Looking for a good zoom lens for our Pentax ist*DL

[Golf4food]

We currently have a Sigma 18-125mm lens on our Pentax ist*DL and are interested in attaining a lens with better zoom capabilities for use in places such as a zoo where you can only get so close to your subject and need the lens to do the rest of the work to get a nice tight shot, etc. I'm considering a Sigma 70-300mm or 100-300mm, or something similar. Any recommendations? It doesn't have to be Sigma - I just like our current Sigma lens and thought I'd start there...

Along those lines, how does this lens sound?

http://cgi.ebay.com/SIGMA-DL-100-30...59QQihZ012QQcategoryZ4688QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

If we can keep the price low it would be nice... (Less than $200 would be great.)

 

[boBQuincy]

70-300, 100-300, even 70-200, are good for zoo photography. One issue with lenses this long is the need for some sort of support, or IS. Lenses in the $200 range are very unlikely to have IS but tripods and monopods are a lot less $$$ than IS, and work at least as well.

Another issue is the maximum aperture at the long end, anything smaller than f/5.6 is likely to have trouble with autofocus (I am used to Canon, Olympus may or may not have this issue).

If a lens hood is not provided, try to get one as an option, it helps even on the long lenses.

Read some reviews at Photozone.de or fredmiranda to see what others say about the lenses you are looking at.

 

[Groucho]

The Pentax DA50-200 is very highly regarded, and Adorama has it for only $210 with a $50 rebate currently.

I got mine a couple days ago and honestly am not blown away yet, but I've only taken a few shots, in mostly poor conditions. There have been so many raving about it that I'm suspecting that the problem is me at this point.

It's also very light and small - when fully retracted, it is only a tiny bit longer than the kit 18-55mm lens.

In the future I'll probably get something with at least a 300mm reach but I suspect that it'll be heavier and either be more expensive or less quality. (Or both!)

I think I've heard good things about one particular version of the Sigma 70-300mm... not sure which version... it was discussed in the past couple days at stevesforums.com in the Pentax DSLR forum, I think. If you do end up with a Sigma, supposedly sigma4less.com is a good place to get that stuff for cheap (they also have some other brands as well.)

 

[handicap18]

There are lots of choices, though most are really only good lenses. The 100-300 you linked to I don't know that I would go with. It is f/6.7 at 300mm which is very slow and would really only be good for use on bright sunny days or otherwise with a tripod. Sigma also makes a 100-300mm that is f/4 all the way though, although it is on the expensive side. Also on the expensive side is Sigma's 80-400 that has OS (Sigmas version of IS and VR).

Sigma's 70-300 is a decent lens, a bit faster than the 100-300, as the 70-300 is f/5.6 at 300mm. But it can also be had for well less than $200. Same for Tamron's version.

If money is no issue, I'd go with the 80-400mm. But if $1000+ is not realistic then I'd go with the Sigma 70-300 over the 100-300. Even over the Pentax 50-200, as the Sigma will be longer and just as fast (if not faster) at 200mm (faster meaning aperture wise).

 

[Groucho]

For the price of one of those lenses, you could just buy a K100D and get image stabilization with all your lenses! Or a K10D with kit lens... (new camera just announced last night, it sounds very very impressive!)

My understanding is that image quality-wise, the Pentax DA50-200mm has an edge over the similarly-priced Sigmas, that's why I paid slightly more for it. (I think the equivalent Sigma costs about $140, no rebate. I ended up paying $190 by buying from Amazon with no tax/shipping; all the reputable places are in NY like I am so I'd have to pay tax and shipping.) I also wanted a light and small one, and again the Pentax wins out in that regard.

Not to say that the Sigmas are poor by any means. But that extra 100mm or 200mm of range will cost you, both in $$$ and in the weight and heft - especially a 400mm one!

OK, I double-checked. The Sigma 70-300mm was, as I say, just discussed in the past couple days over at Steve's, and the consensus seems to be that the APO is very nice, but avoid the non-APO lens. One person mentioned that they disliked it enough to return it and pick up the Pentax 50-200, but it's not clear which version they had - probably the non-APO from what everyone's saying.

Adorama has the Sigma 70-300mm APO for $220.

 

[handicap18]

Regarding weight, yes, the 80-400 w/OS and the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma's are monsters. They both come with tripod collars and weight well over 3lbs if not closer to 5lbs.

