Recommendations on longer zooms?

laner · 07-05-2014, 02:20 PM

I just picked up a used DA 18-135, since my F 35-105 died, and really like it so far. Just wish it was a little longer. I do have a FA 28-200, in comparison to the 18-135 it just doesn't seem as sharp and the colors just seem kind of flat.

Any recommendations on moderately priced zooms 200mm+?

Adam · 07-05-2014, 02:27 PM

The pentax 55-300mm would be a good choice for you IMO

**mike.hiran** · 07-05-2014, 02:29 PM

The DA55-300 should be high on your list - there are 3 versions of it now. DAL55-300 DA55-300 HDDA55-300wr - optically they are the same, but the dal won't come with a hood, does not have quick shift and has a plastic mount. All good values. I've also tried the Tamron 70-300 and it's pretty sharp, but it's larger and heavier than the Pentax - it also has quite a bit of chromatic aberration on most Pentax bodies.

link81 · 07-05-2014, 03:08 PM

I love my F 70-210. It's not much longer then 200, but it has a character all it's own.

Kozlok · 07-05-2014, 04:16 PM

If you feel like spending (a lot) more and carrying (a lot) more weight, I love the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. It really is something special. The 55-300 is a more budget friendly option, though.

Kayaker-J · 07-05-2014, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by link81

I love my F 70-210. It's not much longer then 200, but it has a character all it's own.

I've got one, too. It's a fast focuser, as well. For longer, I'm trying out a set of MF lenses: 60-300mm, 100-300mm (x2), and soon, 80-400mm (AF on Nikon; MF, old school, on Pentax). A Tamron SP 1.4x tele converter supplements (for Nikon, since these are much more plentiful and much cheaper in Nikon mount -- both 100-300mm's are Nikon mount, too; they can be "direct-adapted" to Pentax). I feel judicious use of one or more of these latter may prove to offer better results at the long end than the usual something-to-300 consumer zooms for my applications (mostly landscape). Just a guess, based on some on-paper/online research. This is a very economical approach if the MF lens is bought well. That may only require a bit of time to accomplish.

VoiceOfReason · 07-05-2014, 09:47 PM

If you want really long the Sigma 150-500 is a blast. You need a monopod at the very least, or even better, a tripod with it. Also, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is nice, sharp, but big.

**nater** · 07-06-2014, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

If you want really long the Sigma 150-500 is a blast. You need a monopod at the very least, or even better, a tripod with it. Also, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is nice, sharp, but big.

Depending on age/strength, tripod is not needed. I (and many others) hand-hold the 50-500mm for instance. For me 4.6lbs is not that heavy (I can shoot a full day with it) and in the sun I'm shooting f/10 1/1000s ISO 200 so combined with the in-body shake reduction I can shoot planes going 400+ mph no problem.

VoiceOfReason · 07-06-2014, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by nater

Depending on age/strength, tripod is not needed. I (and many others) hand-hold the 50-500mm for instance. For me 4.6lbs is not that heavy (I can shoot a full day with it) and in the sun I'm shooting f/10 1/1000s ISO 200 so combined with the in-body shake reduction I can shoot planes going 400+ mph no problem.

Unless I have mone on a tripod or monopod shooting handheld at 500 mm in poor light is impossible. Wildlife is in poor light most of the time I shoot it. It has nothing to do with age or strength, and more to do with any little shake can throw things off.

**nater** · 07-06-2014, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

Unless I have mone on a tripod or monopod shooting handheld at 500 mm in poor light is impossible. Wildlife is in poor light most of the time I shoot it. It has nothing to do with age or strength, and more to do with any little shake can throw things off.

I was responding to, "You need a monopod at the very least..." and while that's not bad advice when shooting wildlife, at least when you have a camera that doesn't do very high ISO well, I don't remember this thread mentioning anything about wildlife. I wrote generally about what is possible with that class of lens (i.e. it is not always necessary to have a monopod/tripod) and gave a specific example I can speak to. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned specifics in your post.

VoiceOfReason · 07-07-2014, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by nater

I was responding to, "You need a monopod at the very least..." and while that's not bad advice when shooting wildlife, at least when you have a camera that doesn't do very high ISO well, I don't remember this thread mentioning anything about wildlife. I wrote generally about what is possible with that class of lens (i.e. it is not always necessary to have a monopod/tripod) and gave a specific example I can speak to. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned specifics in your post.

