[boriscleto]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Used it before I bought the DA L 55-300...

Cosina (Phoenix, Vivitar, Promaster, Voightlander 100-400mm, f:4.5-6.7, AF Lens Reviews - Cosina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

But the DA L 55-300 is available for less than $100, so it really isn't relevant anymore, unless you want 400mm for less than $100...

[kypfer]

Is there such thing as a GOOD budget telephoto lens?
I’ve been using a Sigma 28-200mm for the last 8 years and really need to upgrade. It takes some lovely shots but when it comes to wildlife photography such as birds, I just don’t have the zoom power, even with the 2x MC4 fitted.
I’ve seen some 400mm M8’s going on ebay for under £100 and various others, but are they worth it?
I know nothing about lenses , and my kidneys aren’t in the best condition to be sold to afford a proper massive lens like most people seem to have these days.
Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated!

Which camera and what sort of wildlife at what range? Without this information most responses are likely to be vague, in relevance if not in content.
For a moving subject, finding it in the viewfinder can be an achievement in itself if using a telephoto prime. I regularly zoom out to find my subject then zoom back in again for framing whilst keeping the subject (more or less) centred in the viewfinder.
To this end I've got a Sigma 150-500mm (£350 second-hand with warranty from a reputable dealer) and it's certainly the easiest lens to get good results with that I've tried.
At one extreme, the (infamous?) Samyang 800mm f/8 mirror can give stunning results on a tripod with time to get the focus absolutely right … the depth-of-field really is minimal but the price can look very affordable! It's a very front-heavy combination with no tripod mount on the lens. It also really benefits from a lens-hood, which isn't supplied, and after-market items can approach the cost of the lens in the first place!
At the other extreme my DA 50-200mm (£2 s/h at a local sale) on my *istDS is perfectly adequate if the subject isn't too shy and I can "fill the viewfinder" … horses for courses
Bear in mind that the 400mm on eBay (or anywhere else) will only give you the same image size as your 80-200mm +2x, so it may not be such a step up as you might initially think!


Getting closer is the only real budget solution

[MossyRocks]

Going for the longer reach you really want something 300mm or better if you are already at 200mm. I have the Sigma 300mm F/4 APO Tele Macro and have found it to be a very good performer and someone earlier mentioned its bigger brother the 400. If you look one can find good deals on these but they have the Zen lens barrel coating which can be awful if it starts going sticky. My 300/4 I paid $130 for so there are deals that can be found.

[biz-engineer]

It's possible to use an old telescope and a macro lens mounted on camera. It can replace a very long lens , very cheap. Or use lenses such as 800mm f11 mirror, cheap and light weight, must master donuts bokeh.

[jslifoaw]

On my older 6mp cameras I used mostly between 2005-2010, I was generally happy enough with a lens like the Sigma 70-300 DL macro (not even the "APO" one which is supposed to be better). It is under $100. Most of these zooms struggle past 200mm but you still have a decent 70-200mm range and okay 300mm under favourable conditions.

The SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm is also quite inexpensive and I've printed some wonderful 8x10s with it from a K100D.

With more recent bodies, I totally agree with others that the newer (but more expensive) Pentax 55-300mm RE is outstanding value. Without scrutinizing closely, it's reasonably competitive with the DA*300 mm f4 and is much smaller, faster focusing, and about half the price (but f6.3 vs f4).

Another option is medium format. The Pentax A* 300mm f4 can be had for about $200-250 on ebay if you're patient. Add in an adapter ($100 for Pentax, cheaper for 3rd party), and you have a high quality manual solution. I think the K-mount version is similarly good but more expensive.

[UncleVanya]

Is there such thing as a GOOD budget telephoto lens?

The best answer is - IT DEPENDS. What is the criteria for "good" and "budget"? What are the characteristics required? What is the intended use?

I’ve been using a Sigma 28-200mm for the last 8 years and really need to upgrade. It takes some lovely shots but when it comes to wildlife photography such as birds, I just don’t have the zoom power, even with the 2x MC4 fitted.

I’ve seen some 400mm M8’s going on ebay for under £100 and various others, but are they worth it?

When you start talking about bird photography it's important to explain what type of bird in what type of range? Photographs of birds at the feeder in the yard are different from sparrows flying by while you walk through the woods and that too is different from taking pictures of heron's stalking prey in the shallows or an eagle flying down and grabbing a fish. The general advise is 400mm or so is needed on APSC sensor cameras to get the length needed to take good bird shots - plus a lot of technique. On Full Frame 600mm is typically recommended in the same situation. Both require good technique and work best when autofocus is swift and sure (but can be done even with manual focus). None of this comes cheaply.