With the 70-300 f/4-5.6's, I wouldn't consider weight an issue. It's about 5" long and weighs a little more than 1 pound. You don't need a tripod to use them, though it is helpful at the 300 range for camera shake. They are more than hand-holdable. My Quantaray fits in one of the pockets of my photo vest. I have no issues using it hand-held, but then again I'm 6' 260lbs. That being said, DW (5'4'' 125lbs) has used my film SLR walking around AK with the 70-300 lens attached and she had no problems. She used while on the safari (she can't use a video camera to save her life!) and also used it mostly to see the animals close up on the 2 Jungle Treks.

I also agree that the APO version of Sigma's is the way to go. It is more than the well less than $200 I originally said, but it will be better optically than non-APO's. I forgot about that when I posted earlier.

 

[Groucho]

With the 70-300 f/4-5.6's, I wouldn't consider weight an issue. It's about 5" long and weighs a little more than 1 pound. You don't need a tripod to use them, though it is helpful at the 300 range for camera shake. They are more than hand-holdable. My Quantaray fits in one of the pockets of my photo vest. I have no issues using it hand-held, but then again I'm 6' 260lbs.

I'm about 6'2" and weight over 100lbs less so I'm very conscious of the weight of the camera. Even my long-zoom point-n-shoots could get a little annoying after a while, but I think much of that was due to the narrow strap that could cut into your shoulder or neck. My new DSLR with its much wider strap will no doubt get a little tiring if I carry it all day (my old 35mm SLR with similar strap sure did) but shouldn't be too awful - and since we'll have our stroller, I'll probably stick the accessories in the bottom of that most of the time. I am hoping for some evening times alone for photography purposes a couple nights, and will probably be lugging a backpack with potentially a mini tripod, normal tripod, monopod, a couple extra lenses, and a few other minor things; we'll see if that gets tiring or not especially after walking around most of the day!

Ah, the prices we pay for photography! I have never really considered a photo vest but that might be something worthwhile especially if I continue to pick up more filters, etc.

 

[handicap18]

I'm about 6'2" and weight over 100lbs less so I'm very conscious of the weight of the camera. Even my long-zoom point-n-shoots could get a little annoying after a while, but I think much of that was due to the narrow strap that could cut into your shoulder or neck. My new DSLR with its much wider strap will no doubt get a little tiring if I carry it all day (my old 35mm SLR with similar strap sure did) but shouldn't be too awful - and since we'll have our stroller, I'll probably stick the accessories in the bottom of that most of the time. I am hoping for some evening times alone for photography purposes a couple nights, and will probably be lugging a backpack with potentially a mini tripod, normal tripod, monopod, a couple extra lenses, and a few other minor things; we'll see if that gets tiring or not especially after walking around most of the day!

Ah, the prices we pay for photography! I have never really considered a photo vest but that might be something worthwhile especially if I continue to pick up more filters, etc.

A photo vest might be a good choice for you. In mine I can fit spare batteries, table top tripod, extra memory cards, 2 extra lenses or 1 extra lens and a speedlight flash (For lenses I currently use 18-70 {mostly}, 70-300 and 50 f/1.8) among many other small things. My vest is actually a fishing vest. Very similar to a photo vest. I got it because it was $12. Eventually I'll get a better one more suited to photography, but this one works perfectly fine for now.

I would DEFINATELY bring the tripod. Keep in mind that you can rent a locker for the day to store it until you need it at night. All the parks have lockers.

re: Straps. The one that came with my camera was awful. After 2 days walking around Disney I got sick of it. I ended up buying one of the Mickey Camera straps. It is wider and longer than the one that came with my camera. Works SOOOO much better for me. There are also straps out there that have more of an elastic base to them. I have one for my film slr. Not very wide, but it is confortable becasuse of the give it has with the elastic.

 

[Groucho]

Thanks for the tips. I may have to look at the current state of photo vests and see what's out there.

The strap that comes with the Pentax is actually very nice. I had assumed before I got it that I'd be putting on my old Kodak strap that someone gave me for my 35mm SLR (living in Rochester, you find a lot of Kodak stuff around!), complete with elastic for holding film canisters... heh! Those were the days... oh maybe not. Anyways, the stock one is nice and thick, so I probably won't bother replacing it.

For the tripods, we'll have the stroller for my kid - and last time, we brought our own "full-size" and will definitely do that again. It was sooo nice to have the underseat area to stow jackets, etc! (Especially during January, where your clothing needs change dramatically between morning, afternoon, and night!) Anyway, I'm figuring that the tripod(s) and monopod should fit very nicely there. I'm suspecting that I'll use the monopod rarely - I'm mainly thinking for videotaping the New Year's fireworks at the Studios - but who knows, I may find myself using it more than I expect.