In general, using the 150-500 non OS version, on the long end you pretty well need one for most shooting with it unless it is super bright outside, even with the K5. This is experience speaking. In body SR doesn't do well on this lens at the long end. That's also experience speaking, and there are many others who have experienced the same, finding that the in body SR sucks at 500mm.

**nater** · 07-07-2014, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

In general, using the 150-500 non OS version, on the long end you pretty well need one for most shooting with it unless it is super bright outside, even with the K5. This is experience speaking. In body SR doesn't do well on this lens at the long end. That's also experience speaking, and there are many others who have experienced the same, finding that the in body SR sucks at 500mm.

I think it depends on the body to an extent, and how high ISO you can shoot, but I have heard that the OS version is better at stabilization at 500mm than in-body. And as we gain higher quality high ISO shooting, it will make handheld shooting easier. Nature Photography pros like Robert OToole shoot high ISO on Nikon full-frame bodies and hand hold the Sigma 50-500mm. Pentax will get there.

**clackers** · 07-07-2014, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

That's also experience speaking, and there are many others who have experienced the same, finding that the in body SR sucks at 500mm.

I've just got this lens (the newer version), and it has two flavours of SR on it - one suitable for being mounted on monopod/tripod, the other handheld.

chipa · 07-08-2014, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by clackers

I've just got this lens (the newer version), and it has two flavours of SR on it - one suitable for being mounted on monopod/tripod, the other handheld.

I thought mode 2 was just as suitable for handheld, as I understood the second option is biased for panning movement. So It does not correct for horizontal movement so the panning motion itself does not get adjusted.

**boriscleto** · 07-08-2014, 05:56 AM

I shoot the 150-500 mostly hand held. The monopod is there to give me a rest when my arms get tired. Sometimes the birds are at a level that I can use the monopod for the shot.

But I don't have a ball head or gimbal so I have to pick the whole thing up to shoot high.

07-05-2014, 02:20 PM	#1
laner New Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6	Recommendations on longer zooms? I just picked up a used DA 18-135, since my F 35-105 died, and really like it so far. Just wish it was a little longer. I do have a FA 28-200, in comparison to the 18-135 it just doesn't seem as sharp and the colors just seem kind of flat. Any recommendations on moderately priced zooms 200mm+?

07-05-2014, 02:27 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,597	The pentax 55-300mm would be a good choice for you IMO Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question Mobile skin no longer available on FF Android?	Parallax	Site Suggestions and Help	7	04-20-2014 03:38 PM
Thoughts on the long zooms?	azcavalier	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	01-06-2014 06:14 PM
FA zooms, Worth Repair? Recommendations?	WiseOx	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-31-2013 12:35 PM
WR zooms vs IQ zooms being considered	ChooseAName	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	10-22-2012 03:17 PM
K-R Locks up in bulb mode on longer shots	jostafew	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	09-08-2012 10:59 AM

07-05-2014, 02:29 PM	#3
mike.hiran Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: portland Photos: Albums Posts: 1,491	The DA55-300 should be high on your list - there are 3 versions of it now. DAL55-300 DA55-300 HDDA55-300wr - optically they are the same, but the dal won't come with a hood, does not have quick shift and has a plastic mount. All good values. I've also tried the Tamron 70-300 and it's pretty sharp, but it's larger and heavier than the Pentax - it also has quite a bit of chromatic aberration on most Pentax bodies.

07-05-2014, 03:08 PM	#4
link81 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 12822 Photos: Albums Posts: 459	I love my F 70-210. It's not much longer then 200, but it has a character all it's own.

07-05-2014, 04:16 PM	#5
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	If you feel like spending (a lot) more and carrying (a lot) more weight, I love the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. It really is something special. The 55-300 is a more budget friendly option, though.

07-05-2014, 06:38 PM	#6
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	Originally posted by link81 I love my F 70-210. It's not much longer then 200, but it has a character all it's own. I've got one, too. It's a fast focuser, as well. For longer, I'm trying out a set of MF lenses: 60-300mm, 100-300mm (x2), and soon, 80-400mm (AF on Nikon; MF, old school, on Pentax). A Tamron SP 1.4x tele converter supplements (for Nikon, since these are much more plentiful and much cheaper in Nikon mount -- both 100-300mm's are Nikon mount, too; they can be "direct-adapted" to Pentax). I feel judicious use of one or more of these latter may prove to offer better results at the long end than the usual something-to-300 consumer zooms for my applications (mostly landscape). Just a guess, based on some on-paper/online research. This is a very economical approach if the MF lens is bought well. That may only require a bit of time to accomplish.

