Reconsidering my long lens game plan

[shots worth sharing]

I'm beginning to wonder whether buying the DA* 300mm was a mistake. It's a terrific lens, of course, but perhaps not

long enough for what I'm trying to use it for (see the pileated woodpecker thread.) I also find I mostly use it

on a tripod in MF so the SDM hasn't turned out to be particularly valuable to me. I'm beginning to think I might

be better off with a used SMC-A 400 mm f/5.6.

 

At the same time, I've been anxiously awaiting the release of the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM, thinking this

would be ideal for candid portraits and the kids' (Clara & Abe's boyz) sports but I just recently realized

that the Sigma is just as big and fully 11oz heavier (!) than the DA* 300--not exactly the compact, discrete,

hand-holdable gem I was imagining. I've been urged to consider the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED AL[iF] SDM but balked

because it seems too short and overlaps three of my favorite primes--the 77mm, 105mm and (the slower,

MF) 135mm but I'm beginning to cave. Then there's the DA* 200mm ED (IF) SDM---hmmm...

[jgredline]

Dave, I feel the same way about my DA*300....This is why I bought the 500 F/4.5

[garry_young1]

I am fairly happy with my Tamron 500mm Mirror lens for birding. It gives me 750mm on an APS-C, but is not easy to handle because of the narrow focus field.

 

It also has the donuts, but the reputation of not being contrasty enough has never been apparent to me. I would love the DA* 300 to fill the gap between the 50-200 and 500 mirror gap that I have.

 

Dave, Mis has a 400mm mirror as well. Might be worthwhile trying one. They are not heavy, but they are not that easy to focus. I often bracket my focus.

[michael_kuhne]

Seems like a good TC to couple with your DA* 300mm would help, Dave. I have the FA 300mm f/4.5 along with a Tamron 1.4x TC. I just got the DA* 50-135mm as my mid-long tele, along with my new K200D, beckoned by the rebates. I also have the 77mm and 100mm macro primes, but the zoom is a different useage, it's inclusive and flexible range being more needed for moving subjects or constant change in framing or distance, at a cost in terms of bulk and weight, though modest for a fast tele zoom. I have not shot anything yet, but already found its focus to be remarkably quiet and sure, though not especially fast.

 

I've seen reports of the newest Sigma 70-200, indicating performance weakening at the long end, and I also wonder at this point, do I really need this now?? A new Pentax model may be forthcoming.

[mountainvisions]

Dave,

 

Even for kids sports you really need the 70-200mm. And it's a whole lot easier to crop in camera with a 70-200 for sports than a 300mm.

 

My sports setup has always been a 70-200 (or similar) 2.8 and a 300 f/4 prime. The 300 takes a lot of concentration if you are close to the action, and you will miss a lot of shots.

 

The flipside is with all those pixels your crave ;-) you should have no issues framing a little wider with a 70-200 2.8 and cropping down later.

 

The 50-135mm would be fine for places you can get really close, and indoors. But for most outdoor sports (soccer, football, and even baseball save for the near side of the infield a 50-135 is simply too short.

 

Even from the photo pit at the local minor league clubs park the 50-135 leaves a lot of dead space anyplace beyond the corner bag, and perhaps from behind the plate shooting at home (plays at plate).

 

Bottom line, 50-135mm is a great lens, perfect for t-ball and basketball, and hockey from the boards, but not good for outdoor team sports.

[ricardovaste]

If this is a relatively new purchase, stick with it. Its all to easy to dismiss a lens or camera (etc) when something pops up that we don't agree with. It takes a good few months to truely appreciate a lens I feel. After sometime, we know the ins and outs of the item. We knows its pros, its cons - most importantly, we know how to use them to our own strength.

 

At the moment, you are caught in the moment of angst. With time and appreciation, this irritation will be nothing more than familiarity - we can all live with familiarity. Familiarity and patience brings excellent photos often.

