[Rondec]

No doubt the Bigma is a fine lens. My main Bigma complaint is that this thread is supposed to be about a recently released Pentax lens ...

Agreed.

If there are true comparison photos between a Bigma and the Pentax 150-450, then that's fine, but just posting photos from random long lenses isn't particularly helpful to the discussion, even if they are fine photos.

Just my two cents.

[thibs]

Jim, I'm sorry to say but lately and specifically about this 150-450 lens, you're really sounding like a broken record, not to write that lovely word begining with 't' and ending with 'l'.

I think we all got it, didn't we?

[Stavri]

If I was a smarter dude i wouldn't get involved in these things (but, I'm going to do the comparison, so I may as well post it) ...... guess which is shot with the Bigma through a window?



With thanks to dsport (Peter Lee) lifted from this thread.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/132843-boke...ml#post3252145

I'm not sure you're helping your cause here Rupert.
I post images taken with my Sigma 70-300 shot at 300mm, but I wouldn't believe for a second they wouldn't look better shot with a DA* 300 ƒ4, or my dream lens an A* 300 ƒ2.8.

So far the DA 150-450 is looking really good.

Norm, do you remember my initial remarks about the new d-FA 150-450 having you name written all over, seems like I was right...

[normhead]

Norm, do you remember my initial remarks about the new d-FA 150-450 having you name written all over, seems like I was right...

The only thing that bothers me is the weight and size. I'm seriously considering the DA*200 ƒ2.8 be cause it saves me a half pound, instead of costing me two over my DA*60-250. I can carry 2 or 3 lenses in the space a 150 -450 will take in my bag, and I can carry two lenses in the space the DA*60-250 takes in my bag by going with the 200 and 1.4 TC. I really think the lens that would be perfect for me doesn't exist. The DA* 15-450 2.8, half pound wonder is what I need.

Pentax put in one too many digits on that first number, and forgot the * and the ƒ2.8

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-13-2015 at 12:32 PM.

[Shanti]

We'll let Old Granny the picture viewer decide...If she picks the one on the left she can have it for her photo album. If she picks the one on the right...(she does love blue, you know!)...then she can have it for her photo album and $1100.00 in US cash........the difference between a Pentax 150-450 and a like new used Bigma 50-500, which can easily be found for around $700.

Old Granny is on a tight budget......like many people are nowadays...reckon which one she will choose?

Shot this a few minutes ago through those windows, maybe it would be better outside and closer...and at ISO 80 instead of ISO 6400?
Reckon it is good enough for Old Granny? If I don't tell her it was shot with a Bigma, she might find it acceptable?
Surely she has a use for that $1100.00 if she adds it too her album?



Regards!

Let me add a little here...I have no problem with Pentax FINALLY giving us some decent long glass....I think it is a great move, but it is not the Holy Grail. There are other options for those that don't want to spent a lot of cash...or just can't afford it. I don't like Brand Snobbery, no matter what brand it is (except I do hate Canon!) ....and to knock a lens because it is not a Pentax is ridiculous in my view. I have had more joy than I can relate over the years from my "lowly Bigma" and others have too. If we get to the point that if it's "not Pentax" then you aren't in the club...the club will shrink pretty fast...and Pentax is not a big club to start with.

The price comparison was between New lenses,not used which may or may not work in 2 yrs. & probably most will use the 150-450 for BIF or moving targets..
not many flying small critters..save this one ! Woodpecker with weasel flying on its back photographed in Hornchurch Country Park | Daily Mail Online
and don't think he had a Bigma handy

[GlassJunkie]

The only thing that bothers me is the weight and size. I'm seriously considering the DA*200 ƒ2.8 be cause it saves me a half pound, instead of costing me two over my DA*60-250. I can carry 2 or 3 lenses in the space a 150 -450 will take in my bag, and I can carry two lenses in the space the DA*60-250 takes in my bag by going with the 200 and 1.4 TC. I really think the lens that would be perfect for me doesn't exist. The DA* 15-450 2.8, half pound wonder is what I need.

