Quote: My setup before the sigma 150-600 S was using a cropped body and the 300 F2.8 with 1.4, 2x conv, 70-200 f2.8 and the 16-50 F2.8 and that rig went everywhere. Now if I wanted the best out of the 300 2.8 with 2 conv most of the time I stopped down to 1 to 2 stops and that put it in the range of the 150-600 at about the same IQ which you would never see under normal shooting conditions in the wild.
Interesting, I was actually thinking of asking if any one had used a 300 2.8 with converters. My problem with that being it's still so heavy. The A* 300 2.8 doesn't need to be stopped down, at lest not for aberrations, and with an F1.7 AF converter is going to be limited (a limiter is a good thing in this case) AF for 510 ƒ4.5, and sounds a bit sharper than whatever 300 2.8 you were using. Everyone rates it a 10 for everything in the forum.
Interesting your point about the 150-600 on FF. ƒ8 on FF gives you the same DoF as ƒ5.6 on APS-c, so in terms of image quality an argument could be made that you don't even need faster than ƒ6.3 on a full frame camera, and that would be true if it weren't for most AF systems being calibrated for ƒ2.8 and the further you get away from that the more it cripples your AF system. But, many wildlife shots are doable with MF so thats moot in most situations.
The Pentax 560 is also 3kg
There in lies the issue.
That NIkkor 200-500 at 2300 gm looks awesome (and a 4.8 customer rating, that actually is as high as the Pentax 150-450) .... but still more than 825 grams. Now to me, that and a Nikon D7200 would be the way to go were I looking at that type of lens. But, there's no GPS. And I can't tell if there's weather sealing.
All my gear is carried on hikes, on my bike or in pelican cases on canoe trips. I don't leave much stuff at home. In my business, weather sealing is a big deal. Not having it is a deal breaker.
While I'm sure the forums are full of people switching to 150-600 type lenses, I'm not sure what that means. To me, it probably means it's new gear that suits lots of people, and it's cool to post you just bought it. But like the number of Pentax shooters actually using a K-1, you'd think it was a much higher percentage looking at the forum. I tend to watch and interact with people I know. And while there are a couple of 150-600 lenses in use, that vast majority are using either long fast primes or 70-200s with 2x converter.
Originally posted by amazing_universe Nikkor and Canon glasses are both superior than Pentax in terms of IQ. Pentax is almost 1k overpriced.
What's your source for the Nikkor and Canon being better? From the reviews they look to be about the same. With the Pentax having dust sealing and WR.
The Canon EF 100-400 a 2k is APS_c only and shouldn't even be part of the conversation.
The Sigma 150-600 Sport for some reason has the lowest customer rating of the bunch (slightly, and seems to be the only one of the group customers rate as low as a 3 out of5. but also has the highest number of people rating it, so, perhaps not fair. The more copies, the more chance of a bad copy, but 10% of the folks who rated it giving it 3 stars is not good. It's overall rating is. In treating that one of the reviews, the person (who quite liked it thought of it a cheap enough to throw away if damaged. rated 4.6 at amazon.
For 204 amazon dollars more... you get what appears to be a much better built lens, ƒ5.6 with a 4.8 amazon customer ratings and no ratings less than 4 star.
I know you guys are determined to prove the Pentax lens is a stinker, overpriced but, again, these are decisions based on what you value.
All I'm saying here, if you're a newbie looking at these lenses the first thing you should think about is the weight. And it's not just the lens, you have to think "how big a tripod do I need for this sucker." Beyond that, you can go on about different lenses made by different companies, zoom vs prime etc. etc. and the simple fact is anyone of these lenses could be the best trade off for any given shooter.
But his one size fits all thinking "a 150-600 type telephoto is he best choice for the whole world is nonsense.." This Pentax is overpriced." Well it depends on what you value. To me a $2k lens like the Canon that can't be used on their FF camera is a complete rip off.
I'm looking at this stuff thinking, if you already have Pentax gear, the f DA 150-450 looks like a great value. Probably only because I don't own a Nikon system... but, I'm not having the negative type feelings you guys seem to be having comparing features etc.
Starting from scratch, as newbie, if you know that's what you want the Nikon 200-500 might be the way to go. It has the highest Amazon rating of th 3 and is a steal, 5.6 at 500mm. But for me, light weight and weight/performance ratio, and water and dust seals are the big issues.
My DA*200 and 1.4 TC and 1.7x AF adapter gives me 476mm @ f6.3 and 1124 gms. And it doesn't need a tripod. That's another 4 pounds at least saved. That's .423mm per gram, weather and dust sealed. Based on that criteria, I'm not seeing anything better.
So once again, those 150-600 are a great idea, but, independent unbiased research comes up with many other choices that based on other criteria will definitely be better for some, probably most people. And to me , even looking at Nikon, the Nikkor 200-500 ƒ5.6 seems to be the best value out there, if you shoot from your car and shelters. But it still doesn't give you ƒ 2.8 at any setting, even though the front element is big enough to give you 2.8 at 200. That's just part of the waste factor of zooms.
The only reason I'm even thinking of this stuff is the possibility of getting a K-1. A K-1 turns my DA*200 into a 135mm lens....so I need 300mm ƒ2.8 to get the same functionality I have now. The weight of the A*300 2.8 means, you have to look and see what the best you can do at that weight would be. Unfortunately, the cost savings of a 150-600 type lens would be quickly eaten up by the cost of a 28-36 MP Nikon or Canon FF body. The 150-450 only gives me 300 equivalent, but with my 200 and TC, 280mm is my favourite combination (the 1.4 TC), so that could actually work, if the dam thing didn't weigh so much.