07-05-2014, 09:47 PM	#7
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	If you want really long the Sigma 150-500 is a blast. You need a monopod at the very least, or even better, a tripod with it. Also, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is nice, sharp, but big.

07-06-2014, 01:49 PM	#8
nater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: New England Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason If you want really long the Sigma 150-500 is a blast. You need a monopod at the very least, or even better, a tripod with it. Also, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is nice, sharp, but big. Depending on age/strength, tripod is not needed. I (and many others) hand-hold the 50-500mm for instance. For me 4.6lbs is not that heavy (I can shoot a full day with it) and in the sun I'm shooting f/10 1/1000s ISO 200 so combined with the in-body shake reduction I can shoot planes going 400+ mph no problem.

07-06-2014, 01:57 PM	#9
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by nater Depending on age/strength, tripod is not needed. I (and many others) hand-hold the 50-500mm for instance. For me 4.6lbs is not that heavy (I can shoot a full day with it) and in the sun I'm shooting f/10 1/1000s ISO 200 so combined with the in-body shake reduction I can shoot planes going 400+ mph no problem. Unless I have mone on a tripod or monopod shooting handheld at 500 mm in poor light is impossible. Wildlife is in poor light most of the time I shoot it. It has nothing to do with age or strength, and more to do with any little shake can throw things off.

07-06-2014, 08:39 PM	#10
nater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: New England Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason Unless I have mone on a tripod or monopod shooting handheld at 500 mm in poor light is impossible. Wildlife is in poor light most of the time I shoot it. It has nothing to do with age or strength, and more to do with any little shake can throw things off. I was responding to, "You need a monopod at the very least..." and while that's not bad advice when shooting wildlife, at least when you have a camera that doesn't do very high ISO well, I don't remember this thread mentioning anything about wildlife. I wrote generally about what is possible with that class of lens (i.e. it is not always necessary to have a monopod/tripod) and gave a specific example I can speak to. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned specifics in your post.

07-07-2014, 06:08 AM	#11
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by nater I was responding to, "You need a monopod at the very least..." and while that's not bad advice when shooting wildlife, at least when you have a camera that doesn't do very high ISO well, I don't remember this thread mentioning anything about wildlife. I wrote generally about what is possible with that class of lens (i.e. it is not always necessary to have a monopod/tripod) and gave a specific example I can speak to. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned specifics in your post. In general, using the 150-500 non OS version, on the long end you pretty well need one for most shooting with it unless it is super bright outside, even with the K5. This is experience speaking. In body SR doesn't do well on this lens at the long end. That's also experience speaking, and there are many others who have experienced the same, finding that the in body SR sucks at 500mm.

07-07-2014, 07:29 AM	#12
nater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: New England Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason In general, using the 150-500 non OS version, on the long end you pretty well need one for most shooting with it unless it is super bright outside, even with the K5. This is experience speaking. In body SR doesn't do well on this lens at the long end. That's also experience speaking, and there are many others who have experienced the same, finding that the in body SR sucks at 500mm. I think it depends on the body to an extent, and how high ISO you can shoot, but I have heard that the OS version is better at stabilization at 500mm than in-body. And as we gain higher quality high ISO shooting, it will make handheld shooting easier. Nature Photography pros like Robert OToole shoot high ISO on Nikon full-frame bodies and hand hold the Sigma 50-500mm. Pentax will get there.

07-07-2014, 11:08 AM	#13
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason That's also experience speaking, and there are many others who have experienced the same, finding that the in body SR sucks at 500mm. I've just got this lens (the newer version), and it has two flavours of SR on it - one suitable for being mounted on monopod/tripod, the other handheld.

07-08-2014, 05:42 AM	#14
chipa New Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Melbourne Posts: 8	Originally posted by clackers I've just got this lens (the newer version), and it has two flavours of SR on it - one suitable for being mounted on monopod/tripod, the other handheld. I thought mode 2 was just as suitable for handheld, as I understood the second option is biased for panning movement. So It does not correct for horizontal movement so the panning motion itself does not get adjusted.

07-08-2014, 05:56 AM	#15
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	I shoot the 150-500 mostly hand held. The monopod is there to give me a rest when my arms get tired. Sometimes the birds are at a level that I can use the monopod for the shot. But I don't have a ball head or gimbal so I have to pick the whole thing up to shoot high.