Pentax lens 55-300

[bymy141]

Originally Posted by Rich_A

I agree, but why waste the sharpness of the lens? There are a ton of Canon IS lenses out there and every professional wildlife photographer I know of uses a tripod whenever possible. It's all about native sharpness in the image if you want to get serious about publishing / printing your photos. If "sharp enough" is defined as viewing them on a monitor then I agree but handheld shots will never be as sharp as a supported ones. Sorry.

I've had the pleasure of travelling a few day with Ian Murphy while he was working on his next wildlife book just last month in Africa. I have not seen Ian using any support for his camera at all. Just a D3x with a very, very fast 200mm lens.
What I understand he more or less believes in; big lenses, sensitive cameras and cropping if he cannot get close enough.

[Rondec]

Image stabilization will only get you so far. Dusk is the time of day when most wild life is shot and it is pretty easy to get your shutter speeds to the place where you can't hand hold. I find that even my 50-135 gets shaky towards dusk, can't imagin shooting at 300 mm in lower light.

The other thing to remember is that the crop factor is your enemy when it comes to shake. Shooting with a fast 200 on a full frame camera is not the same as shooting with a slower 300 on a crop frame camera. Just saying.

[bymy141]

Originally Posted by Rondec

Image stabilization will only get you so far. Dusk is the time of day when most wild life is shot and it is pretty easy to get your shutter speeds to the place where you can't hand hold. I find that even my 50-135 gets shaky towards dusk, can't imagin shooting at 300 mm in lower light.

You are very right at that, no argument here.

Originally Posted by Rondec

The other thing to remember is that the crop factor is your enemy when it comes to shake. Shooting with a fast 200 on a full frame camera is not the same as shooting with a slower 300 on a crop frame camera. Just saying.

You are right again.

It is just your reference to professional wildlife photographers I was refering to.
I guess they don't use an amature camera and a tripod for all those reasons. With birds, fast moving targets and the like you are more late than anything else.
I guess professional wildlife photographers (and I have only 1 reference), have other options available that may fit these circumstances better.

[xjjohnno]

Back to the original question, the DA 55-300mm is a lovely lens you will enjoy immensely. I suppose the manufacturers didn't consider it a pro level lens as it does not come with a tripod mount, which I personally don't think you would be needing, even if taking pics at 300mm, unless due to poor light or small aperture settings you are reduced to below 1/50 second shutter speed.

[HouseOfHorla]

I've also had the 55-300 for a while and am more than happy it given the cost and quality although I'd agree that it may be useful to also spend on a monopod for extra stability or keep an eye for anchor points.

A warm welcome BTW

[Itai]

The cool thing about lenses, unlike camera bodies, is that they do not usually lose value, many even increase in value. So, go ahead, get the lens you want and if you don't like it or have no more use for it, sell it back.

Once I was going on a trip where I knew there were going to be humming birds, I bought a 50-200mm (IIRC) and used it on the trip precisely for that. One year after returning home, I realized I had not used it, so I sold it and made a bit of money.

I think the 55-300mm range will be good for trying wildlife photography. Birds usually require longer for closups though.

- Itai

[monochrome]

In good light this is a much better lens than the price would suggest.

[dylansalt]

It can do scenics



Wildlife



Sports



Semi Macro



etc etc etc

Dylan