[Mel_PL]

Soon I will have to decide whether to stay with Sigma 100-300 f4 Apo DG EX + Sigma TC 1.4x or sell the combo and get the Px telephoto. Whatever I choose I will have to stay with the chosen lens for years so I dont wan't it to be a stupid decision...

I use Sigma for birding and general nature/landscape pohotos.

I regret Sigma is not weather sealed -- but there's no problem to get a sleeve for $15 or less.
It's noisy. Skittish pheasants in my neighbourhood run away just before I press the shutter.
I've discovered that cropping photos taken by my Sigma (on K3-II) gives slightly better results than use it with TC. So TC is useless now.
On the other hand it's f4.

I expect 150-450 to be faster to focus, flare resistant, quiet. But is the IQ much better than Sigma?

Do you happen to have both lenses and give me a piece of advice?

TIA

-- M.

---

Last edited by Mel_PL; 03-19-2016 at 07:10 AM.

[wissink]

I'm interested to know as well.

[normhead]

I'm interested to know as well.

Yes it's one of those mysteries of the universe.

From someone who doesn't have either lens, I'd point out the 150-450 works nicely with the TC, and that would be a clear advantage.

[VoiceOfReason]

The 150-450 works great with the 1.4 Pentax TC. It is fast and silent too.

[nomadkng]

Soon I will have to decide whether to stay with Sigma 100-400 f4 Apo DG EX + Sigma TC 1.4x or sell the combo and get the Px telephoto. Whatever I choose I will have to stay with the chosen lens for years so I dont wan't it to be a stupid decision...

I use Sigma for birding and general nature/landscape pohotos.

I regret Sigma is not weather sealed -- but there's no problem to get a sleeve for $15 or less.
It's noisy. Skittish pheasants in my neighbourhood run away just before I press the shutter.
I've discovered that cropping photos taken by my Sigma (on K3-II) gives slightly better results than use it with TC. So TC is useless now.
On the other hand it's f4.

I expect 150-450 to be faster to focus, flare resistant, quiet. But is the IQ much better than Sigma?

Do you happen to have both lenses and give me a piece of advice?

TIA

-- M.

I have a K-3 and the Sigma 100-300 and Pentax 1.4x, and I will take exception with your conclusion that the TC is useless. My own results indicate there is some slight advantage to using the TC over cropping for at least 50% of the situations I've encountered. That aside, unfortunately I can't attest to the 150-450, but I did use anecdotal evidence (forums reviews/posts etc) to conclude the extra $600 expense would not produce enough tangible gain to warrant switching. The 150-450 is larger, but I doubt it would be faster focusing. My Sigma can handle NASCAR events and air shows, so unless you are shooting peregrine falcons, I can't think of much else that would tax an AF system. In terms of IQ, there are few lenses on this planet in K mount that touch the Sigma, which is why it has such a cult following. If the Pentax MATCHED the IQ of the Sigma, that would be big win for the Pentax, but given that it's not a DFA* lens, pure conjecture would say it's not quite to that standard.

The bottom line for me, the ONLY option for more reach is to save up and purchase the Sigma 500 f4.5. That would then pair nicely with my 100-300. By not buying the Pentax, I already have 1700 saved toward the purchase....lol

[VoiceOfReason]

I have both and may try to do some comparisons for you off of my porch if you'd like. I already did a magnification thread with those along with the Sigma 150-500, the Tamron 70-200, and the Pentax 60-250 at one point.

[stemked]

I had the Sigma 150-500, but gave it up for the 150-450. Brilliant lens. the Sigma wasn't bad on the long end, but it was no match. I find now that I use my 600mm f5.6 A lens less and less (which is a brilliant lens), I'm just that impressed with the 150-450.

Here are two comparable images, both shot from a tripod, but different cameras
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13043978-lg.jpgSigma 150-500 (K7)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18134881-md.jpg Pentax 150-450 (K3)

also
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7604501-md.jpg Takumar 500 f4.5 (K10)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17949304-md.jpg Pentax 600mm f5.6 A (K3, I think)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13023459-lg.jpg Sigma 400mm f5.6 Version 2 (K10)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18028842-md.jpg Pentax 55-300 (K3, no tripod)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15790151-lg.jpg Pentax 300mm f4.5 +1.4 Tamron TC (K7)

---

Last edited by stemked; 03-17-2016 at 02:42 PM.

[opel3nix]

I have both and may try to do some comparisons for you off of my porch if you'd like. I already did a magnification thread with those along with the Sigma 150-500, the Tamron 70-200, and the Pentax 60-250 at one point.

