[Banskojoe]

I am an amateur shooting with the DA L 55-300 for my own pleasure My question is how much better, or worse, would the image quality be from the Sigma 150-500?

I've considered the DA*300, and found images that show obviously better image quality over the 55-300. At my level of competence and with my budget, I don't think it's $1000+ better

I searched fruitlessly to find comparison photos comparing the DA 55-300 with the Sigma.

Does anyone have an address for such snaps?

Thank you

---

Last edited by Banskojoe; 08-07-2014 at 08:33 AM. Reason: clumsy fingers on initial attempt

[boriscleto]

You can look through my Flickr feed. Newer stuff (after June 13, 2014) is with 150-500, older stuff with 55-300.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/benmcgann/sets/

It's not a side by side comparison, but you can get an idea of what the 150-500 is capable of compared to the 55-300. I tend to shoot in a lot of the same locations.

[pacerr]

The more significant difference will be the versatility, or lack thereof, for your intended use. The lose of the range from 55 -150mm should be taken into account.

The DA* lenses ARE a step above in IQ but it's a costly step in more ways than $$ if they're not the solution you're looking for. Lock your DA 55-300 at 150-300mm for a week and see how that suits you.

[boriscleto]

Lock your DA 55-300 at 150-300mm for a week and see how that suits you.

Mine was locked there for 3 years. Now the 150-500 is mostly locked at 500.

[reeftool]

I don't own either lens but I have seen some pretty impressive results from both. The Sigma obviously gives you more reach which you most likely want or you wouldn't be considering it. Going longer than 300 mm is going into tripod territory as keeping it steady is very difficult. Even a very lightweight 500mm mirror lens which I own is difficult to hold steady.

[boriscleto]

Going longer than 300 mm is going into tripod territory as keeping it steady is very difficult. Even a very lightweight 500mm mirror lens which I own is difficult to hold steady.

The 150-500 has very effective OS. I shoot from a light monopod or hand held.

[TedW]

The 150-500 has very effective OS. I shoot from a light monopod or hand held.

When I look at the Sigma site it says that OS isn't available on pentax, yet it sounds like it really is? Can anyone clarify? I'll probably buy this lens later this year.

[boriscleto]

When I look at the Sigma site it says that OS isn't available on pentax, yet it sounds like it really is? Can anyone clarify? I'll probably buy this lens later this year.

The Pentax stats are incomplete on the Sigma site. It has everything the other mounts have except a Sigma tele converter.

[VoiceOfReason]

Some were non-os (like mine) and some are os. I think the newer ones are os. Personally I do not plan on getting rid of my Sigma 150-500 any time soon. I enjoy it.

[maxxxx]

I have had a 55-300 and now have a 150-500. The Sigma is much better in terms of IQ but it's very heavy and big.

Also 150 as minimum focal length is quite long so as walk around lens the 55-300 is more convenient.

I view the 150-300 as something for special projects.

[reeftool]

To add a pennies worth of the 2 cents of my last post, you shouldn't think of the Sigma as a replacement for the 55-300 but as an additional telephoto. As for the DA* 300 comparison, that is a good lens but it isn't a 500. I own a K300/4 and it has excellent IQ and the manual focus is fine for what I use it for. If you want more reach, you need to add a TC. I get pretty good results with the Pentax 2X rear convertor A. There is a thread comparing the DA*300 to the Sigma 50-500 with crops and also with the new 1.4 TC that may be of interest as the Bigma is often compared to the 150-500 as regards to IQ. If you search back a few pages, you will likely find more threads.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/265362-comp...0-w-hd-tc.html

[SpecialK]

There are also sample images here:

Lens Sample Photo Archive - PentaxForums.com


The focal length is probably the most important consideration.

[Reptilezz]

I received the 150-500 yesterday at a bargain price of $650 AUD bidding on ebay. I upgraded from the 55-300 wr. My copy of the 150-500 is sharp wide open and improves at f8 to sharper than the 55-300 and i had a good copy to. I can post some 100% crops this afternoon from both the 150-500 and 55-300. I can pretty easily hand hold the 500 with os on at 1/200 but prefer to keep it at around 1/640 for finches and such. Remember getting a longer lens wont help much if you still cant get relatively close to the birds, but it would help.

[boriscleto]

I received the 150-500 yesterday at a bargain price of $650 AUD bidding on ebay. I upgraded from the 55-300 wr. My copy of the 150-500 is sharp wide open and improves at f8 to sharper than the 55-300 and i had a good copy to. I can post some 100% crops this afternoon from both the 150-500 and 55-300. I can pretty easily hand hold the 500 with os on at 1/200 but prefer to keep it at around 1/640 for finches and such. Remember getting a longer lens wont help much if you still cant get relatively close to the birds, but it would help.

I like to keep it up around 1/1000 @ f10, but lighting doesn't always allow that. I have some shots from early May/June with the 55-300 that I really wish I had the 150-500 for. I had to crop them to less than 2 MP, the lil'Bigma would have left me with at least 3 MP.

[lesmore49]

I've got both lenses and I think both are very close in quality. I'm impressed with my 150-500, as I am with my 55-300 (one of the first in production) .

I find due to the size and weight of the 150-500, I am careful with all my caera and lens settings. I have seen some great pics on the internet from this lens. I've also seen some very poor shots from people using this lens.

I have a feeling the poor shots in many cases, come from those who are inexperienced.