[UserAccessDenied]

I need help from my fellow PF members...

I've been looking for longer FL lately when I head out. I almost always have my tripod with me because I really don't mind lugging it over my shoulder on hikes and I figure it helps when I get into a situation where I'd like a longer exposure shot...

My current lenses include:
Sigma 8-16
Rikenon 50mm F1.7
18-135mm WR
55-300mm WR

If you wanted longer focal lengths for birding and other wildlife photography, would you trade your 18-135 & 55-300 for a Sigma 150-500 OS HSM?

Is this even a fair trade?
I'm considering posting it to the marketplace, but wanted to check in this section of the forum prior to.

Few things considered: Someone has a sigma they're willing to rid of and wants these two lenses in exchange, and all the lenses in the trade are in good quality condition...

I know I'd be making a huge gap in FL: from 17-150mm (minus the 50 I have covered)


If I'm completely out of my mind for even posting this please let me know.
I often need to be corrected or put back into reality when I start day-dreaming about lenses...

Thanks for any and all advice received!

---

Last edited by UserAccessDenied; 05-03-2015 at 10:33 AM. Reason: Didn't understand what Bigma meant apparently...

[tibbitts]

As far as I know, the only lenses commonly referred to as Bigmas are the multiple generations of 50-500s. 150-500s are a completely different animal, closely related to the 120-400s.

Nobody is going to trade a Bigma for the two lenses you mentioned. Throw in your 8-16 and you might have a conversation.

[UserAccessDenied]

As far as I know, the only lenses commonly referred to as Bigmas are the multiple generations of 50-500s. 150-500s are a completely different animal, closely related to the 120-400s.

Nobody is going to trade a Bigma for the two lenses you mentioned. Throw in your 8-16 and you might have a conversation.

Fair enough, I'll adjust my post to not say Bigma. (Sorry, I thought Bigma was a general term for all Sigma's "Big" Lenses... My fault there)

Aside from the syntax error, I'm still curious about the 150-500 being a consideration...

[jatrax]

Agree with Tibbitts, the value does not match even close. And Bigma usually refers to the 50-500.

And to answer your question, I would not make that trade even someone wanted to. The Bigma is quite useful but that trade leaves you with a 50mm prime and an UWA. Nothing between 16mm and 50mm? No one knows your shooting preferences but you but that range is likely 2/3 of my shots, no way would I part with the 18-135.

---------- Post added 05-03-15 at 10:36 AM ----------

Fair enough, I'll adjust my post to not say Bigma. (Sorry, I thought Bigma was a general term for all Sigma's "Big" Lenses... My fault there)

Even worse IMHO. If you think you need 500mm then by all means look at the 150-500 or the 50-500. Those might replace your 55-300 but they are not going to replace the 18-135.

And have you actually used one of the big Sigmas? You might want to rent or borrow one before you leap. I had a Bigma for years and used it quite a bit but NEVER when hiking. Makes a great shoot from the car lens but no way I'm carrying it on the trail. YMMV.

[Denali_Mark]

I think the question you need to ask is what focal lengths you like shooting and whether you are willing to give up the 50-100 range. I live in Alaska and have the "Bigma" 50-500. Primarily I enjoy shooting in the 10-200 range for landscapes. The Bigma gives me reach but not a lot of speed. For that I rely on to DA 200 f2.8 (and that is also not fast enough on lots of occasions). Guess my thought is don't give up more then you might get from the trade.

[UserAccessDenied]

Agree with Tibbitts, the value does not match even close. And Bigma usually refers to the 50-500.

And to answer your question, I would not make that trade even someone wanted to. The Bigma is quite useful but that trade leaves you with a 50mm prime and an UWA. Nothing between 16mm and 50mm? No one knows your shooting preferences but you but that range is likely 2/3 of my shots, no way would I part with the 18-135.

Again I apologize for the misunderstanding of the term Bigma..
I thought the Sigma terms were as follows:
Bigma = Any BIG Sigma lens
BigmOS = Any Big Sigma OS lens
SigMonster = Sigma 200-500 F2.8

---------- Post added 05-03-15 at 01:42 PM ----------

Agree with Tibbitts, the value does not match even close. And Bigma usually refers to the 50-500.

And to answer your question, I would not make that trade even someone wanted to. The Bigma is quite useful but that trade leaves you with a 50mm prime and an UWA. Nothing between 16mm and 50mm? No one knows your shooting preferences but you but that range is likely 2/3 of my shots, no way would I part with the 18-135.

