Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-18-2011, 06:57 PM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16
Looking for a decent 300mm lens...

I am rather new to DSLR cameras, and want something that zooms pretty far. I go to A LOT of St. Louis Cardinals games and want to take closer pictures. This is going to be a Christmas present from my parents, so my budget isnt very much. How is this Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens?? Click Here

I am open to used lenses, I just dont want to get stuck with a crappy lens... So if anyone has something that they think would fit my needs, please let me know!! Thanks for any help!!

Ronnie

11-18-2011, 07:09 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Fries's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gauw
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,889
I don't know about the Sigma, but the Pentax 55-300mm is well regarded and not to expensive. It might focus a bit to slow for sports but if you prefocus it might do the trick.
11-18-2011, 07:11 PM   #3
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Fries Quote
I don't know about the Sigma, but the Pentax 55-300mm is well regarded and not to expensive. It might focus a bit to slow for sports but if you prefocus it might do the trick.
Thank you for the help. But when I say not much of a budget, I mean under $200.

I just found this one Tamron 70-300mm in the Marketplace I may be interested in. Any thoughts on it??
11-18-2011, 07:12 PM   #4
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by Hollywood Quote
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6
The Sigma is just ok - I had the apo version for a bit, IQ was descent, sharpness was descent, AF was ok. As Fries noted, the DA 55-300 is a better option...

11-18-2011, 07:49 PM   #5
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,253
The I can vouch for the 55-300mm as well!
11-18-2011, 08:03 PM   #6
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
I've owned a Sigma 70-300 for years... it was my only non-kit lens for years. It's a very functional lens in my opinion. From 70mm until about 150 mm it's images are quite comparable to my DA* 60-250, not as good, but in the ball park. From 200-300 it's image quality is visibly weaker. I don't know how the Pentax stacks up against it, it just seemed odd to me to have a lens that was weakest where I needed it most. If you don't have a macro lens, the macro, while not stellar is really cool. Any other macro is probably better in terms of results, but if you have no macro, the SIgma 70-300 is the lens you want. That was the feature that originally sold me.
11-18-2011, 08:17 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Nowhere Matt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nowhere Land
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,318
Please understand that many of us really would like to help and to give you good advice. We cannot fully understand nor qualify your idea of a "crappy lens".
Many people will suggest finding a DA 55-300mm to fit your budget. The lens is really very good for the price range. If you absolutely do not wish to spend $220-$250 for a DA 55-300 Sigma and Tamron makes lenses close to that focal length at less cost and may not be crappy, but certainly less satisfying than the 55-300.
You can look around the lens review section for reviews that do not have phrases like "crappy lens" and see what comes up.
I have used the Tamron Di 70-300. I would not call it terrible but I might choose to save a little more money and buy the 55-300 instead. The 70-300 is really not too bad for it's price. The focal range and it's macro setting make it useful in many situations. It has good image quality in most conditions. But can easily produce strange color outlines in some bright sun conditions. Purple fringe.

I own a Sigma DG 28-300 that I choose to buy rather than the 55-300 for a few reasons. You strike me as one who is more interested in the long reach of the lens rather than how wide the field of view is.
The bottom line is, most of us will suggest that perhaps you can find a way to get the DA L version of the 55-300. It is up to you if you can settle for less.

Last edited by Nowhere Matt; 11-18-2011 at 08:23 PM.
11-18-2011, 11:25 PM   #8
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nowhere Matt Quote
Please understand that many of us really would like to help and to give you good advice. We cannot fully understand nor qualify your idea of a "crappy lens".
Many people will suggest finding a DA 55-300mm to fit your budget. The lens is really very good for the price range. If you absolutely do not wish to spend $220-$250 for a DA 55-300 Sigma and Tamron makes lenses close to that focal length at less cost and may not be crappy, but certainly less satisfying than the 55-300.
You can look around the lens review section for reviews that do not have phrases like "crappy lens" and see what comes up.
I have used the Tamron Di 70-300. I would not call it terrible but I might choose to save a little more money and buy the 55-300 instead. The 70-300 is really not too bad for it's price. The focal range and it's macro setting make it useful in many situations. It has good image quality in most conditions. But can easily produce strange color outlines in some bright sun conditions. Purple fringe.