 

Afterall, a lens really isn't that important in wildlife photography - its importance is *greatly* exaggerated atleast, i feel. Whether its a fly or a deer, you have to get very close to it. Location, timing, and blending into your surroundings are far more important. As is the skill of the photographer of course.

 

I myself am very new to wildlife photography, but I am looking at developing the above skills significantly in the next couple of months... much more so than I will consider selling off my Tokina lens, even if it does have some AF troubles, its a bit rough with CA control and lacks a focus limiter - they're just all too familiar for them to honestly hold me back anymore. I was seriously kidding myself the day I thought they were.

 

Best of luck with this one :)

[shots worth sharing]

Thanks for helping me think this through. I guess the 70-200 really is the ticket for lacrosse and soccer (and I

need to keep in mind that, as the kids age, I may not always have the freedom to roam the sidelines as I do now.)

On the other hand, I imagine it's going to be pretty cumbersome for basketball and various social events where I

currently use the 77mm: I imagine the 70-135mm would really shine in those venues. If only there were a

100-200mm f/2.8 SDM ;~).

 

As to the 300mm: I am using a 1.4 Tamron TC, Michael, but still coming up short. What puts me off the mirror lens

option, Garry, is the fixed aperture and dof restriction--not the donut bokeh. I certainly take your point,

Richard--it's true that my frustration with the lens has been in regard to a very specific situation and, like

fishing, part of the fun of wildlife photography is in understanding and stalking your 'prey'. It may also have

some interesting applications beyond wildlife: the experimental candids of the kids at (non-sport) play were

pretty interesting. Still, it's a lot of lens, representing a pretty substantial chunk of change, and it's a bit

disconcerting to be in the situation of finding uses for it.

[14mm 2.8l]

I've experimented with a few long lenses on Pentax mount the past 3 years. I owned a SMC 135-600mm 6.7 for a

while and sold it due to its odd poorly balanced tripod mount design. I still have a 400mm SMC-A 5.6, a Tamron

200mm-500mm 5.6, and my favorite for pentax: 300mm 2.8 manual focus. I pair the 300mm 2.8 with the pentax 1.7x

manual focus to autofocus lens converter and its a stunning combo. I could see selling the 400mm 5.6 and its

dedicated grey paint converters first and maybe 200-500mm. But as long as there's pentax in the house I won't let

the 300mm 2.8 and 1.7x

mf-af converter go. Birds are tough, in canon system people tend to use 500mm f4 and 1.4x for their image stabilized

shots. Then you speak of size constraints. Thats just a fact, quality bird lenses are big, maybe even enormous

depending on your size.

 

Art Morris is a canon shooter, but in going through his bullitens you may get a handle on what focal length you want.

He's got some great images on the site detailing exactly what lens focal length he's using. In the last two bullitens

he's even coming up with winners from 70-200mm f4 due to 40D 6 frames per second burst in raw.

 

Lindy

 

http://www.birdsasart.com/

[brad_n]

I absolutely love the DA* 300/f4. Mostly I use it for birding and often I use the Phoenix 2X, the only TC that I've been

able to locate. Of course its too short for serious birding and warblers at 50 ft just aren't going to happen. I also have

a Sigma 50-500 but the 300 is a much better lens and faster by 2-3 fstops. What I would really like is a 400 zoom

that will work with a TC (Of course, I'd like a FA* 600/5.6 too!)

 

These were taken with K20D, 300/f4 (no TC) and better beamer flash.

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/337892407_bAWjD-L.jpg" /><br/><br/>

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/337892764_6eVbB-L.jpg" /><br/><br/>

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/336803518_25uYS-L.jpg" /><br/><br/>

 

 

The last shows some effects of severe cropping.

[abe_hollander]

I think I need to lend my Sigma 70-300 APO to you, Dad. I use it so much: Sports, mucking about in streams,

festivals... it's definitely my outdoor lens, and worth every one of the 195 smackaroos I paid for it. I'm no purist, so I

use the heck out of the (excuse me Justin) "macro" switch. I have never pixel-peeped, so don't know nuthin' 'bout no

softness or CA at either focal length or dof extreme (or in between, for that matter).

