Sigma 120-400 4.5-5.6 APO HSM

originalwinger · 03-06-2016, 07:47 AM

I have used this lens for over a year now and am very happy with the handling and the IQ but I'm guy and I want more. So I ask has anyone used a TC with this lens (Sigma doesn't make a comparable one

) and if so what are your results ?
Dave

Last edited by originalwinger; 03-06-2016 at 08:26 AM.

VoiceOfReason · 03-06-2016, 10:13 AM

I can't say about that, but I know the Pentax 1.4 tc worked with the Sigma 150-500 HSM I used to have, though aperture and focal length weren't properly communicated.

zman · 03-06-2016, 05:43 PM

I do have this lens and have tried it with both the Sigma APO EX 1.4 and 2.0 teleconvertors on my K5. According to the Sigma website the lens can utilize both these TC's, but autofocus will not function so only manual focusing will work. The image quality is compromised, especially with the 2.0.
A greater problem that occurs quite frequently is that when I use this combination it causes my K5 to lock up and it seems to lose its power. Nothing works - no lcd, no camera functions. I have to reinstall the battery for the camera to bring it back to life. Because of this I have stopped trying to use the TC's with the lens for fear of doing permanent damage. That is my experience. Love the lens though.

originalwinger · 03-07-2016, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I can't say about that, but I know the Pentax 1.4 tc worked with the Sigma 150-500 HSM I used to have, though aperture and focal length weren't properly communicated.

Thanks for the information, it gives me some hope.
Dave

---------- Post added 03-07-2016 at 06:32 AM ----------

Originally posted by zman

I do have this lens and have tried it with both the Sigma APO EX 1.4 and 2.0 teleconvertors on my K5. According to the Sigma website the lens can utilize both these TC's, but autofocus will not function so only manual focusing will work. The image quality is compromised, especially with the 2.0.
A greater problem that occurs quite frequently is that when I use this combination it causes my K5 to lock up and it seems to lose its power. Nothing works - no lcd, no camera functions. I have to reinstall the battery for the camera to bring it back to life. Because of this I have stopped trying to use the TC's with the lens for fear of doing permanent damage. That is my experience. Love the lens though.

Thanks zman, I could live without AF but the degradation in IQ and the lockups is not good. I did use the 120-400 with a Pentax 1.7 AFA but it took the edge off of the IQ , I would love to try the Pentax 1.4. just have to find someone who has one.
Dave

gatorguy · 03-20-2016, 01:29 PM

On a related note I'm sure it hasn't escaped notice that pricing for Nikon or Canon versions of this lens are often significantly less, and by significantly I mean by $100's of dollars. For instance a look at Amazon shows the Pentax version at $1000 but both the Canon and Nikon versions at less than $500. (and some other lenses have the same pricing disparity between platforms.)

So with the availability of Canon/Nikon to K-mount converters what would be the downside if I opted for a $50 converter and created a now-manual Sigma 120-400 but saving a bundle? Anything else? Seems to me to perhaps be worth the loss of AF if I'm not giving up image quality too with using the converter.

I'll be the first to admit I know little about the trade-offs but I'd like someone to chime in that does.

Mock · 03-20-2016, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by gatorguy

On a related note I'm sure it hasn't escaped notice that pricing for Nikon or Canon versions of this lens are often significantly less, and by significantly I mean by $100's of dollars. For instance a look at Amazon shows the Pentax version at $1000 but both the Canon and Nikon versions at less than $500. (and some other lenses have the same pricing disparity between platforms.)

So with the availability of Canon/Nikon to K-mount converters what would be the downside if I opted for a $50 converter and created a now-manual Sigma 120-400 but saving a bundle? Anything else? Seems to me to perhaps be worth the loss of AF if I'm not giving up image quality too with using the converter.

I'll be the first to admit I know little about the trade-offs but I'd like someone to chime in that does.

You have two options in such adapters, and only in a Nikon to Pentax configuration - forget about Canon because the lens won't have an aperture ring for you to open.

