Legit wildlife slr Lens/Body under $200? YES

[Limbwalker]

Those who know me know I love a bargain, esp. if it delivers on the results.

Well, usually there is no such thing as a "bargain" in outdoor photography - esp. with telephoto gear aimed at animals.

But I was wanting an affordable, easy to use rig to send to my father for Christmas, so I started looking around at KEH camera (my favorite used camera store) to see what I could put together.

I found an old manual focus 400mm f/5.6 Sigma lens in a Pentax mount, then mated it to a K2000 Pentax digital body. Pentax, like Nikon, kept their mount when they went from manual focus to autofocus, so I knew the lens would fit, but would it work?

I got my answer today. Not only does it work, it registers with the body in Auto and Aperture priority modes with the lens set on Auto aperture! Sweet. And, the Pentax bodies have in-camera shake reduction - something the Nikon bodies don't have.

So even though this is still a manual focus lens, it's useable in full auto (very important for my father, who will be using it) and it has shake reduction built in.

Here's a comparison to my Canon 7D and Tamron 150-600 lens (a combo that set me back $1800). The 7D/Tamron is considerably larger and heavier. Easily 2x the weight of the Pentax/Sigma combo.

The total expense for my "budget" combo of the Pentax/Sigma was just $200, shipped.

[Limbwalker]

In the photos above, both lenses are at 400mm. The camera above (7D/Tamron) is a 150-600mm zoom, while the Sigma is a straight 400mm prime. They both have lens hoods extended.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a lighter/smaller 400mm lens/body combo than that Pentax/Sigma.

[Trouble]

Limbwalker, that is a sweet deal. When you get a chance, post up some photos from that setup so we can be even more envious of your score.

[Limbwalker]

So, what about image quality? I mean, that's why we buy cameras in the first place, right?

I set up a few photos of my favorite "test" subject - one of the bird houses in my back yard. It's about 40 feet from my back door and provides nice detail/contrast and color similar to what you'd find when photographing wildlife.

For the test, I set both lenses wide open at F/5.6. This should be their worst setting and should show any flaws. They will only get better when stopped down from there.

All images were hand-held. My Tamron has built-in vibration reduction (VR) and the Pentax body has built in shake-reduction. I can confirm they both work as intended and are a fantastic feature to have in a long lens.

First the $200 combo:

[Limbwalker]

And a crop from that image:

Not bad!

[Limbwalker]

Now the $1800 7D/Tamron combo for comparison:

[Limbwalker]

And the 7D/Tamron cropped

[Limbwalker]

Now, obviously the Pentax/Sigma combo is limited to 400mm. But the 7D/Tamron can zoom to 600mm.

So let's see a comparison between the Sigma 400mm cropped to match the 600mm Tamron.

Both images were cropped to just the center portion.

First the Sigma...

[Limbwalker]

And then the 7D/Tamron at 600mm wide open at F/6.3

[Limbwalker]

Still, not half bad if you consider what that Sigma is giving up in length and price.

So, I guess you could ask the question "What does that extra $1600 get me?" And that's a very good question.

1) 8 frames/sec. vs. 3.5 frames/sec.
2) More contrast
3) Better color
4) Better high ISO performance
5) Sharper wide open
6) Ability to zoom from 150-600
7) An extra 200mm
8) Autofocus.

And that's all worth it to me.

BUT, what does the Pentax/Sigma combo give me?

1) 1/2 the weight
2) 1/2 the size
3) Very good image quality
4) $1600 in my pocket!

For 90-95% of folks out there, including my father, the results they will get from a clean used Pentax body and 20 year-old manual focus Sigma lens will be more than good enough. I'd even suggest that side by side on an 11x14 print, they'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two.

I know I'm tickled with the purchase and the results, and can't wait to hear my father's reaction when he opens up his gift next month.

What do you think?

[Limbwalker]

I know for a fact that mated with a more advanced Pentax body, I would not hesitate to use that Sigma lens, especially if I stopped it down to F8.

I learned photography on manual focus gear, and that MF lens doesn't worry me at all. In fact, there are a lot of wildlife situations where using MF is almost an advantage.

I know for my father, he won't even notice as that's all he's ever used, and I think it will add to the experience of taking the photograph for him. Now maybe he can stop being jealous of the images I post on Flickr and he can get out and create a few of his own.

[Trouble]

I like where you're going with this and I would bet your dad would agree. Well done.

[Limbwalker]

Thanks. That little K2000 is a nifty little camera. It takes AA batteries, which is a great feature for my dad since he can get them anywhere and will be familiar with them. It also takes SD cards, which will be easier for him to get.

He also has a bunch of old MF Pentax lenses he will be able to use on it, which I know will really tickle him to death.

The clincher was that Sigma MF lens for the K2000. When I found that, it was a done deal.

He's never had a digital camera, so this thing is just going to blow his mind.

[Limbwalker]

A lot of beginner and non-photographer friends and family of mine are always asking me what kind of camera I have, or how much it cost, etc., etc. Anyone who is serious about their photography and produces nice images no doubt gets the same thing from the people they know.

One of the things I wanted to do with this camera, before I sent it to my dad, was to prove to folks that you don't have to sink $2K into a camera and lens to get really nice results. Folks forget too quickly that just 15 years ago, even a pro photographer would have happily paid $3K for a camera that can do what this one does. I think that gets lost in the race to the top sometimes.

I can't wait to see what I can create with this budget combo in the next few weeks.

[Trouble]

One of the things I wanted to do with this camera, before I sent it to my dad, was to prove to folks that you don't have to sink $2K into a camera and lens to get really nice results. Folks forget too quickly that just 15 years ago, even a pro photographer would have happily paid $3K for a camera that can do what this one does. I think that gets lost in the race to the top sometimes.

I can't wait to see what I can create with this budget combo in the next few weeks.

That quote should be a sticky at the very top of this section of the forum. It's better to start on the cheap than to waste a lifetime of opportunities waiting to put enough money aside to buy the latest technology.