Telephoto Lens Suggestions

baig.sabeeh90 · 12-19-2010, 04:26 PM

I currently have the DA 55-300/4-5.8, which is a great lens, but I'd like something with constant aperture throughout the range that's faster. The two options that I'm considering are the DA* 200/2.8 and DA* 300/4 or just the DA* 60-250/4. (Of course, I have assorted primes from the ultra-wide to short-telephoto range.) Which option would you choose? If it matters, I normally shoot between the ultra-wide to normal range. I only want something better in this range for long-distance photography such as shooting graduations or wildlife. Please let me know what you guys think!

GeneV · 12-19-2010, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90

I currently have the DA 55-300/4-5.8, which is a great lens, but I'd like something with constant aperture throughout the range that's faster. The two options that I'm considering are the DA* 200/2.8 and DA* 300/4 or just the DA* 60-250/4. (Of course, I have assorted primes from the ultra-wide to short-telephoto range.) Which option would you choose? If it matters, I normally shoot between the ultra-wide to normal range. I only want something better in this range for long-distance photography such as shooting graduations or wildlife. Please let me know what you guys think!

Those basically are the current choices for a long Pentax lens that might have better IQ than the 55-300. You might also pick up some older M or A lenses which do not autofocus.

baig.sabeeh90 · 12-19-2010, 05:08 PM

Right, but it comes down whether or not it's necessary to have two telephoto primes or just one telephoto zoom is sufficient? That's where I can't decide.

DanielT74 · 12-19-2010, 05:11 PM

I have the A*200/2.8 which is excellent. I am guessing the DA*200/2.8 is of similar quality. The drawback is that 200mm is sometimes not enough. DA*60-250mm is very good even though reputed to be a little soft at 250mm. DA*300/4 is very competent. For some other alternatives Sigma 100-300/4 is considered to be very good and my Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a great performer.

Ubuntu_user · 12-19-2010, 05:18 PM

I know what I would choose... Or at least, I think I do!

IQ wise = the two primes.

Oh but a zoom is quite versatile.

abacus07 · 12-19-2010, 05:56 PM

I think the zoom would be a better choice since this is a focal length you don't use a lot. I also don't use telephoto a lot so I bought a pair of legacy primes for less than $100. And one is very small so I can take it with and it isn't a big deal.

But why aren't 3rd party lenses options? They seem to meet you're criteria although I don't know what kind of IQ improvement they have over the 55-300.

baig.sabeeh90 · 12-19-2010, 06:02 PM

I'm not very big on third-party lenses. I've used Tamron and Sigma lenses before, and the build quality, even in the high-end, is still lacking compared to Pentax's mid-level lenses.

**dadipentak** · 12-19-2010, 07:16 PM

I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that--unless you're very patient & stealthy--300mm is pretty much the minimum FL for wildlife (and, even that that, patience and stealth improve your chances significantly.)

opiet70 · 12-19-2010, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by abacus07

I think the zoom would be a better choice since this is a focal length you don't use a lot. I also don't use telephoto a lot so I bought a pair of legacy primes for less than $100. And one is very small so I can take it with and it isn't a big deal.

But why aren't 3rd party lenses options? They seem to meet you're criteria although I don't know what kind of IQ improvement they have over the 55-300.

Not only it will probably be more functional that two primes with how you shoot, but the 60-250 is a superb zoom.

birdoprey · 12-20-2010, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90

I'm not very big on third-party lenses. I've used Tamron and Sigma lenses before, and the build quality, even in the high-end, is still lacking compared to Pentax's mid-level lenses.

Which Sigma lenses have you used? You should give the Sigma 100-300mm F4 some thought. It is just as good as the DA* 300 and it's a zoom. Built like a tank.

sterretje · 12-20-2010, 09:46 PM

For the given purpose, the flexibility of a telezoom wins for me.

baig.sabeeh90 · 12-21-2010, 05:23 PM

Alright, the DA* 60-250/4 it is. Can you use it without a tripod, handheld?

Ubuntu_user · 12-22-2010, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90

Alright, the DA* 60-250/4 it is. Can you use it without a tripod, handheld?

Sure! Just like any other long FL... Your shutter speed just has to be high enough in order to get a sharp photo.

normhead · 12-22-2010, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Alright, the DA* 60-250/4 it is. Can you use it without a tripod, handheld?

From all the research I've done, that's is just a really bad question to ask. It's not about the lens, it's about the focal length. You can't hand hold any 300 mm lens and get as good results as you would on a tripod. If you don't believe me, I suggest you take your camera outdoors and give it a try. Even at 1000 of a second, there will probably be a noticeable difference in pixel comparisons. Hand held is for short focal lengths, and even then a tripod is probably better.

JHD · 12-22-2010, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by dadipentak

I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that--unless you're very patient & stealthy--300mm is pretty much the minimum FL for wildlife (and, even that that, patience and stealth improve your chances significantly.)

Nothing beats the privilege of owning an expensive lens with a short warranty combined with a high probability of having several SDM issues. Thanks, but I'll pass on that go with a more reliable 3rd party option backed up with a real warranty.

