nikon lenses a bit, as necessary, to accommodate direct attachment to K-mount, which should suffice for my needs. Here's the collection now, all MF lenses, half recently acquired: 1. Tokina AT-X 100-300mm/4 (N•AI)... 2. Nikkor 100-300mm/5.6 AI•S... 3. Tamron Adaptall-2 60-300mm/3.8-5.6 (N-AI & PK-A)... plus this: Nikkor 200mm/4 AI•S + Tamron SP Pro 1.4x N•AF D tele converter.

I'd very much appreciate seeing a brief "User Protocol/Quick Start Guide" for achieving maximum IQ from the Tokina, from your experience. I'm an old hand at 35mm, but after a long, long hiatus from photography, this long telephoto regime will be an entirely new experience for me.

Any and all constructive advice from the long tele users here, given my present lens inventory, will be gladly received. Your "estimated relative rankings" among my better options would also help, I think; since due to a temporary small disability, it will be a while until I can get out and about to experiment in situations where these long lenses might come into their own. Many thanks.