[Venom3300]

I am getting my pentax gear together after switching from Canon. I had a 100-300 L (very old, but optically excellent lens) on my canon. I am looking for a new wildlife lens for my pentax k5, but there is budget restriction. I rented the 55-300 last week, and it is okay. But its just okay. Optically my old 100-300L spanked it.

The sigma 170-500 APO is interesting due to range and price. I would love to heave the option to go to 500mm. Some people are happy with it and I have seen good results posted online. I have also seen comment of people that don't think its worth owning, and I have seen some rather soft results. Then there is the factor of weight and size.

The 300 f/4 A* seems a nice option from an image quality standpoint and is suppose to be very sharp. Its also small and compact. unfortunately i would lose AF with this lens and I think metering would require the DOF preview switch? It is a bit or a stretch on the budget.


What are your thoughts on a limited budget wildlife/birding lens?

[JinDesu]

The A*300 F4 will not require stop down metering. It'll meter fine on your camera.

[luftfluss]

I had the Sigma 170-500. It *is* somewhat soft at 500mm. At 450mm it's pretty good. The obtrusiveness of the lens bothered me.

[Chuckie]

I have both the DA55-300 and the Sigma 170-500 at the moment.


The DA55-300 is great if you have to travel light (with the DA18-55 you are totally covered for most situations) but it is a kit lens. Having said that, the quality of shots from it is acceptable but it can be soft at 300mm if you are trying to see what that brown bird sitting on a brown log is. I have gotten some great shots, lots of decent shots and lots of not so good shots from it. You also need to think about the light when using it.


I haven't used the Sigma 170-500 as much (and this is the original version) as it is a bigger lens and you need to know that you will be carrying a big lens around. At 300mm it is definitely better than the DA55-300, but it also starts to get a bit soft at 500mm. Again, thinking about the light you can get good shots at 500mm, but don't try shooting something miles away (brown bird on brown log again). I personally think the Bigma (50-500mm, and again the original version) is better than the 170-500 (more consistent), but it is also double the price (or more). You may have to focus manually sometimes on the 170-500 especially if there are other objects in the foreground, but that has never been a problem for me. You can shoot hand-held with the 170-500 but be comfortable with working with big lenses. The 170-500 is a step up from the DA55-300 in performance and quality. You can get better, but it will start getting very expensive unless you can find good deals on second hand kit from people who don't know what they are selling.


The DA55-300 is a bit faster on focusing but then it does have less mass to turn. The DA55-300 may be better for action photography than the Sigma 170-500, but not much. Neither of these lenses are really for action stuff, a 100-300 f4 would be better for that. Both lenses struggle on little birds moving around rapidly (kingfishers etc).


Happy hunting!!!

[kiwi_jono]

If your budget extended to it (perhaps second hand), the DA* 60-250 f4 is meant to be excellent (a lot better than 55-300 performance wise and good wide open at f4).

I would love to get it but my budget does not allow yet.

[repaap]

I did buy DA 55-300 WR HD. it is okay in most situations, but I really think of upgrading it for 60-250, just for its faster range and sharpness and color and rendering.. But I'd like still to have DA 55-300 as my lightweight kit zoom. It is good for what it is.

[boriscleto]

I used to say they could take my DA L 55-300 from my cold dead hands, or they release a WR version. I actually ended up with a Sigma 150-500 instead. The 55-300 is still good for a light kit.

If you are confused about the various Pentax lens series Adam put together a nice explanation and chart.

Pentax K-Mount Lenses Explained: The differences between various Pentax lens series

[Venom3300]

I have both the DA55-300 and the Sigma 170-500 at the moment.


The DA55-300 is great if you have to travel light (with the DA18-55 you are totally covered for most situations) but it is a kit lens. Having said that, the quality of shots from it is acceptable but it can be soft at 300mm if you are trying to see what that brown bird sitting on a brown log is. I have gotten some great shots, lots of decent shots and lots of not so good shots from it. You also need to think about the light when using it.


I haven't used the Sigma 170-500 as much (and this is the original version) as it is a bigger lens and you need to know that you will be carrying a big lens around. At 300mm it is definitely better than the DA55-300, but it also starts to get a bit soft at 500mm. Again, thinking about the light you can get good shots at 500mm, but don't try shooting something miles away (brown bird on brown log again). I personally think the Bigma (50-500mm, and again the original version) is better than the 170-500 (more consistent), but it is also double the price (or more). You may have to focus manually sometimes on the 170-500 especially if there are other objects in the foreground, but that has never been a problem for me. You can shoot hand-held with the 170-500 but be comfortable with working with big lenses. The 170-500 is a step up from the DA55-300 in performance and quality. You can get better, but it will start getting very expensive unless you can find good deals on second hand kit from people who don't know what they are selling.


The DA55-300 is a bit faster on focusing but then it does have less mass to turn. The DA55-300 may be better for action photography than the Sigma 170-500, but not much. Neither of these lenses are really for action stuff, a 100-300 f4 would be better for that. Both lenses struggle on little birds moving around rapidly (kingfishers etc).


Happy hunting!!!

That is what I was hoping for is an improvement in quality over the DA 55-300. I would love to have a sigma 120-400 or DA*300, but that won't be an option financially for me for a number of years.

[KevinR]

The 170-500 is a fairly good lens, and certainly a very good budget wildlife and birding lens. I don't know the real performance improvement moving up to the 150-500 or 50-500, but suspect it is not that large.

IMHO the 170-500 is better than the 55-300 especially in the 170-400mm range. But it is MUCH bigger and can be unwieldy at times. The zoom creeps badly when you carry it. While the AF is fairly quick.

The lens is somewhat soft at 500mm, and also seems to soften more on distant subjects than close up. Also, the lens is best used at f/9.5 or higher at the long end, so good higher ISO body is best. Some fill-in light will also help.

If no other really good option like DA*300 available/affordable, then 170-500 is worth a few years play at the price provided you are not expecting pin sharp results on tiny birds.

[Venom3300]

so I ended up buying a Tokina 400 5.6 SD AT-X AF that I found on ebay for 319 shipped. seems to be a good lens and a good price on the lens. Cant wait to receive it