[Alex645]

I would suggest DA*300mm f/4.0 + HD 1.4x TC together that would be a 420mm f/5.6 WR for $1350 from BH.

Quality-wise, I'd agree with this 300mm prime and teleconverter, but for the price, why not get a Pentax 1.4x teleconverter for your 50-300mm? Having the zoom will help you locate your subjects as you mentioned and effectively you will have a 70-420mm zoom which on a FF is equivalent to 630mm! The Pentax teleconverter is not cheap, but have a stellar reputation for IQ + WR.
I have owned a 500mm and an 800mm mirror lens, and not only was frustrated by the fixed aperture, but found the IQ unacceptable compared to a refractive lens.

[biz-engineer]

I don't know any Pentax AF 400mm prime still in production. The closest Pentax prime AF combo is to mount a DA*300mm on a TC, the HD TC is actually x1.5 , so the result FL is more like 450mm, the quality is good but not great. Beside AF prime, obviously as you know the DFA150-450 but rather heavy. Third party Pentax mounts, Sigma 50-500 and 150-500, not cropped deliver decent quality for the price. Then not in k mount, new Tamron 150-600 is a bargain , here I can see at less then 800 euros, + canon 5DII/Nikon second hand body at the same price.

[bkpix]

I'd seriously consider that Canon 100-400 + 70D combo. I've shot that lens and the Pentax 150-450 side by side and find little to choose between them in terms of image quality or speed of focusing; the Pentax is heavier and it's weather sealed, but at current prices you get the Canon body thrown in

Might also look at a 7D. They're going cheap these days.

[Des]

it looks like that's the right one to get, but both the page title and the pic of the pf review link are misleading... afaik, the only one worth getting is the apo tele macro version, not just the apo version.

from what i understand, here is the wrong version, notice how it says "apo" on the lens mount band, but not "apo tele macro" on the lens barrel: 371481786663

the 300mm apo tele macro is supposed to be very good as well.

Correct. I have the APO tele macro (77mm filter) and that is what it says on it.

I had a long zoom (170-500) previously, but I find a long prime is generally fine for birds and wildlife. In case they come in very close, I have a second body with a suitable lens (usually 55-300, but the DFA 100 macro is so sharp that images will stand a lot of cropping).

Weight is a big factor for me. The 400 is only about 1.3kg (OK to carry and not hard to use hand-held), whereas most of the 400+ lenses weigh about 1.9kg or more (e.g. Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 or Pentax 150-450).

---

Last edited by Des; 11-09-2015 at 01:10 PM.

[biz-engineer]

Hmmm. From what I've seen I think probably the best value might be that suggested Pentax TC & 300mm DA* for about $1300. Could be better than the 150-450 in some of the range? At least at 300. A bit faster, and with SDM, and of course I could use the TC with my other lenses. And save $500. But I'm not sure....

Yeah, I considered the DFA150-450 for a while but finally decided to stay with the DA*300 because: 1) it's light weight compared to the DFA150-450 2) At 300mm it is a bit faster and can be used wide open (f4) while the DFA-150-450 needs to be stopped down for the same sharpness 3) the DA*300 is cheaper 4) For sport the DFA150-450 is too slow to my taste 5) for wildlife I'm always at more than 300mm (450mm wit hthe TC), so a zooming wouldn't be that useful. Now, the AF of the DFA is better and more reliable in the long term I suppose.

[WPRESTO]

For price, a Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 second hand is probably the best bet. For IQ, the 300 + TC or the 150-450 are almost certainly better. At the time it was new, the 400 f5.6 APO Sigma was tested/regarded as not quite as good as its stable-mate 300 f4 APO.

[charchri4]

I found the same issues with the 50-300 as OP. Loved the lens but so many times I needed just a bit more reach. I probably spent 20 hours researching lenses and concluded it was a mistake to buy a K-3 body for anyone that wants to shoot over 300mm. I'd love to have the Pentax 150-450 but it's way out of my price range. The converter is an interesting idea but seems like a bus load of $$ for a little hunk of glass. So I've been watching for a good 2nd hand Sigma 50-500. I wish it was weather sealed but seems like the best option anyway.

[DHA]

Pentax-F SMC 1.7x AF Adapter Teleconverter will turn any K lens into an autofocus lens. Its very good as long as your lens is very good there is one on marketplace cheap.
SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter Reviews - Pentax K-mount Teleconverters and Adapters - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

I had this converter and never found it as good as the Sigma EX DG 1.4x converter for screwmount drive longer lenses. Just my opinion but I found too much hit and miss going on with it.

[colonel00]

I probably spent 20 hours researching lenses and concluded it was a mistake to buy a K-3 body for anyone that wants to shoot over 300mm.

Explain further please.

[Zav]

the 300mm apo tele macro is supposed to be very good as well.

