[TonyTurley]

I have an HD 55-300 WR that I use with my K-30. Image quality is good, but not as amazing as some of the photos I've seen on the "300mm+" thread. I'm slowly building up my discretionary funds account again after recently treating myself to a new guitar, and I'm beginning to think of my options in lenses.

I'm not satisfied with the image quality I've gotten with my Q and longer lenses. Some people have posted outstanding images with that little camera, but I think my best best for telephotos is the K-30. I'd like to have the capability to go longer than 300mm, and therein lies my quandry. The seeming epitome of long lenses - at least ones that cost less than a car - is the "Bigma" 50-500, at around $1500 USD. Some of the photos I've seen from it are excellent. However, I like to hike, and I'm not certain carrying a 4.3 pound Bigma on my camera for 6-10 miles would be much fun. Anyone here tried it? The other Sigma options, at slightly more than 1/2 the cost, are the 120-400 and 150-500, both still tipping the scales at over 4 pounds.

A legacy option I've considered is the Tokina AT-X 80-400 f4.5-5.6. Some of the sample photos I've seen are very nice, although I recognize a DA* lens would have better IQ, at a correspondingly much higher price. I've also considered the DA* 60-250, but it is too short for what I want.

Finally, there's the option of the DA* 1.4TC WR. I'm just not certain how well it would work with my 55-300 WR. If my math is correct, that would give me 77-420mm, but at a slower f5.6-8. To sum it up, my questions are:

1) Has anyone spent much time hiking long distances with the Bigma?
2) Has anyone used the new 1.4TC with an HD 55-300WR?

[normhead]

I've spent lots of time hiking with a DA*60-250, it's heavy enough. After 10 km the harnesses are killing my shoulders and it can take a few days to recover, and it weighs about 2.3 pounds... I can't imagine carrying 4.3.

I haven't tried it, but in my experience the 1.4 TC is impressive with DA* and that quality of lens. I use mine exclusively with my DA*60-250, Sigma 70 macro, and Tamron 90 macro... I'd go to my 1.7 TC on my 60-250 before I'd go to the 1.4 on a consumer zoom.

Hope you find someone who's actually tried it out.

[TonyTurley]

Thanks Norm. That's what is giving me hesitation . . . the 55-300 WR is good, but it is a consumer zoom. I'm hesitant to drop $600 USD on a TC when I may find the lens/TC combination unsatisfying.

[LaurenOE]

I use the Think Tank Holsters, and the Glass Limo (also from Think Tank) when I have to hike/walk with my gear and a big lens.

In addition, I also take a gimbal and heavy tripod too.

Ultimately, there is no easy way to take big glass around.
Glass is heavy, but the images make it all worthwhile.

Basically it separates those that are committed from those that are not.

[gifthorse]

B&H has the Sigma 150-500 for $869. I love mine but I ain't going hiking with it!

[normhead]

I use the Think Tank Holsters, and the Glass Limo (also from Think Tank) when I have to hike/walk with my gear and a big lens.

In addition, I also take a gimbal and heavy tripod too.

Ultimately, there is no easy way to take big glass around.
Glass is heavy, but the images make it all worthwhile.

Basically it separates those that are committed from those that are not.

It's really sad, but there are limits to human endurance that have nothing to do with commitment, as much as we'd all like to buy into the "if you put your mind to it you can do anything" mantra. Unless hiring a porter or a guy on an ATV, or a helicopter, depending on terrain, counts as commitment.

[LaurenOE]

It's really sad, but there are limits to human endurance that have nothing to do with commitment, as much as we'd all like to buy into the "if you put your mind to it you can do anything" mantra. Unless hiring a porter or a guy on an ATV, or a helicopter, depending on terrain, counts as commitment.

I'm old and fat.

I struggle to get gear to locations, but it somehow gets there.

Yes, I recognize there are limits to what people can carry, but often people give up too easily when faced with a long sore day of carrying gear.

If it only requires a few Advil the next day vs. not taking gear as "too heavy", then I stand my by commitment.

While photography is not a "contact sport", there is no gain, without pain.

[DeadJohn]

SNIP 1) Has anyone spent much time hiking long distances with the Bigma?

Yes. It can be done. I think terrain is a bigger factor than distance when deciding whether to hike with the Sigma 50-500 vs Pentax 55-300.

