Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2010, 08:15 PM   #1
Veteran Member
Gaelen's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 751
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 or Sigma 100-300mm f4

I'm in the middle of a major dilemma on which one to buy

I'm leaning towards the 100-300 but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra money. Or I could do the 70-200mm + a teleconverter

Anyone care to share some in site?

01-12-2010, 08:39 PM   #2
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,976
QuoteOriginally posted by Gaelen Quote
I'm in the middle of a major dilemma on which one to buy

I'm leaning towards the 100-300 but I'm not sure if it's worth the extra money. Or I could do the 70-200mm + a teleconverter

Anyone care to share some in site?
Gaelen,

From personal experience, I have owned the Sigma 100-300 F4 and it is one great lens. I also had the Sigma APO 1.4x TC, which made a great combination.
I took some great (for me, anyway) pics with the lens and I would recommend it.
But, after a short while, I decided that I wanted the DA*300 f4 and I sold the Sigma. I later realized that I missed the focals between 100-300 ... !

So, I decided to get something which would cover the "mising gap" between my DA*16-50 and the DA*300, and I acquired a Tamron 70-200 f2.8.
I have this lens for 4 days now, so I haven't really field tested it except for a few focus tests.
Results: fast, great IQ, not as big as the Sigma 100-300.
I will couple it with a Tamron 1.4X TC this weekend and report the results in my "Albums" (under : K7 and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 tests).

I suppose it all depends of your choice because both are great lenses, especially if you are going to use a TC with the Tamron, which would give you, at 1.4x, the equivalent of 280mm ... quite close to the long focal of the Sigma.
If you like the latitude offered with a zoom, go for the Sigma.
If you opt for a "faster lens", go for the Tamron.

LBA is a very real thing, believe me!

JP
01-12-2010, 08:53 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Gaelen's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 751
Original Poster
I shoot a lot of highspeed shots, a lot of motorsports so I think the 300mm would be better for that but the 2.8 would be nice. I have noticed the 70-200 in both sigma and tamron form are a bit soft until f4, which is righ where the 100-300 starts so im not sure the 2.8 would do me any good there.

It's frustrating trying to figure this all out...but in the end ill get a worthwhile lense
01-12-2010, 09:19 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Untied States
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,882
Tamron 70-200/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC. f/2.8 is a lot better than f/4 considering the lenses cover a large 100-200mm range together. The Tamron even stands up very well to a 2x TC, which would be about the same as a 100-300 + 1.4. And again, having the option for f/2.8 is very valuable.

01-12-2010, 09:20 PM   #5
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
QuoteOriginally posted by Gaelen Quote
I shoot a lot of highspeed shots, a lot of motorsports so I think the 300mm would be better for that but the 2.8 would be nice. I have noticed the 70-200 in both sigma and tamron form are a bit soft until f4, which is righ where the 100-300 starts so im not sure the 2.8 would do me any good there.

It's frustrating trying to figure this all out...but in the end ill get a worthwhile lense
I thought the Tamron is sharp wide open.. I know the older sigma version is.
01-12-2010, 09:25 PM   #6
pdo
Senior Member
pdo's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Westminster CA
Posts: 264
The Sigma 100-300mm doesn't come with HSM where the newer Sigma 70-200mm does. Something to think about.
01-12-2010, 09:34 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Gaelen's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 751
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wallyb Quote
Tamron 70-200/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC. f/2.8 is a lot better than f/4 considering the lenses cover a large 100-200mm range together. The Tamron even stands up very well to a 2x TC, which would be about the same as a 100-300 + 1.4. And again, having the option for f/2.8 is very valuable.
I agree, but I'm not sure I want to lose the performance through a converter. End to End I have read better things about the 100-300mm over the 70-200mm

QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
I thought the Tamron is sharp wide open.. I know the older sigma version is.
I've heard mixed reviews about them, some are and some arent

QuoteOriginally posted by pdo Quote
The Sigma 100-300mm doesn't come with HSM where the newer Sigma 70-200mm does. Something to think about.
I'm not really sure the HSM is part of my decision
01-12-2010, 10:13 PM   #8
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
Sounds like the 100-300 is for you.
Or.... you may consider Sigma's 120-400 if 300mm is the least you want...

01-12-2010, 10:32 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Gaelen's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 751
Original Poster
I'm still in debate, I havent done much research on the 120-400mm, maybe I'll look into that one.

although I already have a 400mm f5.6 so it's mot much of a selling point to get me up there. Especially since it's a slower lense
01-12-2010, 10:42 PM   #10
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
That's the obvious trade off. Focal length and speed.
A 300/2.8 lens goes for a lot of money - 300/4 for considerably less.
I'd be surprised if there were a 400/2.8 or 400/4 for that matter; but Pentax did make that FA* 600/4 some time ago...
01-12-2010, 11:29 PM   #11
Veteran Member
cupic's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia-NSW
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,724
You wont go wrong with either,but for reach 100-300 f/4 would be you best bet,IMHO f/2.8 and f/4 you would have be be experienced to tell the difference(So say they can spot the difference but Im talking about the rest of us )I have both lenses type but my 70-200 is a Sigma with HSM but I tend to use to 100-300 with the sigma TC as it a better option on the screw drive of the 100-300or if cash isnt a problem I can think of the sigma 300 f/2.8,although research is King good hunting


cheers
01-13-2010, 02:42 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
That's the obvious trade off. Focal length and speed.
A 300/2.8 lens goes for a lot of money - 300/4 for considerably less.
I'd be surprised if there were a 400/2.8 or 400/4 for that matter; but Pentax did make that FA* 600/4 some time ago...
You can get a Nikon 400mm f/2.8 for a mere $8,799.95!
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Vibration Reduction (VR II) Telephoto Auto Focus Nikkor Lens
01-13-2010, 03:09 AM   #13
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
QuoteOriginally posted by EricT Quote
Oh well, Pentax misses out again...
Would be a great lens - interestingly, the two reviewers of the lens on Adorama were semi-pros...
01-13-2010, 03:26 AM   #14
Veteran Member
netuser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Azores Islands, Portugal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,241
QuoteOriginally posted by Gaelen Quote
...............

although I already have a 400mm f5.6 so it's mot much of a selling point to get me up there. Especially since it's a slower lense
Damn, I drrol for that lens

In that case I think maybe tamron 70-200 for you.
01-13-2010, 03:37 AM   #15
Veteran Member
Mechan1k's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,883
Have a look at Jsherman's images with both the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 ... we all know he is an amazing photog as it is ... but these lenses are capable of amazing images indeed.

Your best bet is to speak with Jay himself regarding pros and cons over both.

I keep mulling over both these lenses myself. But I think I'll go the distance ... even though f/4 wide-open ... it still is sharp.

The Tammy/Sigma 70-200 is cheaper than the Sigma 100-300 though. You could use a TC with the 70-200 ... but then you could use a TC with the 100-300 as well.

If you can stretch it .... I'd say the 100-300mm is the better option.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
70-200mm, k-mount, pentax lens, sigma, sigma 100-300mm, sigma 70-200mm, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX DG + Sigma 1.4x DG EX APO tcon (AUS) David Glazebrook Sold Items 36 02-06-2010 01:03 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX DG + Sigma 1.4x DG EX APO Edicon Sold Items 4 02-04-2010 11:09 PM
For Sale - Sold: Three Budget Zooms: Sigma 18-50mm, Sigma 70-210mm, Quantaray 100-300mm mikeSF Sold Items 3 02-21-2009 08:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top