Yes it is. But I am somehow partial on that matter.

[nomadkng]

I've got a HD DA 55-300mm lens, and like it a lot. Terrific value I thought.

But using it I find I often want some more length; the more you take shots of distant wildlife the more you want to and the more reach you seek I guess.

Anyway, I started looking at lenses up around 400mm, or like the 450mm zoom Pentax just came out with, and they are expensive. I like zooms in that length because of the ease of aiming, BTW. That led me to some Sigmas, but when shopping around I found that sometimes a comparable lens with a Canon mount might be hundreds less. For example, a Canon EF 100-400mmm is $1300, compare that with a Sigma 50-500mm for $1500, or Pentax 150-450mm at $2000. I guess we could toss in a DA*300mm plus teleconverter, about $1500. Some are weather resistant, some not. But I note that for the price of the 150-450mm I could probably get a Canon 100-400mm and a refurb 70D body.

So what would be my best bang for the buck up around 400-500mm, assuming as good IQ than my existing lens and camera, or a bit better? If I had say $2k, hypothetically, for a 400-500mm range lens, should I buy Pentax compatible, or consider a Canon body and lens instead? Not sure I wanna go through the hassle of that, but I might have access to some used Canon bodies so it's worth considering.

You have asked several questions in one post, and there are several more questions that really should be answered to narrow down the choices. But first, just a quick glance of MTF Charts for the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 (which I'm assuming is the version you are talking about), has it trailing the new Pentax 150-450 by a decent margin. MTF charts aren't the end all be all, but it's a good place to start. So unless you are so enamored with Canon you are looking for a reason to switch, let's move on from that option.

You have the DA 55-300 which is a consumer grade lens IQ wise. I'm not getting into the value for the dollar argument, I am taking strictly about image quality. And let's end any conversation about using a TC with it. It's a horribly slow focusing lens on it's own and the IQ is "ok", adding a TC is a recipe for disaster. I had a 55-300 for a couple years, so I have had enough experience with it that I feel comfortable in my judgments.

In terms of comparison, it is below (and I mean noticeably) the DA* 300, 60-250 and the 150-450 from Pentax, just based on MTF charts. (I have not owned any of these lenses so I cannot comment from personal experience.). I CAN say, I UPGRADED to the 50-500 from the 55-300. My GF uses the 150-500 (she got my hand me down 55-300 and quickly wanted a replacement) and I can definitively say the 150-500 is BETTER than the 50-500. So that puts the 55-300 at the bottom of that comparison as well. I have also owned the Sigma APO 400/5.6. That was sold because the Sigma 150-500 was better (slightly).

I personally use the Sigma 100-300/4 which I feel beats the 150-500 even when cropped, but that's a tough used lens to get ahold of since it's out of production.

So what to do with your 2K? What level of quality are you expecting? I get paid for some of my long telephoto work, so I have higher expectations. My GF just loves the experience of tracking critters and is thrilled with her 150-500 and sees no reason to upgrade. Where do you fall? I'm not 100% sold personally on the 150-450 being better than my 100-300, but that's at a different level. At worst, the 150-450 should be in the same league as the 150-500.

What would I do if I were you? Maybe get the 150-500 HSM used, they show up once a month or so and see if it is "good enough". Give yourself a year or so to learn the proper techniques, because there will be a learning curve, Shooting at 500mm is not the same as shooting at 300mm. Plus the monetary savings could go toward an upgraded tripod and/or a monopod.

If you find yourself wondering about the 150-450 and you aren't happy with the 150-500, then maybe trade up at that point. The price may have come down a bit and you'll have a much better idea of where you want to be image quality wise.

Here's the real kicker, after the 150-500 or 150-450, your next bump in IQ will cost you a minimum of 5k, so be prepared for that reality.

[jeffryscott]

I've got a HD DA 55-300mm lens, and like it a lot. Terrific value I thought.

But using it I find I often want some more length; the more you take shots of distant wildlife the more you want to and the more reach you seek I guess.

Anyway, I started looking at lenses up around 400mm, or like the 450mm zoom Pentax just came out with, and they are expensive. I like zooms in that length because of the ease of aiming, BTW. That led me to some Sigmas, but when shopping around I found that sometimes a comparable lens with a Canon mount might be hundreds less. For example, a Canon EF 100-400mmm is $1300, compare that with a Sigma 50-500mm for $1500, or Pentax 150-450mm at $2000. I guess we could toss in a DA*300mm plus teleconverter, about $1500. Some are weather resistant, some not. But I note that for the price of the 150-450mm I could probably get a Canon 100-400mm and a refurb 70D body.

So what would be my best bang for the buck up around 400-500mm, assuming as good IQ than my existing lens and camera, or a bit better? If I had say $2k, hypothetically, for a 400-500mm range lens, should I buy Pentax compatible, or consider a Canon body and lens instead? Not sure I wanna go through the hassle of that, but I might have access to some used Canon bodies so it's worth considering.