One doesn't have glass but works as a short extension tube, you lose the ability to focus from (x)metres to infinity.
The other has glass to correct for the infinity focus problem, but it is poor quality glass. You will not get anywhere near the same image quality as buying the lens in the correct mount for your camera. To be clear, the amount of money you save will not be enough to justify the difference in quality.

gatorguy · 03-21-2016, 05:52 AM

Many thanks Mock. I was hoping there was a decent solution. BTW, any idea why the Pentax versions of many of the better 3rd-party lenses are priced so much higher? Surely couldn't be due to the mount alone as it couldn't be much more costly to substitute one for another in production could it? Would removing the in-lens stabilization needed for Nikon/Canon actually ADD to the cost? Just doesn't seem to make a whole lotta sense but maybe someone knows the answer. Not that it matters I guess. Pay to play right?

VoiceOfReason · 03-21-2016, 09:20 AM

At that price I'd almost look for a used 150-500 or 50-500. You see them pop up reasonably priced here on occasion.

Mock · 03-21-2016, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by gatorguy

Many thanks Mock. I was hoping there was a decent solution. BTW, any idea why the Pentax versions of many of the better 3rd-party lenses are priced so much higher? Surely couldn't be due to the mount alone as it couldn't be much more costly to substitute one for another in production could it? Would removing the in-lens stabilization needed for Nikon/Canon actually ADD to the cost? Just doesn't seem to make a whole lotta sense but maybe someone knows the answer. Not that it matters I guess. Pay to play right?

I think it is a matter of supply, there are many more specimens of a given lens in C/N mounts, as well as many more alternative lenses to choose from. In Pentax mount long telephotos, we don't have as much choice, and not as much variety, so we pay more.

03-06-2016, 07:47 AM	#1
originalwinger Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Oro Station, Ont. Canada Posts: 169	Sigma 120-400 4.5-5.6 APO HSM I have used this lens for over a year now and am very happy with the handling and the IQ but I'm guy and I want more. So I ask has anyone used a TC with this lens (Sigma doesn't make a comparable one ) and if so what are your results ? Dave Last edited by originalwinger; 03-06-2016 at 08:26 AM.

03-20-2016, 01:29 PM	#5
gatorguy Moderator Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Central Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,092	On a related note I'm sure it hasn't escaped notice that pricing for Nikon or Canon versions of this lens are often significantly less, and by significantly I mean by $100's of dollars. For instance a look at Amazon shows the Pentax version at $1000 but both the Canon and Nikon versions at less than $500. (and some other lenses have the same pricing disparity between platforms.) So with the availability of Canon/Nikon to K-mount converters what would be the downside if I opted for a $50 converter and created a now-manual Sigma 120-400 but saving a bundle? Anything else? Seems to me to perhaps be worth the loss of AF if I'm not giving up image quality too with using the converter. I'll be the first to admit I know little about the trade-offs but I'd like someone to chime in that does. Last edited by gatorguy; 03-20-2016 at 06:00 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Rare Pentax-K 24mm f2.8, Sigma 120-400/f4.5-5.6 DG APO HSM	hzhao1964	Sold Items	14	01-23-2012 06:05 PM
Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM APO Autofocus Lens	ivoire	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	03-14-2009 05:03 AM
What views on the Sigma APO 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM OS?	Aditya Panda	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	02-15-2009 09:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS (CONUS) Sigma 135-400 4.5-5.6 APO	az-dave	Sold Items	12	02-18-2008 06:26 AM

03-06-2016, 10:13 AM	#2
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I can't say about that, but I know the Pentax 1.4 tc worked with the Sigma 150-500 HSM I used to have, though aperture and focal length weren't properly communicated.

03-06-2016, 05:43 PM	#3
zman Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Western NY Photos: Albums Posts: 515	I do have this lens and have tried it with both the Sigma APO EX 1.4 and 2.0 teleconvertors on my K5. According to the Sigma website the lens can utilize both these TC's, but autofocus will not function so only manual focusing will work. The image quality is compromised, especially with the 2.0. A greater problem that occurs quite frequently is that when I use this combination it causes my K5 to lock up and it seems to lose its power. Nothing works - no lcd, no camera functions. I have to reinstall the battery for the camera to bring it back to life. Because of this I have stopped trying to use the TC's with the lens for fear of doing permanent damage. That is my experience. Love the lens though.

