[TwoUptons]

I have the SMC 300 f4 ‘K’. I’m very happy with it for the <$100 US I paid for it. It is nice and sharp but purple fringes like basically every old, cheap lens ever...

I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m going to need to spend real money to get around that while keeping a long focal length, especially with AF.

So I’m trying to save for next year’s rumored 70-200 and then a 150-450. That would be a potent combo for my daughter’s sports, wildlife, and the odd air show...

But the decent affordable long telephoto zoom regime is a weak point for us right now... with the cool stuff from third parties missing, not as affordable as it once was, or both...

-Eric

[northcoastgreg]

I would recommend the DA* 300 as well. It's not a lens you'll have to worry about not being good enough, because it really doesn't get any better. Even at 1:1 viewing it's still reasonably sharp.

Here's about a ~80% crop:

[mikesbike]

The Pentax FA* 300mm f/4.5 is marvelous for fine IQ. And it is compact for what it is. You should be able to find a good used one, and it is also very good with a compatible 1.4 TC.

[SSGGeezer]

The Pentax FA* 300mm f/4.5 is marvelous for fine IQ. And it is compact for what it is. You should be able to find a good used one, and it is also very good with a compatible 1.4 TC.

Prices on good FA 300 4.5s are closer to 800 USD with shipping than the 650 or so they were this time last year on Fleabay though. Since I sold mine I have been tracking them to see what is happening price wise. And they are trending up. (Clean copies without fungus and massive exterior scarring.)

[SteveinSLC]

If you think you can swing it, my DA*300 is posted for sale. $650. We'd have to figure the shipping to Canada.

[R. Wethereyet]

But the decent affordable long telephoto zoom regime is a weak point for us right now... with the cool stuff from third parties missing, not as affordable as it once was, or both...

One of the challenges of being in a small market share product is all "the cool stuff from third parties" that only mount on the top 75% of market share bodies (ie - not Pentax) :-( We work with what we have and still manage to take great images! :-D

---------- Post added 11-08-2018 at 09:32 PM ----------

Beautiful image Greg!!!

[kypfer]

I found a Sigma 150-500mm just a few weeks ago in the UK for £350 and it suits my recently acquired K-70 very well, but I agree, they do seem to be very thin on the ground! Since Tamron and Sigma have dropped support for Pentax it would seem that people are hanging on to their long lenses.


I'd been looking for something similar for some while to use on my K-5, but had given up and decided to go for a "24megapixels and crop" solution, then the lens became available ... couldn't resist

[Buffy]

Yeah, I've got the 150-500. For all their size, they and the more modern Tamron and Sigma zooms up to 600mm are still consumer standard, very slow at the long end and not sharp. The small aperture means that add a TC and there's trouble focusing.

300mm f4 seems to be a sweet spot in performance, price and weight across brands. Add a TC if needed, you're still above f8 for the AF module to cope with.

I now have the 150-500 also which, although still slow, I find to be sharper. For the money, certainly, it's a good value.

Some years ago I broke down and bought a Sigma 300mm f/2.8 which is a bit heavy but still hand-holdable and it works well with 1.4x and 2x TCs. Last year I acquired the FA* 600mm f/4 which is so absurdly heavy for me I am not sure I am going to keep it.

[boriscleto]

I'm sure everyone knows my opinion of the Sigma 150-500 APO DG OS HSM. It's the lens that's been attached to my camera most of the time since 2014

If the 120-400 has a higher rating in the lens database it's only because there are only 8 reviews...AFAIC the OS makes a huge difference in these long lenses...If Ricoh had put OS in the 150-450 I would be more inclined to buy it...instead I'm more inclined to switch to Nikon for the 200-500 or one of the 150-600s. But I'm not...

[clackers]

I'm sure everyone knows my opinion of the Sigma 150-500 APO DG OS HSM. It's the lens that's been attached to my camera most of the time since 2014

If the 120-400 has a higher rating in the lens database it's only because there are only 8 reviews...AFAIC the OS makes a huge difference in these long lenses...If Ricoh had put OS in the 150-450 I would be more inclined to buy it...instead I'm more inclined to switch to Nikon for the 200-500 or one of the 150-600s. But I'm not...