Like to see the difference between the long sigma lenses and the pentax 150-450! Got two 400 primes, the M 400 5.6 and the A 400 5.6. They are great for landscape and not moving wildlife, but I am looking for an autofocus Telelens in this area. But I'am thinking if it is worth going for the 560 5.6?????

[nomadkng]

I had the Sigma 150-500, but gave it up for the 150-450. Brilliant lens. the Sigma wasn't bad on the long end, but it was no match. I find now that I use my 600mm f5.6 A lens less and less (which is a brilliant lens), I'm just that impressed with the 150-450.

Here are two comparable images, both shot from a tripod, but different cameras
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13043978-lg.jpgSigma 150-500 (K7)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18134881-md.jpg Pentax 150-450 (K3)

also
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7604501-md.jpg Takumar 500 f4.5 (K10)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17949304-md.jpg Pentax 600mm f5.6 A (K3, I think)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13023459-lg.jpg Sigma 400mm f5.6 Version 2 (K10)

The Sigma 150-500 is not in the same class as the OP referenced Sigma 100-300. I own both. If it were a choice between the 150-500 and 150-450 then, yes, the Pentax is a clear winner.

[opel3nix]

I had the Sigma 150-500, but gave it up for the 150-450. Brilliant lens. the Sigma wasn't bad on the long end, but it was no match. I find now that I use my 600mm f5.6 A lens less and less (which is a brilliant lens), I'm just that impressed with the 150-450.

Here are two comparable images, both shot from a tripod, but different cameras
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13043978-lg.jpgSigma 150-500 (K7)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18134881-md.jpg Pentax 150-450 (K3)

also
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7604501-md.jpg Takumar 500 f4.5 (K10)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17949304-md.jpg Pentax 600mm f5.6 A (K3, I think)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13023459-lg.jpg Sigma 400mm f5.6 Version 2 (K10)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18028842-md.jpg Pentax 55-300 (K3, no tripod)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15790151-lg.jpg Pentax 300mm f4.5 +1.4 Tamron TC (K7)

the takumar can do better!!!!!

[VoiceOfReason]

Like to see the difference between the long sigma lenses and the pentax 150-450! Got two 400 primes, the M 400 5.6 and the A 400 5.6. They are great for landscape and not moving wildlife, but I am looking for an autofocus Telelens in this area. But I'am thinking if it is worth going for the 560 5.6?????

I sold the Sigma 150-500 after seeing how much better the Pentax 150-450 was.

Got a little gift for you guys! How about the raw files with the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and Pentax 150-450 both with and without the DA 1.4 AW TC.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m8k9fbf5vynyppt/samples.zip?dl=0

Enjoy. Taken with the K3, wide open, on one of the many trees on my property, and 1/500 second on a tripod.

---------- Post added 03-17-16 at 04:04 PM ----------

Ohh, the wind is blowing and my porch isn't the sturdiest.

[crewl1]

Nice but the 300mm shot appears out of focus?

[stemked]

Could be. I was with a class at the time and on the run all the time. Her's an image with just the lens (no TC)

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/16916752-md.jpg 300mm F f4.5 (K7). The eyes were blackened in photoshop.



My Takumar 500mm f4.5 was never a great lens. Here's another image taken with the lens and a film body, Super Program maybe?

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10624430-md.jpg

[VoiceOfReason]

Nice but the 300mm shot appears out of focus?

I will try again tomorrow from my yard. Wait, I did do a LV one with the tc on the 100-300. Let me post it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq3njvpza1k6reu/IMGP5662.DNG?dl=0

[noelpolar]

I feel you will struggle to get a good IQ comparison that is decisive..... that would take a lot of time, expertise and various shots to achieve under ideal controlled conditions.

Personally, as a 150-450 owner, I would expect the 100-300 to have slightly better IQ within it's range under ideal conditions and especially for the fist equivelent stop or so, than the 150-450.

However for most, with the 150-450 a lot of your shooting will come at 400- 450mm......which sort of changes things. I find 450mm much more demanding then shooting at 300mm. Then of course you have the pentax TC on top.....and its better compatability with the 150-450.

I have come to appreciate a quiet refined lens with good autofoucus and have been shooting recently with a friend who was using a screw drive lens (one of mine he borrowed) and it really hit me how noisey it was. I do find the image quality of the 150-450, whilst ok wide open, does benefit from stepping down a stop.....especially at the long end.

I use to shoot birds with my F*300/4.5 and definitely feel I have compromised IQ marginally moving to the 150-450..., however the other gains have outweighed this for me.....these gains are....reach, zoom range, quietness and refinement. I've always observed Sigma 100-300 image IQ as equal to my F*300/4.5.

I'm moving into taking photos under more extreme conditions, so weather sealing is becoming more important to me these days as I hope to differentiate my shots from others around here. Just a thought.....