Pentax put in one too many digits on that first number, and forgot the * and the ƒ2.8

Well Said!!! Fear not, Norm...

20 years ago I saw the Star Trek "whale" movie, where Scottie swapped the formula for "transparent aluminum". I want the same lens you do, with rear end filters, with *star coatings and big apertures, with elements of zero CA transparent aluminum. I'd dump the vacation home or single malts for life to pay for it... Now if they can only engineer the materials before "go out feet first"

---------- Post added 05-13-15 at 04:26 PM ----------

I am a serious APSc shooter, subject matter driven. Need the APSc crop and pixel density for little/ flying critters. FF would be nice, but a non-starter at less than 50mp. In short, my wife and I have time... For the Big Valleys, I use a 16-50 DA* (believe it or not in portrait) for panoramics and "stitch them" in PP. 12-24 works for "tidy widies"... Downside of APSc vs FF.

So this week's clean outs (fiscal sanity): 55-300 HD DA. Great compact lens, goes in a pocket for high crime areas with a 18-135 AW DC WR (whatever, likely a clean out too) as partner. Dumped all FA* zooms and shorties late 2014 to fund the DFA. It would be nice to keep these two for wet/ Baltimore/ Ferguson/ Somalia, but Mrs doesn't shoot in rain. We typically avoid tear gas and civil wars as well. DA*s and 150-450 DFA are gasketed. A true sport, the carries the handheld shelter (golf umbrella) since she opts not to "slog" and becomes executive producer (tells me what/where to shoot). I slog and shoot...

After playing with 150-450 DFA (the new portable weightlifting unit which I initially got for HER IQ), she's keeping much lighter Siggy 120-400 (safe from rain, above ) and she will do more PP. We shoot them HH half of the time (talk about breath control challenges)... I have preferred long primes 300 FA* and DA* with TCs for range (No 400-600 prime in the barn). Tripods enable cardio-pulmonary respiratory recovery (pre CPR)...

So, now the range seems like 12-24 DA (stays at home a lot), and 16-50 DA*, 50-135 DA* and 150-450 DFA in the bag. She loves her 18-270 SDM for walking around with the Siggy. If I'm walking around the 60-250 has been my "go-to" for years. with the 1.4x HDTC, very versatile for most near and slow critters.... Since APSc is a given for now, seems that my favorite walk around might be shelved half-time or at worst, fall to a F2.8 successor...Like losing a "best friend). Big glass stays home until the picnic basket rolls...

Someone mentioned that there is a sturdy back brace at Home Depot that could make schlepping the 150-450 more tenable...?

[repaap]

Well I don't have 150-450 DFA, and it will not be mine unless I have serious money for it. But this writing against it? Why.? As it has been said. No problem, you can have similar stuff for cheaper, has been like that for long. But this is genuie stuff right there. What on earth is one fat squierl shot gonna proof? I have shot squierels with my 35-105:3.5 lens. Do I or don't I need 150-450 for that then!?

Funny.

Sorry that I might have some miss spelling here. English is not my forte. But in Finnish I could say that,' mitä ihmettä! Miks täällä on kuvii jostain hyvin syötetystä rotasta ku vois oikeesti keskittyä ihan oikeisiin asioihi kuten tään uuden hemmetin hyvän linssin ominaisuuksiin. Aina on halvempia vaihtoehtoja. Mut hei, tää on jotain oikeesti uutta. Katotaan mihin se oikeesti taipuu.

Or so so please save me from all else and give me opportunity to see good stuff from this new baby. We know what siggys and old telephoto lenses can do. They are budget alternatives.

[filoxophy]

Well I don't have 150-450 DFA, and it will not be mine unless I have serious money for it. But this writing against it? Why.? As it has been said. No problem, you can have similar stuff for cheaper, has been like that for long. But this is genuie stuff right there. What on earth is one fat squierl shot gonna proof? I have shot squierels with my 35-105:3.5 lens. Do I or don't I need 150-450 for that then!?

