What Telephoto should I get?

DRT-Maverick

I'm stuck deciding between three telephotos, they're all Sigma lens with Pentax mounts, and they're all 400mm+.

The first and cheapest is the 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 and is $589.00.

The second is the 170-500mm F5-6.3 and is $769.00 That's a bit pricey.

The third is the most expensive obviously. 50-500mm F4-6.3 for $999.00


The first one's nice and leaves me with a lot of extra money, which allows me to buy a smaller macro lens, which would be useful considering my only macro is the 180mm 1:1, it's bulky, heavy, and you still need to have some distance or you can't frame it properly. Great for insects. But it leaves me hanging with 100mm less zoom.

The second one's probably the best choice, I've got an 18-55mm, and a 28-200mm lens, so 170mm picks up well from 200mm. But it's still expensive, that's the only annoying thing, it's $180.00 more. But it's $230.00 less than the 50-500mm, and still weighs in less than 3lb.

The third one would be nice to have, but I'm starting to think it's unrealistic because of the price, and the fact that I'm a waiter, and I'm not making loads. :dunno It would allow me to now have to carry around 3 lenses, instead just two, but the thing weighs in at almost 5lb, while the others both weigh less than 3lb.



What do you all think?

aktse

I think it depends on what you're trying to shoot.... Your photo needs basically determine your lenses.

DRT-Maverick

Usually nature and wildlife, people on occasion.

jonh68

It may be out of your budget, but some like the sigma 100-300 mm f4 with a 1.4 coverter would take you to 400 at f5.6 and you would have a reasonably fast lens without the tele. It runs for around a $1000 though.

raptorcaptor

Don't get the 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens. This was my first lens that I used for nature shots. The IQ is terrible! I have seen some very good shots from the 50-500. In the long run you will save money by getting the best lens you can afford.

Scott_Quier

Here's a thought - buy what you need and don't worry about the price differential. Think of it this way - if you keep the lens, you will be keeping it for at least 10 years. If you amortize that price differential, you are looking at an extra $40 per year. Chump change!

It's been said many times in many ways - "Buy it right. Buy it once." It's a lot cheaper that way - take if from someone who, in the begining, didn't follow that advice.

With all that having been said, the 50-500 is faster at the short end, has excellent IQ (I know, I used to have one), and is longer at the long end (the difference between 400 and 500 really is significant - at least I found it to be so).

Another though - taking into consideration my first comment, have you considered saving you lunch money and investing in the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. As an investment, it will retain more of it's retail price than any of the above, has IS, and is WHITE!:D This is the lens I will be purchasing next for my next trip to Alaska in June/July.

Manfr3d

DRT-Maverick wrote:

I'm stuck deciding between three telephotos, they're all Sigma lens with Pentax mounts, and they're all 400mm+.

The first and cheapest is the 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 and is $589.00.

The second is the 170-500mm F5-6.3 and is $769.00 That's a bit pricey.

The third is the most expensive obviously. 50-500mm F4-6.3 for $999.00


The first one's nice and leaves me with a lot of extra money, which allows me to buy a smaller macro lens, which would be useful considering my only macro is the 180mm 1:1, it's bulky, heavy, and you still need to have some distance or you can't frame it properly. Great for insects. But it leaves me hanging with 100mm less zoom.

The second one's probably the best choice, I've got an 18-55mm, and a 28-200mm lens, so 170mm picks up well from 200mm. But it's still expensive, that's the only annoying thing, it's $180.00 more. But it's $230.00 less than the 50-500mm, and still weighs in less than 3lb.

The third one would be nice to have, but I'm starting to think it's unrealistic because of the price, and the fact that I'm a waiter, and I'm not making loads. It would allow me to now have to carry around 3 lenses, instead just two, but the thing weighs in at almost 5lb, while the others both weigh less than 3lb.



What do you all think?

The best bang for the buck has to be the
Tamron 70-300mm/4-5.6 SL Macro 1:2 for
around 150$ IF you get a good sample.
I have the Canon version which is great
at f8 and f11. My girlfriend has the same
lens in pentax mount and its razorsharp
at 70mm 180mm at all aperatures and
still very sharp even at 300mm f5.6 on a
Pentax istDs. If you want the next best
thing have a deep look into the Sigma
100-300mm/4.0 its really good. For
more information on your other choices
go to www.photozone.de there are reviews
of each lens.