The Sigma is okay on flat stable terrain. I use the lens tripod foot as a carrying handle and shift hands every 15 minutes to control fatigue. It's not safe for camera or hiker to do that on rough terrain; you want 2 free hands. So, the camera and lens goes in my pack because the lens is too bulky to strap too my chest, and then unexpected wildlife scurries away while I retrieve the lens. The 55-300 smaller size gives more carrying flexibility and can be secured to the front of your chest for rapid deployment.

[TER-OR]

I suspect there are probably some options to tie a camera strap system into your backpack harness - at least that's fitted and transfers weight evenly. The Bigma is still a brute of a lens, though, and you'll probably wind up half holding it most of the time, just to keep it from swinging around.

The 55-300 might not be stellar, but it IS portable!

[boriscleto]

For hiking compromises must be made. The 60-250 is a high quality optic, but shorter than you would like. The 55-300 requires you to get close for a high quality shot. I use it with a cheap tele-converter, and getting close is the key.

The Bigma and lil-Bigma weigh over 4 pounds. Not something I would want to hike with, but still 2 pounds lighter than my 20ga. Remington 870. The 150-500 plus the K-5 is about the same weight as the shotgun. I would have no objections to carrying that most of the day...

[bdery]

Finally, there's the option of the DA* 1.4TC WR. I'm just not certain how well it would work with my 55-300 WR. If my math is correct, that would give me 77-420mm, but at a slower f5.6-8. To sum it up, my questions are:

1) Has anyone spent much time hiking long distances with the Bigma?
2) Has anyone used the new 1.4TC with an HD 55-300WR?

To me the TC is the obvious starting point for this discussion. I doubt it will give you amazing results with your 55-300, but it should be good enough. Maybe ask a store if you can test it.

I've spent lots of time hiking with a DA*60-250, it's heavy enough.

To me it's quite possible (and I'd say easy) to carry the 60-250 while hiking. It depends on what else you carry... I have no problems having the K-3 and 60-250 on my shoulder for a few hours (with a neck strap) when walking around, so having the same package attached with a good system (holster, case, etc) would be easy for me. What I'd probably do is place everything in my hiking backpack, carry a monopd in my hand and mount the setup as needed.

I've carried much heavier stuff than that before. But then again I purchased a well-fitted backpack.

That being said, I think most of the time when hiking I'd rather carry the 100 macro WR and crop as needed.

[crewl1]

I find hiking with the DA*300 with the HD teleconverter preferable to hiking with the Sigma 50-500 due to the weight.
The DA*300 with TC is very comfortable to carry, and IQ is better IMO than the Bigma all things being equal.
I've been meaning to do some comparison tests.

If you could find a used DA*300 around the $1K mark then add the TC later I think you would be very pleased.

The IQ of the DA*300 is leaps ahead of the zooms, and then you would also have something to put on your Q that would render impressive shots.

[DSims]

So the Q 06 lens doesn't do it for you? It seems the obvious first choice to try. Both it and the 08 wide yield pretty high quality.

My hunch is the Tokina 80-400 would be a good compromise. From the images I've seen, I believe ver. II is genuinely better. Note that it weighs the same or slightly more than a *300 plus the HD 1.4x TC (the latter will give the best quality). The TC would also work with a DA70/FA77 or FA135 if intermediate FLs concern you (I'm usually fine with either 85mm or 135mm and 300mm myself).

If you go Sigma save in all ways by getting a 150-500 over the 50-500.


Note that any of the 3 generations of *300 lenses will yield excellent results. Some (like myself) believe the older ones have even slightly better IQ. Interestingly, each one has a strong argument for why it's the best, depending on your needs.

[TonyTurley]

Thanks everyone for your answers. DSims, I don't have the Q 06, although it had crossed my mind. The places where I hike tend to be steep and often rocky . . . very little flat land around here. I do carry a backpack, but it typically is loaded with water, tripod, tools, first aid kit, etc. Not a lot of room for a camera + lens. Lots to think about, although I think you've helped me narrow my options.

[Kozlok]

The average soldier hikes all day with a 50 pound rucksack and 40 pounds of body armor. Most fit hikers can carry around a 50 pound pack. It takes some conditioning, but if you are basically fit, you can take a 4 pound lens anywhere.

That said, like Crewl1, I think you'd be better off with the *300 and the TC.