If your primary use is shooting the moon, then a large slow manual focus lens used stopped down will work fine as a counter example.

I know nothing about lenses , and my kidneys aren’t in the best condition to be sold to afford a proper massive lens like most people seem to have these days.

Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated!

There are many strategies including remote control of the camera, the use of automated triggers (laser, motion etc.), and the use of "hides" to get closer to the targets and leverage shorter lenses. A nice fast 200mm plus a teleconverter or a 300mm will go a long way towards this goal if you can get closer.

[Bob 256]

Here's an option. No substantiation of the quality of this lens due to use but the original is a great wildlife lens and is sharp, falling off at the 500mm end slightly. If this lens is in good shape, this is a very reasonable price.

Sigma AF 50-500mm f4-6.3 APO EX Lens Pentax #329 | eBay

[TwoUptons]

I’ll second a vote for the DA-L 55-300 for value telephoto if you are shooting APS-C.
It’s not as fancy as the PLM, but I paid $60 for mine, including a replacement hood.

I also have the Pentax-A 400mm f5.6, which is big, old, manual focus, and awesome.
It does have significant CA compared to a modern lens, but it’s good otherwise. And the shooting experience is terrific if you don’t have to carry it far…
The original Pentax K 300 f4 has even more CA than the -A 400, and I’d only suggest it if you shoot film, too.

I’ve also tried a number of third-party long telephoto lenses, and you do largely get what you pay for.
Cheap lenses aren’t very good, though you can sometimes get an expensive lens for not much money, and that’s good

-Eric

[GUB]

While I agreee with you in a general sense p f, IMO there is value in the old lenses. Satisfaction is getting decent photos and the better ones are capable of that. Wildlife photography especially is opportunistic and if you don't have a lens then you don't get a pic. Plus you get on the learning curve. The trick is an informed choice of vintage lens. And I am not surprised if there is disappointment with this or that x-300mm AF consumer zoom, quite frankly most of these are a bit of a waste of time at 300mm, being slow and sub-par resolution, (the pentax FA 100-300mm I acquired a few months ago for next to nothing was a surprise exception, see my pics in the 300mm thread and the FA unlimited thread). Value, in the end, is in the eye of the beholder.

With telephotos, you pay exponentially more for incremental improvements in IQ.

Tamron "nestar" 400mm f6.9 @ f11. IMO the best of the real old 1960's vintage t-mount preset 400's. This lens has the cachet of being the only non-mirror 400mm that you can fit in your pocket.

Yes to all this.
The Nestar is a great example of a good budget lens. The beauty of such lenses as "budget" means there is not a lot of glass in them. Easily the main compromise from this is colour fringing which in this day is easily controlled in editing. The lack of glass and associated surfaces means poorer coatings are less of an issue - resulting in brighter crisper images. This is on the K-1 and I think would be at f8. The subject is a Whio (Blue Duck) a rare endangered species native to New Zealand.

[TwoUptons]

This is with the Pentax A400...



And this is with a Tokina 400 f5.6 that I had before the Pentax... though this isn't an excellent example of sharpness, I do like the atmosphere of it.

-Eric

[wadge22]

I think the Tamron Adaptall 300 f2.8 versions (and the related 400 f4) are a "GOOD" budget telephoto. They are manual focus, which will justifiably be a dealbreaker for some. Also the Adaptall mounts are fiddly at best. Also too, like any long fast lens, they are very very big and heavy.

But otherwise you truly are getting a very high quality optical performer for fairly little cash.
Purple fringing is kind of medium, and everything else IQ wise is very good or great. Just a hair below the camera manufacturer's top of the line comparable lenses of the film era, which also still hold up today.
They take very well to many teleconverters. That will get you as far as 600 f5.6, which is respectable even on full frame for small birds. You will want even more reach, but that's always true.
The f2.8 means the image is very bright in the viewfinder and on the AF sensors for focus confirmation (less so when using teleconverters, of course).
Manual focus is a challenge. I do think a split prism viewfinder screen is highly beneficial, almost necessary, for focusing these guys. Unless you can use liveview all the time, which I cannot.

