Cheap AND sharp autofocus 300mm?

rkohli · 06-09-2010, 02:40 AM

I have been looking for a good 300mm for wildlife (birds mainly) photography, and have a few cheap options. The FA 100-300 4.7-5.8 is a good option. Does give a bit of PF but IQ is decent. Attaching some sample pics below. One is 300mm lo-res original and crop, the other is a 100mm lo-res original.
Hard to beat the 55-300 pics posted earlier. Very good work!!

If price was not a consideration, how would this thread rate the following lens for wildlife (including some macro shoots)

1. DA*300 f4 WR
2. FA* 300mm f2.8
3. A* 300mm f2.8
4. FA* 200mm F4 macro

look forward to your opinions

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/64044d1276075616-cheap-sharp-autofocus-300mm-imgp3185.jpg

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/64045d1276075616-cheap-sharp-autofocus-300mm-imgp3185-fa100-300-crop.jpg

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/64046d1276075616-cheap-sharp-autofocus-300mm-imgp3189.jpg

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

JeffJS · 06-09-2010, 08:12 AM

DA*300 SDM, there is no WR designation on the DA* lenses, they just Are. The holy grail is probably the FA*200 Macro but the last one I saw had an asking price of $3500. Don't know if it sold for that though.

DA*300mm SDM - a set on Flickr

reeftool · 06-09-2010, 09:03 AM

Judging from the pics I've seen posted and owners comments, the DA 55-300 probably has the best IQ at the long end of the zoom in the lower priced telephoto category. I use the Sigma 79-300 and it is also soft at 300, although in good light, I have had some very good 300mm results at f/11, which seems to be the sweet spot on my lens. The shorter end of the zoom on the Sigma does very well. There is a lot of very good 300mm glass out there, it just isn't going to be cheap. For my budget, it's MF for now as my 200/4 Tak is sharp at all apertures and even with a 2x converter, it's very good as long as I nail the focus.

rob1234 · 06-09-2010, 10:55 AM

Thanks for all the responses.

How does the FA 100-300 (f4.7-5.8 version) compare to the DA 55-300 wide open at 300? From the samples it looks like the DA is slightly sharper, but not much in it?

I know they'll all be better at f/8-11, but light would have to be excellent for day-to-day handholding...

planedriver · 06-09-2010, 02:00 PM

The DA 55-300 is a very very good lens! This was taken at 210mm f9 iso500:

Andras

Blue · 06-09-2010, 02:27 PM

Before I got the DA* 300mm, I had a 55-300. I'd still have that lens if I didn't have the DA*.

planedriver · 06-09-2010, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Before I got the DA* 300mm, I had a 55-300. I'd still have that lens if I didn't have the DA*.

So it's simple

the 55-300 is a very good lens the DA300 f4 is even better. The former is cheaper the later is much more expensive. Personally I considered the DA300 but bought the 55-300 as I'm also about to replace my trusty 16-45 with the 12-24

but hardware is only one side of the story of course...

..as far as the 55-300...the 300mm end is totally usable wide open. It's f4.5 until around 200mm which makes it a very good portrait lens in good light. AF can be sluggish but manageable.

Andras

Laurentiu Cristofor · 06-09-2010, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by rob1234

How does the FA 100-300 (f4.7-5.8 version) compare to the DA 55-300 wide open at 300? From the samples it looks like the DA is slightly sharper, but not much in it?

I don't have both lenses to compare, but I have a shot from the 100-300 at 6.3 in this post.

Also, a couple of suggestions regarding your first post about the Sigma:

- make sure the focus is correct - it's hard to nail focus at 300mm and AF may not be precise enough, especially when the lens is wide open and the DOF is thinner.
- use a hood - the performance of the lens might improve significantly, especially when using it wide open

rkohli · 06-09-2010, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

DA*300 SDM, there is no WR designation on the DA* lenses, they just Are. The holy grail is probably the FA*200 Macro but the last one I saw had an asking price of $3500. Don't know if it sold for that though.