I'm going through the same dilemma. Had the 150-450 ordered, but then cancelled the order. The used prices of Canon's 100-400 or 400L, or the new price of Nikon's 200-500, at 1399, leave me hesitant to spend for the Pentax. I currently have the 50-135 and 60-250 (bought the 50-135 to tide me over while 60-250 went in for repair), but for birds, I need greater reach than the 250 provides, but the 300 isn't enough of a difference.

On eBay, there is a Sigma 400 APO for $800 in Pentax mount (Nikon and Canon variants are well over half the price), but there is also a Sigma 500 4.5 for $1600, in Nikon mount, and, also Nikon mount, an older Sigma 300 2.8 for $500, all AF. You can add a very functional D7000, 7D or 70D for $300 to $600. With prices like this, it is very hard to justify the Pentax mounts, if you can find them used.

I mentioned in another post on the 150-450 that while I think Pentax has, in general, the best bang for the buck of any system, when it comes to long glass it fails in that category. Primarily because the used market is so limited for the brand.

I am still trying to figure out what to do, but some of my thoughts are sell or trade the 60-250 for a 300 and add the 1.4. Sell the 60-250 (and a K5II) and put the money toward the 150-450. Be patient and wait for a Sigma 400 APO to show up used for a reasonable price or add a Nikon or Canon body with a used 400 to my collection.

Good luck in your own search!

[charchri4]

Explain further please.

Because the same Sigma 50-500 mm lens for a Canon or Nikon can be had all day for half the price of the Pentax mount and there are several options available to the big dogs that are not available for Pentax. Bottom line is you can get to 500mm with something like a D7200 or 70D for quite a lot less than starting with a K-3.

[Oakland Rob]

Heh. The 150-450mm has dropped to $1900 at B&H. Maybe it will continue to descend.... And in shopping at B&H, I noticed that if you include that 300mm in your shopping cart you get an alarm that it isn't compatible with 35mm cameras; I take it they're referring to 35mm film, not full frame digital?

[charchri4]

You have asked several questions in one post, and there are several more questions that really should be answered to narrow down the choices. But first, just a quick glance of MTF Charts for the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 (which I'm assuming is the version you are talking about), has it trailing the new Pentax 150-450 by a decent margin. MTF charts aren't the end all be all, but it's a good place to start. So unless you are so enamored with Canon you are looking for a reason to switch, let's move on from that option.

You have the DA 55-300 which is a consumer grade lens IQ wise. I'm not getting into the value for the dollar argument, I am taking strictly about image quality. And let's end any conversation about using a TC with it. It's a horribly slow focusing lens on it's own and the IQ is "ok", adding a TC is a recipe for disaster. I had a 55-300 for a couple years, so I have had enough experience with it that I feel comfortable in my judgments.

In terms of comparison, it is below (and I mean noticeably) the DA* 300, 60-250 and the 150-450 from Pentax, just based on MTF charts. (I have not owned any of these lenses so I cannot comment from personal experience.). I CAN say, I UPGRADED to the 50-500 from the 55-300. My GF uses the 150-500 (she got my hand me down 55-300 and quickly wanted a replacement) and I can definitively say the 150-500 is BETTER than the 50-500. So that puts the 55-300 at the bottom of that comparison as well. I have also owned the Sigma APO 400/5.6. That was sold because the Sigma 150-500 was better (slightly).

I personally use the Sigma 100-300/4 which I feel beats the 150-500 even when cropped, but that's a tough used lens to get ahold of since it's out of production.

So what to do with your 2K? What level of quality are you expecting? I get paid for some of my long telephoto work, so I have higher expectations. My GF just loves the experience of tracking critters and is thrilled with her 150-500 and sees no reason to upgrade. Where do you fall? I'm not 100% sold personally on the 150-450 being better than my 100-300, but that's at a different level. At worst, the 150-450 should be in the same league as the 150-500.

What would I do if I were you? Maybe get the 150-500 HSM used, they show up once a month or so and see if it is "good enough". Give yourself a year or so to learn the proper techniques, because there will be a learning curve, Shooting at 500mm is not the same as shooting at 300mm. Plus the monetary savings could go toward an upgraded tripod and/or a monopod.

If you find yourself wondering about the 150-450 and you aren't happy with the 150-500, then maybe trade up at that point. The price may have come down a bit and you'll have a much better idea of where you want to be image quality wise.

Here's the real kicker, after the 150-500 or 150-450, your next bump in IQ will cost you a minimum of 5k, so be prepared for that reality.

Thank you for the detailed info here. The is the first review of the 50-500 vs 150-500 that the 150 version came out on top. Can you tell us what the differences you are seeing between the lenses are?