I own a Sigma DG 28-300 that I choose to buy rather than the 55-300 for a few reasons. You strike me as one who is more interested in the long reach of the lens rather than how wide the field of view is.
The bottom line is, most of us will suggest that perhaps you can find a way to get the DA L version of the 55-300. It is up to you if you can settle for less.
Sorry I was vague with my description... By crappy, I mean I don't want something that is going to zoom right up to an object far away, but turn out fuzzy or blurry because I bought something in my immediate price range. I think I will save up a bit and jump on the DA. Thank you everyone for your helpful advice! I am so glad I found this forum.

11-18-2011, 11:28 PM   #9
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
The "DA L" version of the 55-300 lens is probably $100 less than the "DA" version, both share the same optics and are identical image quality.
11-18-2011, 11:50 PM   #10
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,313
Ditto on the DA L 55- 300. Excellent lens and a fantastic value. Adorama sells it for $240. Grey market, maybe from a split camera+lens combo, because I don't think Pentax sells the "DA L" model separately. You may be able to find it used under $200.
11-19-2011, 12:46 AM   #11
Veteran Member
Steinback's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: GTA, ON, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,673
Tamron Adaptall 60-300mm or 300mm f/5.6:

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Tamron Adaptall 300mm f/5.6 (CT-300) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Tamron Adaptall-2 300mm f/5.6 (54B) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

With some patience you could probably pick up the 60-300 and a straight K mount for $60 or less. Mine is quite good on the long end and came in at $40 with a K mount. I have not used the Adaptall 300mm primes but they are probably decent, if a bit on the slow side.

As suggested a used DA-L 55-300 would be more convenient and might come in under your budget.
11-19-2011, 12:56 AM   #12
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by Steinback Quote
Tamron Adaptall 60-300mm or 300mm f/5.6:

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Tamron Adaptall 300mm f/5.6 (CT-300) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Tamron Adaptall-2 300mm f/5.6 (54B) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

With some patience you could probably pick up the 60-300 and a straight K mount for $60 or less. Mine is quite good on the long end and came in at $40 with a K mount. I have not used the Adaptall 300mm primes but they are probably decent, if a bit on the slow side.

As suggested a used DA-L 55-300 would be more convenient and might come in under your budget.
The 60-300 is a fine specimen, though the and PF and manual focusing can be a bit of a pain to use in daylight.

My money goes on the 55-300 as well. It may not be the best 300mm in terms of bokeh and sharpness, but its by far the best in terms of value and IQ imo.
11-19-2011, 01:01 AM   #13
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
Ive said this before, but I think the 55-300 is so good it's hurting sales of the DA*60-250. The 55-300 is "good enough" for daylight tele shooting for most people.
11-19-2011, 01:50 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Philoslothical's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,723
Hollywood, I have the same lens as you link to, and for a budget zoom it has done very well for me. I think you might find one a little bit cheaper than that, particularly for the non-APO version. They occasionally show up in the marketplace forum here too.

I can say it's much, much better than the equivalent Tamron 70-300. It's got a better build quality, isn't such a screamer when focusing, and it's focuses a smidge faster, too. I also see much less CA/fringing with the Sigma, although it does still happen on stuff like backlit branches.

That all said, if my budget allows me to upgrade to a Pentax 55-300 sometime, I'd jump at the chance.
11-19-2011, 03:15 AM   #15
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
I can mention a couple other candidates from my current collection. For AF, the F100-300/4.7-5.8 can often be found around US$100. It's rather underrated, optics that stay good all the way out to 300mm, lightweight and a little funky-looking and -feeling -- highly recommended. My other is an A-type Promaster (Tamron, non-Adaptall) 60-300/4-5.6. It's manual-focus and quite cheap -- mine was thirteen bucks shipped. It's not bad, not great, and no loss if anything happens to it.
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!
camera, pentax help, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG APO HSM, a decent lens! luke0622 Photographic Technique 3 03-01-2011 02:04 AM
Decent macro lens? kaimarion Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 30 12-31-2010 08:46 AM
DA 55-300mm shoots some pretty decent pseudo-macro shots at 300mm G-Diesel Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 10-19-2010 07:47 PM
Action Lens with decent reach Michelleans Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 10-10-2010 12:17 PM
Pentax DA 55-300mm, very decent 300mm Performance Rush2112 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 02-11-2009 05:59 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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