[baldrick]

Ok, the general consensus is that my Tamron 70-300 is dead having had a little bath over the weekend so what do I replace it with?

I wasn't overly impressed with the AF on the Tamron, it often got itself confused and was quite slow to lock on.

I've got a Pentax *ist DS so that limits my choices. The 300mm is important for me as I do like to do shoot some motorsport and Le Mans is an annual trip for me.

My other lens is the Pentax 18-55 but there is a temptation to reduce the number of lens changes and get a 28-300 but I don't know if you have to make compromises when the focal range is that big?

Given the options I've got to choose between 28-300 and 70-300 and then between Sigma and Tamron.

Looking forward I could change to a 28-300 now and then save up for an f2.8 14mm for landscapes......

What are the recommendations, 70-300 or 28-300, Tamron or Sigma?

[h4rri]

Think about the situations you are shooting in and look at the apeture variations in the lenses. My 100-400 is f/4.5 - 5.6 so not great in low light, would you be happy with an 'all-rounder' that didn't perform in all conditions.

I know there are few lenses that will perform well throughout the range in all given circumstances but it's a consideration. Canon do offer a 90-300mm but that would leave you a gap from 55-90mm.

If you are unhappy with the performance of the Tamron then look to reviews of the Sigma's and see how they compare.

Whats the multiplier on the Pentax btw?


EDIT:

Not sure on the budget etc but what about a Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC with a 1.4 convertor, the latter would get you to 280mm [35mm terms] and help keep lense changes and weight down. The whole lot would be around £350 and give you flexibility overall with a single lense.

[Brammers]

70-300 lenses tend to be cheap and slow! There are one or two exceptions.

Sigma's APO version is generally regarded as excellent value for money, I'm pretty happy with mine, even if it does sit in a cupboard for most of the time.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/product...ital_35mm_zoom

Is another option, no idea as to availability though. 100-300s tend to be slightly higher quality in the various ranges, but I've no idea about Pentax's version.

You could also go super long with something like:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...76&navigator=3

2nd hand would be good - that'd be about £500 new.

Personally I'd stay well away from 18-200/28-300 zooms, but that's just me!

[baldrick]

Originally Posted by h4rri

Think about the situations you are shooting in and look at the apeture variations in the lenses. My 100-400 is f/4.5 - 5.6 so not great in low light, would you be happy with an 'all-rounder' that didn't perform in all conditions.

I know there are few lenses that will perform well throughout the range in all given circumstances but it's a consideration. Canon do offer a 90-300mm but that would leave you a gap from 55-90mm.

If you are unhappy with the performance of the Tamron then look to reviews of the Sigma's and see how they compare.

Whats the multiplier on the Pentax btw?


EDIT:

Not sure on the budget etc but what about a Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC with a 1.4 convertor, the latter would get you to 280mm [35mm terms] and help keep lense changes and weight down. The whole lot would be around £350 and give you flexibility overall with a single lense.

What's a 'multiplier'!?!?

As I recall my now defunct Tamron was around $120 so probably the entry level lens hence the issues I found with the AF?

I don't want to spend too much right now but I suppose it's would be better to spend a bit more now and have a lens that will last longer (until I get near another river)!

In terms of range v speed both the Tamron and Sigma 70-300s are 4-5.6 whilst the 28-300s are 3.5-6.3.

The closest to your 100-400 is the Sigma 135-400 with the same 4.5-5.6 so again suffering in low light. Unfortunately £1500+ for an f2.8 300mm prime is not an option even though it would be brilliant for night shooting at Le Mans!

The 135-400 would give great range for motorsport but leave a big gap from 55 to 135 so I'd have to think about 24-135. I suppose an ideal combination would be a 14mm f2.8, a 24 - 135 f3.5 - 5.6 and a 135-400 f4.5-5.6 but that's £1700 worth of glass or £900ish without the 14mm!!!

I'm just wondering how much I'd miss that extra stop at the top end of the 28-300s compared to the 70-300s? Could I compensate for by going up to 3200 ISO equivalent?

Looking at what I've written and thinking about what I shoot. My main uses at the moment are either when I'm out hiking, or motorsport. The 135-400 would give probably give me more speed at 300 than the shorter lenses plus an extra 100mm and I could probably live with the 55-135 gap until I had the funds for a 24-135.

It's even more tempting at this price:

http://www.tecno.co.uk/Store/s45516/...)/details.aspx

[baldrick]

Originally Posted by Brammers

70-300 lenses tend to be cheap and slow! There are one or two exceptions.

Sigma's APO version is generally regarded as excellent value for money, I'm pretty happy with mine, even if it does sit in a cupboard for most of the time.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/product...ital_35mm_zoom

Is another option, no idea as to availability though. 100-300s tend to be slightly higher quality in the various ranges, but I've no idea about Pentax's version.

You could also go super long with something like:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...76&navigator=3

2nd hand would be good - that'd be about £500 new.

Personally I'd stay well away from 18-200/28-300 zooms, but that's just me!

What you're saying makes a lot of sense, hence why 70-300s are sub £200!

The 135-400 at £370 as per my link above is very, very tempting!

[baldrick]

Originally Posted by baldrick

What you're saying makes a lot of sense, hence why 70-300s are sub £200!

The 135-400 at £370 as per my link above is very, very tempting!

I've just Kelkoo'd the 24-135 and the 14mm f2.8 and the best price are £330 and £800 respectively which is almost the same as Jessops, yet Jessops want £470 for that 135-400....