03-07-2016, 04:13 AM	#4
originalwinger Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Oro Station, Ont. Canada Posts: 169 Original Poster	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I can't say about that, but I know the Pentax 1.4 tc worked with the Sigma 150-500 HSM I used to have, though aperture and focal length weren't properly communicated. Thanks for the information, it gives me some hope. Dave ---------- Post added 03-07-2016 at 06:32 AM ---------- Originally posted by zman I do have this lens and have tried it with both the Sigma APO EX 1.4 and 2.0 teleconvertors on my K5. According to the Sigma website the lens can utilize both these TC's, but autofocus will not function so only manual focusing will work. The image quality is compromised, especially with the 2.0. A greater problem that occurs quite frequently is that when I use this combination it causes my K5 to lock up and it seems to lose its power. Nothing works - no lcd, no camera functions. I have to reinstall the battery for the camera to bring it back to life. Because of this I have stopped trying to use the TC's with the lens for fear of doing permanent damage. That is my experience. Love the lens though. Thanks zman, I could live without AF but the degradation in IQ and the lockups is not good. I did use the 120-400 with a Pentax 1.7 AFA but it took the edge off of the IQ , I would love to try the Pentax 1.4. just have to find someone who has one. Dave

03-20-2016, 09:56 PM	#6
Mock Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Edmonton Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 314	Originally posted by gatorguy On a related note I'm sure it hasn't escaped notice that pricing for Nikon or Canon versions of this lens are often significantly less, and by significantly I mean by $100's of dollars. For instance a look at Amazon shows the Pentax version at $1000 but both the Canon and Nikon versions at less than $500. (and some other lenses have the same pricing disparity between platforms.) So with the availability of Canon/Nikon to K-mount converters what would be the downside if I opted for a $50 converter and created a now-manual Sigma 120-400 but saving a bundle? Anything else? Seems to me to perhaps be worth the loss of AF if I'm not giving up image quality too with using the converter. I'll be the first to admit I know little about the trade-offs but I'd like someone to chime in that does. You have two options in such adapters, and only in a Nikon to Pentax configuration - forget about Canon because the lens won't have an aperture ring for you to open. One doesn't have glass but works as a short extension tube, you lose the ability to focus from (x)metres to infinity. The other has glass to correct for the infinity focus problem, but it is poor quality glass. You will not get anywhere near the same image quality as buying the lens in the correct mount for your camera. To be clear, the amount of money you save will not be enough to justify the difference in quality.

03-21-2016, 05:52 AM	#7
gatorguy Moderator Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Central Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,092	Many thanks Mock. I was hoping there was a decent solution. BTW, any idea why the Pentax versions of many of the better 3rd-party lenses are priced so much higher? Surely couldn't be due to the mount alone as it couldn't be much more costly to substitute one for another in production could it? Would removing the in-lens stabilization needed for Nikon/Canon actually ADD to the cost? Just doesn't seem to make a whole lotta sense but maybe someone knows the answer. Not that it matters I guess. Pay to play right?

03-21-2016, 09:20 AM	#8
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	At that price I'd almost look for a used 150-500 or 50-500. You see them pop up reasonably priced here on occasion.

03-21-2016, 04:19 PM	#9
Mock Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Edmonton Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 314	Originally posted by gatorguy Many thanks Mock. I was hoping there was a decent solution. BTW, any idea why the Pentax versions of many of the better 3rd-party lenses are priced so much higher? Surely couldn't be due to the mount alone as it couldn't be much more costly to substitute one for another in production could it? Would removing the in-lens stabilization needed for Nikon/Canon actually ADD to the cost? Just doesn't seem to make a whole lotta sense but maybe someone knows the answer. Not that it matters I guess. Pay to play right? I think it is a matter of supply, there are many more specimens of a given lens in C/N mounts, as well as many more alternative lenses to choose from. In Pentax mount long telephotos, we don't have as much choice, and not as much variety, so we pay more.