[bymy141]

Hi,

We will be travelling for 3 weeks through Zambia in september, including several days on foot through the bush.
I don't like to bring too many lenses to carry too much weigth.
Also, it is dusty that time of the year.

I'm planning to get myself a new K7, bring the old K10D and buy some new lenses.

Here are options I was thinking off:

1. The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM + 1.4xTC and 2.0xTC, or
2. The DA* 60-250mm
3. The DA 55-300mm

Pros + Cons:
1. Best aperture. Weigth: 1385g + 160g + 235g = 1780g (heavy)
2. Somewhat better range without TC, lens strength. Sealed. Weigth: 1090g (still heavy)
3. Longest range without TC, price!, IQ??? Less strength. Weigth: 440g

What shall I do?
Any opinions?

- Bert

[Lowell Goudge]

if you can get an HSM compatible TC for the sigma 70-200 F2.8 take that.

I use the origonal APO 70-200 F2.8 EX with 1.4 and 2x TCs and due to the quality have never had a second thought about leaving this lens and TCs behind when I know I will be shooting wild life.

also don't forget while the 50-250 is longer without TC, it is not as fast, and my sigma (I can only assume the new version is similar) is very sharp wide open. Usefull in low light

[axl]

have you thought about Sigma 100-300/4?
It's big, heavy I'd say tad more than 70-200, it has great range and great IQ. I got one used just a few days ago... unfortunately it has some focusing issues so I'll have to return it... hopefully I'll find another cheapish copy soon...

BR

[Canada_Rockies]

Given the dusty situation, I would be sorely tempted to get the DA 55-300. That's a pretty good wildlife range, and you would not need to change lenses out in the veldt. The quality of the images seems quite acceptable for the purpose.

Although the IQ might be better with other combinations you list, changing lenses in breezy dust situations while walking about would not be high on my priority list. It wasn't high with a film camera in conditions like that, and I would be much less happy doing it with my K10. The extra reach of the DA 55-300 over the rather better (and more pricey) DA 60-250 might work well for you.

[Arpe]

I'd consider the new 18-55 WR too. Not everything you see will require a telephoto, such as landscapes, and of course the WR will be of benefit. Should be cheap anought if you get it with the K-7.

[Ben_Edict]

As Lowell I am a advocate of the Sigma 70-200/2.8. Nothing beats a lens of this or similar specs in terms of versatility - and the IQ of my (older) copy is just excellent.

I usually take that lens. Only under very rare rare circumstances I use the smaller, lighter and non-AF Pentax SMC-A 70-210/4, which is also very good performance-wise and should take the Pentax 1.4x-S tc without too much loss.

Ben

[bymy141]

if you can get an HSM compatible TC for the sigma 70-200 F2.8 take that.

I use the origonal APO 70-200 F2.8 EX with 1.4 and 2x TCs and due to the quality have never had a second thought about leaving this lens and TCs behind when I know I will be shooting wild life.

also don't forget while the 50-250 is longer without TC, it is not as fast, and my sigma (I can only assume the new version is similar) is very sharp wide open. Usefull in low light

Yes, I can get the original Sigma TC's here. It is all on stock in various shops.
The 60-250 is not as fast as the Sigma, but for everything longer, I'd need the TC's making the Sigma slower as well.
The biggest issue I see for the Sigma combo is the weigth.... with camera 2.5kg!
If I go for the 60-250mm, I plan to use my Kenko 1.5TC (hopefully AF will work).
Perhaps there is somebody with experience having a 6-250mm and a TC?

have you thought about Sigma 100-300/4?
It's big, heavy I'd say tad more than 70-200, it has great range and great IQ. I got one used just a few days ago... unfortunately it has some focusing issues so I'll have to return it... hopefully I'll find another cheapish copy soon...
BR

Yes, it is heavy and your focusing problem is worrying me...
Both Canon and Nikon have lenses that are in the 80/100 - 400 range f4. It's a shame Pentax doesn't have such a lens.

Given the dusty situation, I would be sorely tempted to get the DA 55-300. That's a pretty good wildlife range, and you would not need to change lenses out in the veldt. The quality of the images seems quite acceptable for the purpose.

Although the IQ might be better with other combinations you list, changing lenses in breezy dust situations while walking about would not be high on my priority list. It wasn't high with a film camera in conditions like that, and I would be much less happy doing it with my K10. The extra reach of the DA 55-300 over the rather better (and more pricey) DA 60-250 might work well for you.

Perhaps I'll do. There are some people complaining about the AF speed of that lens. Wildlife and slow AF is not an option I would say.

I'd consider the new 18-55 WR too. Not everything you see will require a telephoto, such as landscapes, and of course the WR will be of benefit. Should be cheap anought if you get it with the K-7.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have a DA* 16-50mm I'll bring.

- Bert

[Ben_Edict]

Yes, I can get the original Sigma TC's here. It is all on stock in various shops.
The 60-250 is not as fast as the Sigma, but for everything longer, I'd need the TC's making the Sigma slower as well.
The biggest issue I see for the Sigma combo is the weigth.... with camera 2.5kg!
If I go for the 60-250mm, I plan to use my Kenko 1.5TC (hopefully AF will work).
Perhaps there is somebody with experience having a 6-250mm and a TC?

Both Canon and Nikon have lenses that are in the 80/100 - 400 range f4. It's a shame Pentax doesn't have such a lens.
t

Bert, while I would also like a 100-400/4, such a beast would be much bigger and heavier, than the 70-200/2.8+tc about which's size and weight you are complaining! A 100-400/4 needs a front element of at least 100mm in diameter, so would be bigger than the Sigma 50-500 and basically in the same league as the 300/2.8!