DA*300mm SDM - a set on Flickr

Many thanks for the input. I was debating between an A*300 f2.8 and DA*300 f4. I think I will narrow down on the DA*300.
The FA*200 macro sold for $3700. Well out of my budget, but I was thinking I could put a TC on it and go to 300mm as well use it for macro. Seeing your photos on Flikr I think the DA*300 will serve both purposes at half the price.
Thanks again

JohnBee · 06-09-2010, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by planedriver

this is 100%:
AF can be sluggish-my technique is to set it manually to near infinity and then it gets much faster when you focus on these birds.

Andras

Damned impressive!

Frogfish · 06-10-2010, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Quicksand

I would not recommend the Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD WTF EIEIO.

I own that one. It's reasonably sharp, but there is A LOT of purple fringing in high-contrast scenes, and stopping down doesn't help much. I would gladly trade some sharpness to reduce the purpleness of it all.

Answering Ira, yeah, I think autofocus is pretty helpful on long lenses. At least handheld, the image bounces around a lot in the viewfinder, and it's hard (for me at least) to really see how sharp it is, even with a split prism viewfinder screen. I can manage OK with my 200mm Takumar, but my 400mm Tele-Takumar is pretty difficult.

You and me both, buddy. I'd settle for two out of three.

Sorry QS but I have to disagree with you on the Tamron 70-300 Di. It is my standard go to AF lense if I need that length (though usually I prefer my CZJ 135mm & crop if at all possible). PF is a minor irritant in high contrast situations or pixel peeping but mostly it's easily corrected in PP.

That said however I'm on the look out for the Pentax 55-300. On another forum we compared the P 80-320 (I have this too and have binned it, it will never see the light of day again until it's sold !), T 70-300 & P 55-300 and the later was a clear winner in terms of sharpness and PP.

Shame the DA* 300 isn't cheaper as that is just an outstanding lens ! One day.

Frogfish · 06-10-2010, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by rkohli

Many thanks for the input. I was debating between an A*300 f2.8 and DA*300 f4. I think I will narrow down on the DA*300.
The FA*200 macro sold for $3700. Well out of my budget, but I was thinking I could put a TC on it and go to 300mm as well use it for macro. Seeing your photos on Flikr I think the DA*300 will serve both purposes at half the price.
Thanks again

Rajeev. If you were thinking macro as well as tele then, now you have saved a bundle by going for the DA* 300 do yourself a favour and get yourself a dedicated macro lens ( I love spending other people's money

). I use the Tamron 90 Di Macro and it is an absolutely outstanding lens for macro, portrait and street.

rob1234 · 06-10-2010, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

Also, a couple of suggestions regarding your first post about the Sigma:

- make sure the focus is correct - it's hard to nail focus at 300mm and AF may not be precise enough, especially when the lens is wide open and the DOF is thinner.
- use a hood - the performance of the lens might improve significantly, especially when using it wide open

Many thanks. Over a day's worth of shots I have found it very soft (admittedly to a varying extent), so don't think it's a focussing issue.

I do use the supplied hood, but am aware that it isn't ideal as it has to cover the 100mm end too.

rkohli · 06-11-2010, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

Rajeev. If you were thinking macro as well as tele then, now you have saved a bundle by going for the DA* 300 do yourself a favour and get yourself a dedicated macro lens ( I love spending other people's money

). I use the Tamron 90 Di Macro and it is an absolutely outstanding lens for macro, portrait and street.

I really do not need a street/portrait lens (I have the DA40ltd and FA77ltd), so I feel the tammy would really not fit in. Maybe a longer tele like the Sigma 180 f3.5 macro along with a TC could do 300+ tele shots as well macro??

rob1234 · 06-12-2010, 11:07 AM

Just for reference, I was browsing through some test shots: it is significantly better at the 100mm end stopped down(although I realise this shot is much less demanding than a high-contrast backlit one).