Everyone who goes to buy a supertelephoto seems to find out it is something like 3-4x their budget they set for themselves, and I guess it holds true even on the budget end. I've personally seen those lenses go on ebay for under $400, and you may, or (more likely) may not, get the right (and fully functional) adaptall mount or useful teleconverters at that kind of price, therefore possibly another purchase.
So not quite a kidney, but 3-4x what you were ready to spend.
Then expect to find out you probably must spend just as much all over again on tripod gear.

[Sagitta]

I was taught that with the exception of the vivitar series 1 lenses, a lot of the " film era " zooms were " compromises "

my initial recommendation was to be one of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm mf lenses

I'm waiting for the Cosina 100-500mm I picked up on FleaBay to arrive in a few days - apparently, it was a Vivitar Series 1 (or rather, the Vivitar was a rebadged Cosina). There seem to be two different designs - one newer one older, the one I'm getting is the older one.

No idea if it would live up to the Vivitar rep (or even if it really IS the same thing), but I paid so little for it I can't get really *mad* if its a dud. If it works out (or doesn't), I'll be sure to post my opinions after testing it for a bit.

I was REAL lucky in that this one is K-mount, so no fiddling with adapting anything around for me.

[Mike L]

Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated!

For under £100 you should be able to get a Pentax FA 80-320mm. It's got a bit more reach than your current lens, it's not too big or heavy, it has auto focus and performs pretty well. I only sold mine when I upgraded but I've satisfied with some of the results I got from it.

[IMG][/IMG]

[aslyfox]

I'm waiting for the Cosina 100-500mm I picked up on FleaBay to arrive in a few days - apparently, it was a Vivitar Series 1 (or rather, the Vivitar was a rebadged Cosina). There seem to be two different designs - one newer one older, the one I'm getting is the older one.

No idea if it would live up to the Vivitar rep (or even if it really IS the same thing), but I paid so little for it I can't get really *mad* if its a dud. If it works out (or doesn't), I'll be sure to post my opinions after testing it for a bit.

I was REAL lucky in that this one is K-mount, so no fiddling with adapting anything around for me.

this one ?

Description:
This Vivitar Series 1 telephoto zoom lens was made by Cosina - 9xxxxx serials.
Also sold as a cosina and other marques eg phoenix.
Note that the PK-A/R mount has the ricoh pin which can catch in the AF slot on pentax dslr.

100-500mm F5.6 - 8 push pull zoom
Aperture: 5.6 - 8
Optical construction: 15 elements/ 10 groups
Field of View (full frame 35mm) 24° - 5,1°
CFD 3 m
Magnification max: 1:5
Length: 199,5 mm
Weight: 995 g
Filter: 67 mm

Review by Thomas Gade - google translate from German.
Mount Type: Pentax KA

Read more at: Vivitar Series 1 100-500mm F5.6-8 Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Vivitar Series 1 100-500mm 5.6-8 VMC Macro

© Thomas Gade - June 2014

. . . Conclusion
This zoom lens is amazingly good. Even with the aperture open, the sharpness is remarkable. If you compare it with the once so coveted and high-priced quick-shot telephoto lenses from Novoflex, it leaves the Noflexar 600mm far behind and also does more than the T-Novflexar 5.6 / 400mm, which is quite decent. With a weight of one kilogram, the Vivitar Telezoom is light. A modern Sigma with a focal length of 150-500mm weighs 1.780 kg and is much bulkier. Anyone who uses a telephoto zoom in situations in which the autofocus is not required and can safely focus manually is well served with the Vivitar Series 1 100-500mm.

Read more at: Vivitar Series 1 100-500mm F5.6-8 Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[Sagitta]

this one ?




Read more at: Vivitar Series 1 100-500mm F5.6-8 Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database




Read more at: Vivitar Series 1 100-500mm F5.6-8 Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Maybe?

This one is an older design, so I'm thinking possibly pre-pin. I'll have to check when I get it to see - the description only had a few photos. The look is definitely more 'early 80's' than 'late' for lack of a better description.

Here's the photo from the auction.



---------- Post added 08-27-21 at 04:18 PM ----------

For under £100 you should be able to get a Pentax FA 80-320mm. It's got a bit more reach than your current lens, it's not too big or heavy, it has auto focus and performs pretty well. I only sold mine when I upgraded but I've satisfied with some of the results I got from it.

[/IMG]

More reach than 500mm...?

Granted, 320mm on a newer lens might be more than 500mm on an old! :-D