 

I was convinced by the test shots from Adam Wilson's refrigerator (http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00Ob6w),

and never looked back.

[miserere_mei]

I echo my foster-brother's words. Even slapping the Tamron 1.4x TC works well with that Sigma lens. Yes, I apologise to the purists in advance for my heretic words.

[shots worth sharing]

You're an inspiration, Brad and I continue to be intrigued by your use of flash in combination with such a long lens. Of course, you're an inspiration, too, Abe and the Sigma 70-300 APO is well suited for the outdoor sports (we still need to have the shoot-out between that lens and my Tamron 18-250mm) but I think I want something faster (but at least as compact) for indoor venues.

[jgredline]

I think those of you who have gotten to know me, know how I feel about the 70-300 APO and how incredible it is with and with out the Tamron 1.4tc as Mis and Abe mentioned.....Now for the confession...I also own the the Sigma 100-300 F/4 and the DA*300 and deep inside it bugs me, that I can;t see any difference on my monitor or prints of 8x10 when comparing those two lenses to my Sigma 70-300 apo....There I said it and as much as it bugs me, atleast I am being real with ''myself''...Since I don't shoot when it starts to get dark, I have not really had a use for the F/4.0 stop....''sigh''

[mountainvisions]

Dave,

 

Indoors you need at least 2.8 if not f/2.0.

 

However, you might also find it cheaper to invest in a wireless strobe system.

 

Basically, 2-4 hot shoe flashes, a enough Pocket Wizards or Skyports to work them all. A few flash brackets to attach them to stuff, and if possible external power or battery packs.

 

Keep in mind you'll be firing these at 1/2-1/4 power so you can get several shots per charge cycle.

 

Finally, you can shoot at f/5.6 and ISO400 even indoors, and heck that will make whatever you own look like it's the best camera and lens in the world compared to the guy shooting his 85mm 1.4 at F/1.4 and ISO1600-3200 just to get some stop action.

[abe_hollander]

There there, Javier... doesn't that feel better? Getting that off your chest? And you mis! How proud I am that you can let those feelings OUT! Heretical or not, you seem lighter and more at ease.

 

Speaking of light, if you get all that stuff, Dad, you can re-purpose your fly-fishing vests. Now your pockets will be full of wireless gear, and maybe you'll be able to avoid the modem issues you experienced last week. Who needs leaders, plugs and bugs anyway?

 

Ready for the shoot-out. How is that measured, BTW? Number of focused shots at 12 paces? Pixel-peeping on the monitors post-duel?

[shots worth sharing]

This really has proven to be a very illuminating thread! I figure I'll hang on the the 300mm for the time being

and continue to explore its possibilities: just because the purchase may been a bit impulsive doesn't mean I have

to make an impulsive decision to unload it. Besides, I haven't even had a chance to pair it up with the k20d yet.

I'll keep an eye out for a good buy on a longer mf lens, though.

 

 

As to the Sigma 70-200mm, I think I'll cancel my order: I expect it's going to be a very nice lens but just too

big and heavy for the uses I had in mind. The plain fact seems to be that the lens I really want (100-200mm

f/2.8 SDM) just doesn't exist. For the time being, I'll continue to use the Tamron 18-250mm for outdoor sports

and the 77mm for basketball and candid portraiture. I may eventually settle for the DA 50-135mm but I really want

something longer.

 

In response to the several responses involving flash: put simply, I don't do flash (except for the occasional

on-camera fill flash.) This is partly out of pure laziness: flash introduces a level of complication, cost and

(as Abe insightfully notes) schlepping I have just chosen to avoid (at this stage in any case.) I also find

flash intrusive: I wouldn't think of using flash at a middle school basketball game or on the often skittish

subjects of my candid portraits.