Again, 100% (JPEG) crop, straight from the camera:

(clicky thumbnail)

Camera Software: K10D Ver 1.30
Focal Length (35mm Equiv): 150 mm
Image Created: 2010:06:07 17:21:44
Exposure Time: 1/125 sec
F-Number: f/8.0
Exposure Program: Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating: 500

Still going to replace it with a DA55-300 though.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: [Worldwide] Cheap K20D (w/ autofocus issues)	dgaies	Sold Items	6	03-05-2010 06:20 PM
Is my A*300mm F2.8 Sharp Enough?	cps_goodbuy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	02-27-2010 06:29 PM
Fast and Sharp 1DmkIII plus 300mm/2.8	cwood	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	9	01-18-2010 01:09 PM
A good sharp cheap lens	cupic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	07-01-2008 08:54 AM

06-09-2010, 08:12 AM	#17
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	DA300 SDM, there is no WR designation on the DA lenses, they just Are. The holy grail is probably the FA200 Macro but the last one I saw had an asking price of $3500. Don't know if it sold for that though. DA300mm SDM - a set on Flickr

06-09-2010, 09:03 AM	#18
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	Judging from the pics I've seen posted and owners comments, the DA 55-300 probably has the best IQ at the long end of the zoom in the lower priced telephoto category. I use the Sigma 79-300 and it is also soft at 300, although in good light, I have had some very good 300mm results at f/11, which seems to be the sweet spot on my lens. The shorter end of the zoom on the Sigma does very well. There is a lot of very good 300mm glass out there, it just isn't going to be cheap. For my budget, it's MF for now as my 200/4 Tak is sharp at all apertures and even with a 2x converter, it's very good as long as I nail the focus.

06-09-2010, 10:55 AM	#19
rob1234 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire Photos: Albums Posts: 1,760 Original Poster	Thanks for all the responses. How does the FA 100-300 (f4.7-5.8 version) compare to the DA 55-300 wide open at 300? From the samples it looks like the DA is slightly sharper, but not much in it? I know they'll all be better at f/8-11, but light would have to be excellent for day-to-day handholding...

06-09-2010, 02:00 PM	#20
planedriver Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Velence, Hungary Posts: 664	The DA 55-300 is a very very good lens! This was taken at 210mm f9 iso500: Andras

06-09-2010, 02:27 PM	#21
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Before I got the DA* 300mm, I had a 55-300. I'd still have that lens if I didn't have the DA*.

06-09-2010, 02:53 PM	#22
planedriver Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Velence, Hungary Posts: 664	Originally posted by Blue Before I got the DA* 300mm, I had a 55-300. I'd still have that lens if I didn't have the DA*. So it's simple the 55-300 is a very good lens the DA300 f4 is even better. The former is cheaper the later is much more expensive. Personally I considered the DA300 but bought the 55-300 as I'm also about to replace my trusty 16-45 with the 12-24 but hardware is only one side of the story of course... ..as far as the 55-300...the 300mm end is totally usable wide open. It's f4.5 until around 200mm which makes it a very good portrait lens in good light. AF can be sluggish but manageable. Andras

06-09-2010, 03:27 PM	#23
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by rob1234 How does the FA 100-300 (f4.7-5.8 version) compare to the DA 55-300 wide open at 300? From the samples it looks like the DA is slightly sharper, but not much in it? I don't have both lenses to compare, but I have a shot from the 100-300 at 6.3 in this post. Also, a couple of suggestions regarding your first post about the Sigma: - make sure the focus is correct - it's hard to nail focus at 300mm and AF may not be precise enough, especially when the lens is wide open and the DOF is thinner. - use a hood - the performance of the lens might improve significantly, especially when using it wide open

06-09-2010, 10:04 PM	#24
rkohli Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: New Delhi Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 81	Originally posted by JeffJS DA300 SDM, there is no WR designation on the DA lenses, they just Are. The holy grail is probably the FA200 Macro but the last one I saw had an asking price of $3500. Don't know if it sold for that though. DA300mm SDM - a set on Flickr Many thanks for the input. I was debating between an A300 f2.8 and DA300 f4. I think I will narrow down on the DA300. The FA200 macro sold for $3700. Well out of my budget, but I was thinking I could put a TC on it and go to 300mm as well use it for macro. Seeing your photos on Flikr I think the DA*300 will serve both purposes at half the price. Thanks again

06-09-2010, 11:15 PM	#25
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by planedriver this is 100%: AF can be sluggish-my technique is to set it manually to near infinity and then it gets much faster when you focus on these birds. Andras Damned impressive!