PineapplePhoto

Manfr3d wrote:

The best bang for the buck has to be the
Tamron 70-300mm/4-5.6 SL Macro 1:2 for
around 150$ IF you get a good sample.
I have the Canon version which is great
at f8 and f11. My girlfriend has the same
lens in pentax mount and its razorsharp
at 70mm 180mm at all aperatures and
still very sharp even at 300mm f5.6 on a
Pentax istDs. If you want the next best
thing have a deep look into the Sigma
100-300mm/4.0 its really good. For
more information on your other choices
go to www.photozone.de there are reviews
of each lens.

And I got one for sale $$

claudermilk

I've been looking at that class of lens for a while now. None of those are among my top picks. I have not heard anything about the 135-400, except the warning in this thread--nuff said to me. I have heard the 170-500 sucks. The 50-500 (aka Bigma) is quite popular; last time I checked it's $895 at Sigma4less.

Now, the ones I am looking at are the Sigma 100-300/4 which I have chatted with some users at length and looked at a number of sample images; it looks to be a real winner. It also can apparently take a 1.4 TC with no problems. I am also looking at the Tamron 200-500 which has gotten fairly good reviews. Another option I'm going to explore is the Canon 300/4L and 400/5.6L; less versatile but an L prime.

I have tried out the 100-400 and while the IQ is what I expected (i.e., excellent), I did not care for the handling of the push-pull zoom and a few other niggles. It's also significantly more expensive ($1369 is the best real price I've found).

For this sort of lens it appears the better ones run between $900-1400. All of the above have reviews at photozone (you'll have to use a 'net cache site for the Bigma--he pulled the review as it appeared he had a defective copy).

kdog

claudermilk wrote:

Another option I'm going to explore is the Canon 300/4L and 400/5.6L; less versatile but an L prime.
...
I have tried out the 100-400 and while the IQ is what I expected (i.e., excellent), I did not care for the handling of the push-pull zoom and a few other niggles.

Well, if you lock the 100-400 at 400, then it handles the same as the 400 F5.6. Only it has IS as well. Also, 100 to 400 is an incredibly useful range. It's tack sharp at the lower focal lengths. The 400 is really just a birding lens in my book. I have both of these lenses, and if I was going to keep just one, it would be the 100-400, hands down.

Cheers,
-joel

claudermilk

...but then I'd be better off just getting the 400/5.6. It'll be used on a tirpod or monopod all the time anyway & I have steady hands. Save myself a few hundred.

As I said, the lens is a great performer, I just don't personally like the push-pull zomm action or the locking ring setup. It irritated me the whole time I used it. If they had it set up with the typical ring zoom I'd have a tough time justifying looking too hard at the third party lenses.

swintonphoto

I have the 135-400 and am very pleased with it. Could put the money you save toward another piece of glass.

DRT-Maverick

Well I've already got a 180mm 1:1 macro lens, so I'm set on a macro. I definitely will start checking tamrons stuff out. Though chances are now I'll probably go w/ the 50-500mm :P

Joves

DRT-Maverick wrote:

Well I've already got a 180mm 1:1 macro lens, so I'm set on a macro. I definitely will start checking tamrons stuff out. Though chances are now I'll probably go w/ the 50-500mm :P

Good choice. I have heard great things about that lense. Im thinking that will be my next lense as well. That and the Nikor 14-24 when it comes out. I find myself needing a good wide angle lense as well as, a telephoto.

Telecorder

Save and get the Bigma...
Maverick-
Distance to subject, subject size and IQ of the lens are all inter-related. -- The first two correlate to determining the long end needs and the latter is strongly related to cost.

Of the three, save and get the Bigma. The 170-500 is apparently a hit or miss on a good copy. Not familar with the 135-400 but, like the 170-500, apparently is a hit or miss.

Best alternatives for you seem to be the Bigma or Tamron 200-500

--The Tamron has a bit slower AF in lower light and IQ better in the 300 range

--The Bigma has the better AF and contrast; especially in lower light, compared to the Tamron

I picked up my non-DG Bigma last year for $535 used and haven't looked back. It will AF with the Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4X TC and covers its 10X range with good IQ. Yes, its big and bulky, but its as close to a pro lens that you'll find for <$1K.

Hand held at 50mm


Handheld at 500mm


Monopod mounted with Kenko TC at 105mm EQ (Note surfers at distant pier)


Monopod mounted at 1050mm EQ


As others have stated, its best to get the better glass at the start than to wade through mediocre versions along the way...

And, by the way, when you're able to get close, the Bigma still delivers...