Funny.

Sorry that I might have some miss spelling here. English is not my forte. But in Finnish I could say that,' mitä ihmettä! Miks täällä on kuvii jostain hyvin syötetystä rotasta ku vois oikeesti keskittyä ihan oikeisiin asioihi kuten tään uuden hemmetin hyvän linssin ominaisuuksiin. Aina on halvempia vaihtoehtoja. Mut hei, tää on jotain oikeesti uutta. Katotaan mihin se oikeesti taipuu.

Or so so please save me from all else and give me opportunity to see good stuff from this new baby. We know what siggys and old telephoto lenses can do. They are budget alternatives.

Finnish (and most other non-English languages) look like nothing to me...so I will never criticize a non-native speaker/writer! Besides, we native speakers butcher our mother tongue enough for everyone!

[Canada_Rockies]

Finnish (and most other non-English languages) look like nothing to me...so I will never criticize a non-native speaker/writer! Besides, we native speakers butcher our mother tongue enough for everyone!

Nah, we nevva do dat.

[stillshot2]

The DA* 15-450 2.8, half pound wonder is what I need.

Even if it was 1/2 pound, it would still be HUUUGE!

[monochrome]

Besides, we native speakers butcher our mother tongue enough for everyone!

Our mother tongue butchers our mother tongue.

[mee]

You'd be amazed at how much cash some people have.

Esp if you are the CEO of a company!

That said, its ok.. one doesn't need the latest and the greatest to get fantastic images.. and this isn't a competition to have the best toys. If you think that, I'll plainly tell you that your priorities in life are misaligned greatly. Besides, you'd be more a collector than a photographer.

My advice, to non commercial shooters, would be to find a setup that works.. maybe not 100% but for the most part.. and just enjoy it.. USE it. Don't become a collector of toys.. make use of them.

[Rupert]

Esp if you are the CEO of a company!

That said, its ok.. one doesn't need the latest and the greatest to get fantastic images.. and this isn't a competition to have the best toys. If you think that, I'll plainly tell you that your priorities in life are misaligned greatly. Besides, you'd be more a collector than a photographer.

My advice, to non commercial shooters, would be to find a setup that works.. maybe not 100% but for the most part.. and just enjoy it.. USE it. Don't become a collector of toys.. make use of them.

I think that pretty much sums up what I have said here. That if you're not "in the club" you can't enjoy, have fun, or get worthwhile shots. That is totally ridiculous!

Jim, I'm sorry to say but lately and specifically about this 150-450 lens, you're really sounding like a broken record, not to write that lovely word begining with 't' and ending with 'l'.

I think we all got it, didn't we?

That is total BS too. My record of Pentax support is long and well documented. Because someone presents a different perspective they are a troll? You need to ease off the hair trigger and think before you fire away, it doesn't present well for your credibility.

Regards!

[Rondec]

I think that pretty much sums up what I have said here. That if you're not "in the club" you can't enjoy, have fun, or get worthwhile shots. That is totally ridiculous!



That is total BS too. My record of Pentax support is long and well documented. Because someone presents a different perspective they are a troll? You need to ease off the hair trigger and think before you fire away, it doesn't present well for your credibility.

Regards!

It isn't that you aren't allowed to post shots with your Bigma. It is just that this is a thread specifically about the release of a new lens. Comparison shots between your lens and the new one would be useful, but just posting random shots from a Sigma 50-500, 500 f4.5, DA 560, or FA *600, while they may be great, don't help this thread a whole lot and could confuse folks who are just browsing through and think that most of the photos here would be from the new lens.

[Stavri]

The real tragedy is that we 30-somethings have the constitution to deal with the weight of the new D-Fa lenses but lack the financial wherewithal to do so...