06-10-2010, 12:25 AM	#26
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by Quicksand I would not recommend the Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD WTF EIEIO. I own that one. It's reasonably sharp, but there is A LOT of purple fringing in high-contrast scenes, and stopping down doesn't help much. I would gladly trade some sharpness to reduce the purpleness of it all. Answering Ira, yeah, I think autofocus is pretty helpful on long lenses. At least handheld, the image bounces around a lot in the viewfinder, and it's hard (for me at least) to really see how sharp it is, even with a split prism viewfinder screen. I can manage OK with my 200mm Takumar, but my 400mm Tele-Takumar is pretty difficult. You and me both, buddy. I'd settle for two out of three. Sorry QS but I have to disagree with you on the Tamron 70-300 Di. It is my standard go to AF lense if I need that length (though usually I prefer my CZJ 135mm & crop if at all possible). PF is a minor irritant in high contrast situations or pixel peeping but mostly it's easily corrected in PP. That said however I'm on the look out for the Pentax 55-300. On another forum we compared the P 80-320 (I have this too and have binned it, it will never see the light of day again until it's sold !), T 70-300 & P 55-300 and the later was a clear winner in terms of sharpness and PP. Shame the DA* 300 isn't cheaper as that is just an outstanding lens ! One day.

06-10-2010, 12:29 AM	#27
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by rkohli Many thanks for the input. I was debating between an A300 f2.8 and DA300 f4. I think I will narrow down on the DA300. The FA200 macro sold for $3700. Well out of my budget, but I was thinking I could put a TC on it and go to 300mm as well use it for macro. Seeing your photos on Flikr I think the DA300 will serve both purposes at half the price. Thanks again Rajeev. If you were thinking macro as well as tele then, now you have saved a bundle by going for the DA 300 do yourself a favour and get yourself a dedicated macro lens ( I love spending other people's money ). I use the Tamron 90 Di Macro and it is an absolutely outstanding lens for macro, portrait and street.

06-10-2010, 12:53 AM	#28
rob1234 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire Photos: Albums Posts: 1,760 Original Poster	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Also, a couple of suggestions regarding your first post about the Sigma: - make sure the focus is correct - it's hard to nail focus at 300mm and AF may not be precise enough, especially when the lens is wide open and the DOF is thinner. - use a hood - the performance of the lens might improve significantly, especially when using it wide open Many thanks. Over a day's worth of shots I have found it very soft (admittedly to a varying extent), so don't think it's a focussing issue. I do use the supplied hood, but am aware that it isn't ideal as it has to cover the 100mm end too.

06-11-2010, 03:13 AM	#29
rkohli Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: New Delhi Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 81	Originally posted by Frogfish Rajeev. If you were thinking macro as well as tele then, now you have saved a bundle by going for the DA* 300 do yourself a favour and get yourself a dedicated macro lens ( I love spending other people's money ). I use the Tamron 90 Di Macro and it is an absolutely outstanding lens for macro, portrait and street. I really do not need a street/portrait lens (I have the DA40ltd and FA77ltd), so I feel the tammy would really not fit in. Maybe a longer tele like the Sigma 180 f3.5 macro along with a TC could do 300+ tele shots as well macro??

06-12-2010, 11:07 AM	#30
rob1234 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire Photos: Albums Posts: 1,760 Original Poster	Just for reference, I was browsing through some test shots: it is significantly better at the 100mm end stopped down(although I realise this shot is much less demanding than a high-contrast backlit one). Again, 100% (JPEG) crop, straight from the camera: (clicky thumbnail) Camera Software: K10D Ver 1.30 Focal Length (35mm Equiv): 150 mm Image Created: 2010:06:07 17:21:44 Exposure Time: 1/125 sec F-Number: f/8.0 Exposure Program: Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating: 500 Still going to replace it with a DA55-300 though.