DA 55-300mm shoots some pretty decent pseudo-macro shots at 300mm

G-Diesel · 10-17-2010, 01:28 PM

This lens is really the best bang for the buck out there. Pretty impressive quality in every aspect.

Meet the alien that landed on my backyard yesterday:

Bug with DA 55-300mm por g-diesel, no Flickr

G-Diesel · 10-17-2010, 01:47 PM

I used a K-x by the way...

VaughnA · 10-17-2010, 03:01 PM

Excellent shot!! Try the raynox 150 for some real fun with the 55-300. IMHO it is one of the best values out there in any mount. It should be high on any new pentaxians list of must buy lenses. I'm looking for new wides but I'm satisfied in the 100-300mm range with this beauty.

Applianceguy · 10-17-2010, 03:37 PM

Great photo, I Bought the DA 55-300 yesterday.
Thanks, your picture reinforces my thoughts about my purchase...
Len

G-Diesel · 10-17-2010, 03:51 PM

Thanks guys. I think I shall follow your advice on the Raynox 150 VaughnA, I had already heard some good things about it.

@Applianceguy: you won't regret the purchase a bit, the lens is very, very good.

jolepp · 10-17-2010, 04:11 PM

If I am not mistaken the actual lens diameter of the Raynox 150 is just 49mm. I take it this isn't too much of a problem with the 55-300 having somewhat greater front diameter (?).

VaughnA · 10-17-2010, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by jolepp

If I am not mistaken the actual lens diameter of the Raynox 150 is just 49mm. I take it this isn't too much of a problem with the 55-300 having somewhat greater front diameter (?).

Not a bit. The adapter fits the 55-300 just fine.

Check out the Raynox Club Thread.

ihayat · 10-18-2010, 01:17 PM

Ok, so perhaps I'm too much a newbie but.. if someone can take awesome photographs like this using the DA 55-300 then why would someone need the Raynox for?

alohadave · 10-18-2010, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by ihayat

Ok, so perhaps I'm too much a newbie but.. if someone can take awesome photographs like this using the DA 55-300 then why would someone need the Raynox for?

The Raynox will shorten the minimum focus distance when it is added to the front of the 55-300. It will also shorten the DoF.

Being able to get closer than 4 feet will help you get closer to your macro subjects and isolate it from the background.

jolepp · 10-18-2010, 02:54 PM

A raynox 250 is going on a local auction site, currently for 6 € ($8). What (if anything) would this be good for?

newarts · 10-18-2010, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by jolepp

A raynox 250 is going on a local auction site, currently for 6 € ($8). What (if anything) would this be good for?

It is good for taking superb macro photos.

The Raynox 250 is almost twice as strong as the 150 (actually 2/3 stronger), so is suitable for shorter lenses (like shorter than 100mm... it'll achieve a magnification of about 1:1 with a typical 85mm lens). Its drawback is that its working distance is only about 125 mm (5") compared to the 150's 208mm (8").

Your built-in auto-flash will work with a Raynox 150 on a 55-300mm lens. I doubt the flash can directly illuminate the subject using a Raynox 250 on a 100mm lens, but just reflecting it with a piece of paper isn't all that tough.

The shorter working distance for the 250 (& lighting problems) may interfere with wildlife shots.

While I think the 150 is more useful if you've got a good long lens, the 250 is a likely valuable addition to your kit.

Dave

Pentaxor · 10-18-2010, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by G-Diesel

This lens is really the best bang for the buck out there. Pretty impressive quality in every aspect.

Meet the alien that landed on my backyard yesterday:

Bug with DA 55-300mm por g-diesel, no Flickr

if those are taken at 300mm, you should seriously consider shooting at 200mm (max) as well. the results at 200mm are much better and would make you salivate the lens even more for pseudo-macro shooting.

the sweet spot for the DA55-300 is anything around from 55mm-150mm. I constantly use this lens around 70mm/85mm to 135mm for other types of shots and is an excellent/impressive lens around these focal length. I even compared it against my highly touted FA135/2.8 where the 55-300 stood pretty strong and almost evenly (about 1/2 or 3/4 step) in terms of IQ/sharpness resolution. the only obvious optical advantage of the FA135, is that it's bokeh is excellent while the DA55-300 is very good.

with this, for a $300 consumer grade zoom lens, it's performance definitely is worth more than it's price. it's a great lens and should have a place/thread of it's own in the forum.

I can only expect the new DA18-135 to be better.

alohadave · 10-18-2010, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

the sweet spot for the DA55-300 is anything around from 55mm-150mm. I constantly use this lens around 70mm/85mm to 135mm for other types of shots and is an excellent/impressive lens around these focal length.

I agree with that assessment. I use it as my portrait lens when I'm doing a studio and street/candid portraits.

**Ash** · 10-18-2010, 09:17 PM

+1 re: the excellent value for money this lens offers. I don't have a Raynox adapter, nor do I shy away from the long end for my pseudo-macro shots. For when I don't have my FA 100 with me, this lens does well for flowers and other modest-sized subjects. I couldn't see much to complain about from its 300mm results at f/8.

Pentaxor · 10-19-2010, 07:47 PM

update: went out to test the lens again and I took a much closer look at the resolution coming from both lenses. I have to revise my statement to a more accurate one. at closer inspection, the DA55-300 at 135mm has already a very strong and impressive resolution for a consumer grade lens, but against the FA135, it is a notch and a half lower. this is because of the prime lens' outstanding resolution which shows a lot more resolving power of the detail sharpness and contrast. the DA55-300 is not that bad and still pretty strong. a bit of tweaking would put it at the same level of the FA135's base (untweaked) resolution.

10-17-2010, 01:28 PM	#1
G-Diesel Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Leiria - Portugal Posts: 65	DA 55-300mm shoots some pretty decent pseudo-macro shots at 300mm This lens is really the best bang for the buck out there. Pretty impressive quality in every aspect. Meet the alien that landed on my backyard yesterday: Bug with DA 55-300mm por g-diesel, no Flickr

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 55-300mm versus Sigma 70-300mm DG APO Macro	mazdamazda	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	49	07-27-2010 12:46 AM
Nature 55mm-300mm Test shots on K-x @ 300mm	kostarae	Post Your Photos!	1	12-26-2009 07:20 AM
Pentax DA 55-300mm, very decent 300mm Performance	Rush2112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	02-11-2009 05:59 PM
pseudo macro	OniFactor	Post Your Photos!	2	07-21-2008 05:32 AM

10-17-2010, 01:47 PM	#2
G-Diesel Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Leiria - Portugal Posts: 65 Original Poster	I used a K-x by the way...

10-17-2010, 03:01 PM	#3
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363	Excellent shot!! Try the raynox 150 for some real fun with the 55-300. IMHO it is one of the best values out there in any mount. It should be high on any new pentaxians list of must buy lenses. I'm looking for new wides but I'm satisfied in the 100-300mm range with this beauty.

10-17-2010, 03:37 PM	#4
Applianceguy New Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Photos: Gallery Posts: 23	Great photo, I Bought the DA 55-300 yesterday. Thanks, your picture reinforces my thoughts about my purchase... Len

10-17-2010, 03:51 PM	#5
G-Diesel Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Leiria - Portugal Posts: 65 Original Poster	Thanks guys. I think I shall follow your advice on the Raynox 150 VaughnA, I had already heard some good things about it. @Applianceguy: you won't regret the purchase a bit, the lens is very, very good.

10-17-2010, 04:11 PM	#6
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	If I am not mistaken the actual lens diameter of the Raynox 150 is just 49mm. I take it this isn't too much of a problem with the 55-300 having somewhat greater front diameter (?).

10-17-2010, 04:19 PM	#7
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363	Originally posted by jolepp If I am not mistaken the actual lens diameter of the Raynox 150 is just 49mm. I take it this isn't too much of a problem with the 55-300 having somewhat greater front diameter (?). Not a bit. The adapter fits the 55-300 just fine. Check out the Raynox Club Thread.

10-18-2010, 01:17 PM	#8
ihayat Inactive Account Join Date: May 2010 Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada Posts: 11	Ok, so perhaps I'm too much a newbie but.. if someone can take awesome photographs like this using the DA 55-300 then why would someone need the Raynox for?

10-18-2010, 01:42 PM	#9
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by ihayat Ok, so perhaps I'm too much a newbie but.. if someone can take awesome photographs like this using the DA 55-300 then why would someone need the Raynox for? The Raynox will shorten the minimum focus distance when it is added to the front of the 55-300. It will also shorten the DoF. Being able to get closer than 4 feet will help you get closer to your macro subjects and isolate it from the background.

10-18-2010, 02:54 PM	#10
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	A raynox 250 is going on a local auction site, currently for 6 € ($8). What (if anything) would this be good for?

10-18-2010, 06:18 PM	#11
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by jolepp A raynox 250 is going on a local auction site, currently for 6 € ($8). What (if anything) would this be good for? It is good for taking superb macro photos. The Raynox 250 is almost twice as strong as the 150 (actually 2/3 stronger), so is suitable for shorter lenses (like shorter than 100mm... it'll achieve a magnification of about 1:1 with a typical 85mm lens). Its drawback is that its working distance is only about 125 mm (5") compared to the 150's 208mm (8"). Your built-in auto-flash will work with a Raynox 150 on a 55-300mm lens. I doubt the flash can directly illuminate the subject using a Raynox 250 on a 100mm lens, but just reflecting it with a piece of paper isn't all that tough. The shorter working distance for the 250 (& lighting problems) may interfere with wildlife shots. While I think the 150 is more useful if you've got a good long lens, the 250 is a likely valuable addition to your kit. Dave

10-18-2010, 08:08 PM	#12
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by G-Diesel This lens is really the best bang for the buck out there. Pretty impressive quality in every aspect. Meet the alien that landed on my backyard yesterday: Bug with DA 55-300mm por g-diesel, no Flickr if those are taken at 300mm, you should seriously consider shooting at 200mm (max) as well. the results at 200mm are much better and would make you salivate the lens even more for pseudo-macro shooting. the sweet spot for the DA55-300 is anything around from 55mm-150mm. I constantly use this lens around 70mm/85mm to 135mm for other types of shots and is an excellent/impressive lens around these focal length. I even compared it against my highly touted FA135/2.8 where the 55-300 stood pretty strong and almost evenly (about 1/2 or 3/4 step) in terms of IQ/sharpness resolution. the only obvious optical advantage of the FA135, is that it's bokeh is excellent while the DA55-300 is very good. with this, for a $300 consumer grade zoom lens, it's performance definitely is worth more than it's price. it's a great lens and should have a place/thread of it's own in the forum. I can only expect the new DA18-135 to be better.

10-18-2010, 08:37 PM	#13
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by Pentaxor the sweet spot for the DA55-300 is anything around from 55mm-150mm. I constantly use this lens around 70mm/85mm to 135mm for other types of shots and is an excellent/impressive lens around these focal length. I agree with that assessment. I use it as my portrait lens when I'm doing a studio and street/candid portraits.

10-18-2010, 09:17 PM	#14
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	+1 re: the excellent value for money this lens offers. I don't have a Raynox adapter, nor do I shy away from the long end for my pseudo-macro shots. For when I don't have my FA 100 with me, this lens does well for flowers and other modest-sized subjects. I couldn't see much to complain about from its 300mm results at f/8.

10-19-2010, 07:47 PM	#15
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	update: went out to test the lens again and I took a much closer look at the resolution coming from both lenses. I have to revise my statement to a more accurate one. at closer inspection, the DA55-300 at 135mm has already a very strong and impressive resolution for a consumer grade lens, but against the FA135, it is a notch and a half lower. this is because of the prime lens' outstanding resolution which shows a lot more resolving power of the detail sharpness and contrast. the DA55-300 is not that bad and still pretty strong. a bit of tweaking would put it at the same level of the FA135's base (untweaked) resolution.