Ben

[Piotr]

If you didn't bought lens yet, consider Sigma 100-300/4 and TC1.4. It is my standard combo in all my trips for last 4 years. Sharp as razor from f4 and very handy. I used it from land rover in Botswana bush and on foot in Antarctica Peninsula and South Georgia beaches.

I can't compare it to Sigma 70-200/2.8. But I read many opinions that is one of best 300m/f4 lens overall.

I can compare it with Sigma 300/2.8 - but it is not best lens for days on foot

[attack11]

i'd take the 60-250. it's barely different than the 50-135 when you're holding it, but has that longer reach. weather sealed lens & body makes a lot more sense than 1 stop faster.

[axl]

at OP:
don't let my problem worry you. I believe it was one of... I researched that lens for a while before I jumped on it and if it wasn't for the AF shift between the f stops that it had, I'd say it would be superb lens! Those shots I got in focus, came great. No PF, no CA, plenty of sharpness straight from f4!! I wanted to keep it very badly I couldn't live with that wonky AF.
too bad when I went to return it there was pristine Tammy 70-200/2.8 so I swapped
let's see this one

[bymy141]

Hi,

I guess I'd like to get as close to:
- 400mm
- with reasonable lens speed (min f4 ??)
- as light as possible
- minimizing lens changes
- perferably sealed
- HSM would be nice....

Do you agree?

- Bert

Bert, while I would also like a 100-400/4, such a beast would be much bigger and heavier, than the 70-200/2.8+tc about which's size and weight you are complaining! A 100-400/4 needs a front element of at least 100mm in diameter, so would be bigger than the Sigma 50-500 and basically in the same league as the 300/2.8!

Ben

Ben, I'm affraid that's not right. The Canon and Nikon lenses all weigh around 1380 grams. And there is no need to adding TC's. The 100-400mm is something that is not just available. The best comparable option I guess is the 70-200+2xTC.
However, it's heavier and you need lens changes (TC on/off) in the field.

If you didn't bought lens yet, consider Sigma 100-300/4 and TC1.4. It is my standard combo in all my trips for last 4 years. Sharp as razor from f4 and very handy. I used it from land rover in Botswana bush and on foot in Antarctica Peninsula and South Georgia beaches.

I can't compare it to Sigma 70-200/2.8. But I read many opinions that is one of best 300m/f4 lens overall.

I can compare it with Sigma 300/2.8 - but it is not best lens for days on foot

I'll see if it's on stock around here and perhaps they will let me shoot some pictures with it.... Thanks for the suggestion.

i'd take the 60-250. it's barely different than the 50-135 when you're holding it, but has that longer reach. weather sealed lens & body makes a lot more sense than 1 stop faster.

I agree, I also "like" the SDM on my 16-50mm so much that I'm tempted towards SDM lenses. However, it has the smallest reach. I'd need a TC on top of it, making it rather slow.
I've been in Africa with my 18-250mm, 250mm is "short" in numerous cases out there.

at OP:
don't let my problem worry you. I believe it was one of... I researched that lens for a while before I jumped on it and if it wasn't for the AF shift between the f stops that it had, I'd say it would be superb lens! Those shots I got in focus, came great. No PF, no CA, plenty of sharpness straight from f4!! I wanted to keep it very badly I couldn't live with that wonky AF.
too bad when I went to return it there was pristine Tammy 70-200/2.8 so I swapped
let's see this one

Ok, thanks.

- Bert

[Lowell Goudge]

Hi,

I guess I'd like to get as close to:
- 400mm
- with reasonable lens speed (min f4 ??)
- as light as possible
- minimizing lens changes
- perferably sealed
- HSM would be nice....

Do you agree?

- Bert

Bert.

in looking at your list, you have a lot of points that are mutually exclusive

- 400mm @F4 and as light as possible.

Someone else already pointed out that this lens will be a beast with a front element of 100mm minimum. Realsitically this lens will have a 112mm (somewhat standard) front filter diameter. it will not be light. There is a tamron 400mm F4 in the database at 2270 This is 5 pounds

- minimize changing lenses vs as light as possible

this implies a zoom zooms are muchg heavier, the only one I found in the database at this focal length are the F 250-600 F5.6 (same 112mm filter) at 4900 grams (over 10 pounds)

The bottom line is you are not going to get F4 at 400mm with any reasonable weight, period, and then there will be the price

What that leaves you with is a choice of zooms but slower, with 77 or 86 mm front elements.

How you achieve 400+ will be your option of bigma all by itself, or shorter zooms with a TC or two,

I wouold put sealed at the bottom of the list. it is not really necessary, same goes with HSM.

[Ben_Edict]

Ben, I'm affraid that's not right. The Canon and Nikon lenses all weigh around 1380 grams. And there is no need to adding TC's. The 100-400mm is something that is not just available. The best comparable option I guess is the 70-200+2xTC.
However, it's heavier and you need lens changes (TC on/off) in the field.

Sorry, Bert - BUT you are mistaken! The Canon lens is a 100-400/4.5-5.6 - so a full f-stop slower, than you require - and ofcourse it is smaller and lighter, than a 100-400/4 would be!

If you can live with that, it's fine. But a 70-200/2.8 is still more versatile, as it offers a much better low light capability and the added versatility of using a tc for longer reach. In Pentax mount the only lenses, that qould be in that range (apart from real low quality cheap ones) are the Sigma 135-400, 150-500 or the 50-500. I know only the last of these and it is a very good lens - but not under low light.

Ben

[bymy141]

Sorry, Bert - BUT you are mistaken! The Canon lens is a 100-400/4.5-5.6 - so a full f-stop slower, than you require - and ofcourse it is smaller and lighter, than a 100-400/4 would be!

Ben

Ben, you are right about the speed of those lenses. Both do have f4.5 - f5.6 ranges.
I still don't know what to do

- Bert