I think going to one of those 150-600s would be going from the frying pan to the fire, Boris. Like my Siggy 150-500 they're just not great at the long end. They're relatively inexpensive, but the sad fact is that in long lenses, you get what you pay for across all brands.

If I stick to 400mm or less to cope with that, I'm better off with the 300mm prime and TC combination.

I won't sell my copy, though, because I do shoot sports from time to time and being a zoom I can frame differently for different spots on the field. That's just being pragmatic, not pursuing image quality, because a 300mm or 400mm prime is what the pros know is best.

[SteveinSLC]

I'm sure everyone knows my opinion of the Sigma 150-500 APO DG OS HSM. It's the lens that's been attached to my camera most of the time since 2014

If the 120-400 has a higher rating in the lens database it's only because there are only 8 reviews...AFAIC the OS makes a huge difference in these long lenses...If Ricoh had put OS in the 150-450 I would be more inclined to buy it...instead I'm more inclined to switch to Nikon for the 200-500 or one of the 150-600s. But I'm not...

Why would OS in the 150-450 make it better? Pentax has in body stabilization. By most accounts it's pretty effective. Having lens based OS would mean you'd have two systems trying to do that at the same time. I'm not sure I'd trust that to work better. Plus you'd make an already heavy lens even heavier.

[normhead]

Why would OS in the 150-450 make it better? Pentax has in body stabilization. By most accounts it's pretty effective. Having lens based OS would mean you'd have two systems trying to do that at the same time. I'm not sure I'd trust that to work better. Plus you'd make an already heavy lens even heavier.

A big problem focusing an unstabilized lens is your movement interferes with the AF and can prevent it from locking focus. An in lens stabilization stabilizes the lens before and after focus lock, making it much easier to achieve proper focus. Or at least it can. On my two copies of the Sigma 120-400 I really didn't notice much difference. For lenses that size, my lenses are pretty much stabilized by a tripod. The SR simply means I don't have to lock my tripod before I shoot, the SR cancels any minor movement when I press the shutter release.

As far as I can tell, most people who shoot what I shoot, shoot the way I shoot.

[Des]

I used to have a Sigma 170-500 and while it was fun, it really wasn't sharp at all at the long end and was a low-contrast lens. The later Sigmas (150-500, 50-500, 80-400) seem to have been better, but honestly I think a 300mm prime with or without TC would be a much better option.

I've got the FA*300 f4.5. Mine was about $A800 (say $US580 at current rates) in excellent condition, so I think I got a bargain. They were going for around $US650-750 a couple of years ago but I note that @SSGGeezer reports that they have gone up recently (probably thanks to FF users!). It's a wonderful lens. It's so sharp you can crop a lot with it. One advantage of the F*/FA* over the DA* is that they will work well with a wide range of TCs (I got a Kenko 1.5x pz that works well) on FF and APS-C. The DA* pretty much requires the expensive DA 1.4x TC (unless it's converted to screwdrive AF); and while the lens itself is FF compatible it vignettes with the TC on the K-1. (Pentax FF TCs are rumoured for next year, but they will be $$$.) Otherwise the DA* has a number of pros: WR, quiet AF, one-third stop faster.

If you think you can swing it, my DA*300 is posted for sale. $650. We'd have to figure the shipping to Canada.

@R.Wethereyet I'd give this serious consideration if I were you.

[boriscleto]

Why would OS in the 150-450 make it better? Pentax has in body stabilization. By most accounts it's pretty effective. Having lens based OS would mean you'd have two systems trying to do that at the same time. I'm not sure I'd trust that to work better. Plus you'd make an already heavy lens even heavier.

The way I shoot (mostly handheld with a monopod) the OS makes the lens usable over 300mm, simply because of the stabilized finder. When I was shooting feeder birds from a window I was using a tripod so it didn't matter as much.

[clackers]

The way I shoot (mostly handheld with a monopod) the OS makes the lens usable over 300mm, simply because of the stabilized finder. When I was shooting feeder birds from a window I was using a tripod so it didn't matter as much.

Well, like you, I most often use a monopod, in sports or birding, because it's so fast to deploy (even just partly and tucking into the hip) and you can swivel so quickly to follow action, I've not had a problem with IBIS: