[Wild Mark]

Which one? Pros and cons welcome. TC choice too.

I want the reach of 500mm, but, I like the native offering of the 100-300mm f4.

Opinions based on experience are most welcome

[Digitalis]

I want the reach of 500mm, but, I like the native offering of the 100-300mm f4.

I'm just going to leave this image here:


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG@ 300mm with Pz-AF 1.7x Teleconverter - ISO 2500 f/5.6 1/500th - inset image: 100% crop, default LR sharpening, no NR.

Pentax has very limited options when it comes to decent lenses at or above 300mm, and none of them are easy to come by, or cheap. Sigma apparently still make the 500mm f/4.5 in K mount. The superb Pentax FA*250-600mm f/5.6 pops up on the market about every 10 years.

If you want the reach, you better have deep pockets.

[Wild Mark]

Pentax has very limited options when it comes to decent lenses at or above 300mm, and none of them are easy to come by, or cheap. Sigma apparently still make the 500mm f/4.5 in K mount. The superb Pentax FA*250-600mm f/5.6 pops up on the market about every 10 years.

Thanks Digitalis

I have the 250-600mm f5.6 and yes it excels. But it weighs 6kg so it is not a walk around option. I have the 150-500mm and I find it light and easy to hand hold. My only thought is, does the 150-500 exceed the performance of the 100-300mm + TC knowing that the latter combination is a stop faster with only small loss in reach and the 100-300mm f4 is superior to the 150-500 within comparable focal range.

[Digitalis]

. My only thought is, does the 150-500 exceed the performance of the 100-300mm + TC

No, in all probability it is just as bad, if not worse. The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 also does not have a focus limiter, which makes AF hunting considerably worse on the K-1.

@ 300mm the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG takes a pretty sharp hit to image quality*, it recovers when stopped down to f/5.6 but with a TC f/11 is where you will end up, and even then IQ doesn't really recover. I'm aware this is dependent upon the quality of the teleconverter in question, but as a rule: TCs take more than they give, sometimes you're better off cropping.


*this being corroborated with 4 lenses tested on my lens bench - curiously only one of those lenses had de-centering that made significant impact. The other copies were close to spot on. @100mm f/4 the lens produces IQ that easily rivals 100mm macro primes.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 09-03-2017 at 05:34 AM.

[angerdan]

I want the reach of 500mm, but, I like the native offering of the 100-300mm f4.
Sigma 100-300mm f4 + TC OR Sigma 150-500mm??
Which one? Pros and cons welcome. TC choice too.

100-300mm+TC gets 140-450mm 5.6 with good image quality against 150-500mm 5-6.3.
So 100-300mm is faster, lighter and delivers better image quality.
Only DA* 300mm with HD DA AW 1.4x TC would be cheaper, less weight and very good image quality with full weather protection.

Or FA* 300mm 2.8 with 1.7x TC, delivers 510mm with f4.76, high AF-Speed and focus limiter.
For half the price and build length of a new HD DA 560mm 5.6.

[jeallen01]

Having both the 100-300 F4 + 1.4x TC and the 150-500 HSM OS, I have to say that the former combo works the best on both my K-3 & K-3 II - it's lighter, much faster to accurately lock on (I use it for airshows and the like where that counts) and just as sharp (if not a lot more so). So the 100-300 +TC stays on the K-3 II, whilst the latter stays on the K-3 because it's useful for longer distance shots but so SLOW to refocus.

I suppose it's horses for courses

OTOH, not selling the 100-300 F4 anytime soo..........n

PS to Sigma: PLEASE bring back the 100-300 F4 in KA-3+ mount - I think you would sell enough to make it worthwhile

[jeallen01]

Hope the required spares are still available - they were in short supply a couple of years ago when mine needed a new AF module but luckily SIgma Imaging UK got (probably the last!) one from Japan.

[Wild Mark]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

I am sensing that my gut feel on this is right (Sigma 100-300mm + TC is the better of the two choices). In respect to Digitalis's comments I suspect the K5 sensor + ISO2500 is not the best camera and setting to exhibit the combination. Not your fault, but in light of others experience of both setups it would seem a K3 or K3ii would give the combo a better performance especially when high ISO is deployed.

---------- Post added 04-09-17 at 10:19 PM ----------

100-300mm+TC gets 140-450mm 5.6 with good image quality against 150-500mm 5-6.3.
So 100-300mm is faster, lighter and delivers better image quality.
Only DA* 300mm with HD DA AW 1.4x TC would be cheaper, less weight and very good image quality with full weather protection.

Or FA* 300mm 2.8 with 1.7x TC, delivers 510mm with f4.76, high AF-Speed and focus limiter.
For half the price and build length of a new HD DA 560mm 5.6.

Angerdan

Have you used both setups? I agree with your appraisal above, just keen to now if you actaully have experienced the results. I ahve the 150-500 and like it, but I think the 100-300m TC combo might be better (as others are suggesting)[COLOR="Silver"]

[angerdan]

Angerdan
Have you used both setups? I agree with your appraisal above, just keen to now if you actaully have experienced the results. I ahve the 150-500 and like it, but I think the 100-300m TC combo might be better (as others are suggesting)[COLOR="Silver"]

I had the DA* 300 on K-5 and still have the F* 300 on K-1.
Also tested a used 100-300 4.0, but backfocus didn't make me satisfied. Image quality was good, no CA at all. But primes are better
So it's more about handling and speed than iq. I still prefer primes.

[reeftool]

Going back around 10 years, the Sigma 100-300/4 was THE long zoom to own. I have no personal experience with it. I do own the Sigma 150-500/f5-6.3 HSM OS and it's a large beast of a lens that I can't use handheld. The IQ is very good stopped down. My results wide open are OK but most of my shots have been in the f8-f11 range.

A lot of people use the 100-300 with a TC and the shots look impressive and I think it would be a more practical lens to own, especially if you plan to use it with the full zoom range. I use my 150-500 almost exclusively in the 300-500 range and on a monopod or tripod.

[Wild Mark]

Thank you everyone for your contributions. Since starting this thread I have managed to acquire a Sigma 100-300mm f4 to test against three other options. The lenses tested are as follows:

F*300 f4
Sigma 100-300mm f4
Sigma 150-500mm (HSM with OS - note OS was switched off)
Sigma 50-500mm (non HSM)

Testing was on a tripod with a target about 6m away. I tested each lens wide open and at f8. ISO 200 on the K3. JPEGs were generated within camera and then cropped at centre. Results are as follows.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added 17-09-17 at 07:44 PM ----------



F*300 f4 + Tamron 1.4X TC
I ranked this #2 in centre and #1 at the border

Open


F8


---------- Post added 17-09-17 at 07:53 PM ----------



Sigma 100-300mm f4 + Tamron 1.4X TC
I ranked this #1 in centre and #4 at the border

Open


F8


Sigma 150-500mm (HSM with OS - note OS was switched off)
I ranked this #3 in centre and #2 at the border

Open


F8


Sigma 50-500mm (non HSM)
I ranked this #4 in centre and #3 at the border

Open


F8

[kev.pride]

Had both sold both, the 100-300 f4 is the better optically but now long in the tooth and my copy was very noisy, the HSM of the 150-500 is far superior. Just a pity Sigma don't make the 150-600 Sport available. My choice was to jump.

[jeallen01]

Very interesting results, and seems to confirm my observations on the 100-300 +TC v the 150-500 - would also be nice to see the results with the Tamron 1.4x TC replaced by the Sigma 1.4x TC which is supposed to be "matched" to the 100-300 and some other long Sigma lenses as that might have improved the edges of the shots (but that TC is almost as much a hen's teeth item as the 100-300 itself! - could possibly lend you mine if your location is Newcastle in ENGLAND, and not in some other country )

BTW: one other factor is the speed of focusing where the 100-300 (even with the TC attached) is much faster than the 150-500 (and I guess, the 50-500 as that is also an HSM lens) if that is an issue for the types of shots you take (as it is for me).

[Wild Mark]

@kev.pride

Agree re: noise. The Sigma 150-500 is far superior with HSM. I suspect the gap between the Sigma 100-300 and 150-500 will close when shooting handheld with in camera OS on. Both are very fine lenses but my vote is slightly towards the Sigma 100-300mm as it will perform better natively within its range and will perform better in low light.

@jeallen01

Thanks for your comments. Yes, they are very close and I think the Sigma 100-300mm is the slightly better lens (very little in it). As far as testing the Sigma 1.4X - sadly, you will need to find a Qantas flight and spend a few thousand in doing so