---------- Post added 05-03-15 at 10:36 AM ----------


Even worse IMHO. If you think you need 500mm then by all means look at the 150-500 or the 50-500. Those might replace your 55-300 but they are not going to replace the 18-135.

And have you actually used one of the big Sigmas? You might want to rent or borrow one before you leap. I had a Bigma for years and used it quite a bit but NEVER when hiking. Makes a great shoot from the car lens but no way I'm carrying it on the trail. YMMV.

This is very true.
Exactly why I posted here first!

I love my 18-135, but figured it would be easy to replace later on as it's still in production.

Just based on price alone my two lenses are very close to the cost of a used 150-500, but the Sigma has been discontinued so there is no saying whether or not it will be available at my choosing.

Maybe I should hold off until funds allow me to ADD a lens to my collection rather than swapping lenses now for something I may or may not even like?

---------- Post added 05-03-15 at 01:43 PM ----------

I think the question you need to ask is what focal lengths you like shooting and whether you are willing to give up the 50-100 range. I live in Alaska and have the "Bigma" 50-500. Primarily I enjoy shooting in the 10-200 range for landscapes. The Bigma gives me reach but not a lot of speed. For that I rely on to DA 200 f2.8 (and that is also not fast enough on lots of occasions). Guess my thought is don't give up more then you might get from the trade.

I would love to add a DA* 200 or 300 to my bag...
Maybe one day.

[jatrax]

Maybe I should hold off until funds allow me to ADD a lens to my collection rather than swapping lenses now for something I may or may not even like?

That sounds like a plan. Everyone is different, but for me the 18-135 and 55-300 make a nice all around carry everywhere kit. In fact that is what my wife carries all the time plus a da 35mm Limited. I consider the big Sigmas and indeed my DA*300 to be specialist lenses. I use them when needed but I don't carry them everywhere. I would find myself severely hampered if all I owned was a big, heavy long tele. Of course if that's all you shoot then go with what works for you.

but the Sigma has been discontinued so there is no saying whether or not it will be available at my choosing.

I would not be concerned about this. Practically all of my lens collection is "discontinued", many of them for 30 years or more. But they are all still easily available. Don't fall into the trap of buying something "just in case". If you want a Bigma or a 150-500 in a year or so, there will be one available. Either Pentax grows dramatically and demand goes up (in which case Sigma makes more) or Pentax does not grow much (in which case there will still be plenty on the used market).

[UserAccessDenied]

Pentax grows dramatically and demand goes up

I prefer this one... lol

Just to toss out one more option. And maybe I need to search the forums more about this topic in general,
But would I be better off looking into a Q and getting an adapter for my 55-300?

If I just need reach this would do it, right?
Or is that Q to K adapter really designed for High IQ Fast primes like the DA*300 and the 100mm Macro?

I supposed even a Q with the adapter and 135mm f2.8 would still be cheaper all together compared to a Bigma or the 150-500 (now referring to as Lil'Bigma)

[robgski]

It seems like your interests fall into that 150-500mm range, so if you are not "in love" with the other two lenses, and not really using them often, make the trade for a lens you will use more often.

I'd love to get a 500mm for birding and sports photography.

[jatrax]

But would I be better off looking into a Q and getting an adapter for my 55-300?

You might want to visit the Q section and see what they are doing. Try here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images.html

I would think even a 100mm prime would give a lot of reach. But this will be all manual I believe.

And if that is something you would like to try let me know I have a Q10 I am thinking of selling, includes both k-mount and M42 adapters. PM me if interested.

[crewl1]

The 150-500 is a fine long lens.
I would still want to have something for the short end though.

Some people report good results with the 55-300 on the Q but it takes some effort.

Personally if I had the 150-500 I could do without the 55-300 but not the 18-135.

[UserAccessDenied]

The 150-500 is a fine long lens.
I would still want to have something for the short end though.

Some people report good results with the 55-300 on the Q but it takes some effort.

Personally if I had the 150-500 I could do without the 55-300 but not the 18-135.

I agree with this...
Thanks for bringing me back down to Earth, lol.

Now I just need to fund the 150-500 purchase

[sterretje]

If it's financially attractive (not sure about current prices), I would do it And add a DA35/2.4 (or something else between 28 and 40) to fill the gap.

[Bear]

If interested I could help *cough cough* fund your Bigma. I'm looking for an 18-135mm ... Just an idea

[Shanti]

Sigma kills the 150-500 line for all mounts now,so be warned 10-20mm f/4-5.6 and 150-500mm f/5-6.3 Officially Discontinued