12-19-2010, 04:26 PM	#1
baig.sabeeh90 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 71	Telephoto Lens Suggestions I currently have the DA 55-300/4-5.8, which is a great lens, but I'd like something with constant aperture throughout the range that's faster. The two options that I'm considering are the DA* 200/2.8 and DA* 300/4 or just the DA* 60-250/4. (Of course, I have assorted primes from the ultra-wide to short-telephoto range.) Which option would you choose? If it matters, I normally shoot between the ultra-wide to normal range. I only want something better in this range for long-distance photography such as shooting graduations or wildlife. Please let me know what you guys think!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Telephoto lens	jone1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	10-29-2009 02:55 PM
Suggestions Please? Wanting to buy Telephoto Zoom Len....	heymissjo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	09-07-2009 09:54 AM
Which telephoto zoom lens?	madisonphotogrl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	04-18-2008 11:17 AM
wide angle/telephoto suggestions	wrxwheelman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	03-25-2008 03:04 PM
Telephoto lens	tina	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	01-14-2008 08:23 AM

12-19-2010, 05:05 PM	#2
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90 I currently have the DA 55-300/4-5.8, which is a great lens, but I'd like something with constant aperture throughout the range that's faster. The two options that I'm considering are *the DA 200/2.8 and DA* 300/4 or just the DA* 60-250/4**. (Of course, I have assorted primes from the ultra-wide to short-telephoto range.) Which option would you choose? If it matters, I normally shoot between the ultra-wide to normal range. I only want something better in this range for long-distance photography such as shooting graduations or wildlife. Please let me know what you guys think! Those basically are the current choices for a long Pentax lens that might have better IQ than the 55-300. You might also pick up some older M or A lenses which do not autofocus.

12-19-2010, 05:08 PM	#3
baig.sabeeh90 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 71 Original Poster	Right, but it comes down whether or not it's necessary to have two telephoto primes or just one telephoto zoom is sufficient? That's where I can't decide.

12-19-2010, 05:11 PM	#4
DanielT74 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,377	I have the A200/2.8 which is excellent. I am guessing the DA200/2.8 is of similar quality. The drawback is that 200mm is sometimes not enough. DA60-250mm is very good even though reputed to be a little soft at 250mm. DA300/4 is very competent. For some other alternatives Sigma 100-300/4 is considered to be very good and my Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a great performer.

12-19-2010, 05:18 PM	#5
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	I know what I would choose... Or at least, I think I do! IQ wise = the two primes. Oh but a zoom is quite versatile.

12-19-2010, 05:56 PM	#6
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	I think the zoom would be a better choice since this is a focal length you don't use a lot. I also don't use telephoto a lot so I bought a pair of legacy primes for less than $100. And one is very small so I can take it with and it isn't a big deal. But why aren't 3rd party lenses options? They seem to meet you're criteria although I don't know what kind of IQ improvement they have over the 55-300.

12-19-2010, 06:02 PM	#7
baig.sabeeh90 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 71 Original Poster	I'm not very big on third-party lenses. I've used Tamron and Sigma lenses before, and the build quality, even in the high-end, is still lacking compared to Pentax's mid-level lenses.

12-19-2010, 07:16 PM	#8
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that--unless you're very patient & stealthy--300mm is pretty much the minimum FL for wildlife (and, even that that, patience and stealth improve your chances significantly.)

12-19-2010, 07:42 PM	#9
opiet70 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 499	Originally posted by abacus07 I think the zoom would be a better choice since this is a focal length you don't use a lot. I also don't use telephoto a lot so I bought a pair of legacy primes for less than $100. And one is very small so I can take it with and it isn't a big deal. But why aren't 3rd party lenses options? They seem to meet you're criteria although I don't know what kind of IQ improvement they have over the 55-300. Not only it will probably be more functional that two primes with how you shoot, but the 60-250 is a superb zoom.

12-20-2010, 08:36 PM	#10
birdoprey Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ATL Posts: 38	Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90 I'm not very big on third-party lenses. I've used Tamron and Sigma lenses before, and the build quality, even in the high-end, is still lacking compared to Pentax's mid-level lenses. Which Sigma lenses have you used? You should give the Sigma 100-300mm F4 some thought. It is just as good as the DA* 300 and it's a zoom. Built like a tank.

12-20-2010, 09:46 PM	#11
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	For the given purpose, the flexibility of a telezoom wins for me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-21-2010, 05:23 PM	#12
baig.sabeeh90 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 71 Original Poster	Alright, the DA* 60-250/4 it is. Can you use it without a tripod, handheld?

12-22-2010, 08:54 AM	#13
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	Originally posted by baig.sabeeh90 Alright, the DA* 60-250/4 it is. Can you use it without a tripod, handheld? Sure! Just like any other long FL... Your shutter speed just has to be high enough in order to get a sharp photo.

12-22-2010, 09:04 AM	#14
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	Quote: Alright, the DA* 60-250/4 it is. Can you use it without a tripod, handheld? From all the research I've done, that's is just a really bad question to ask. It's not about the lens, it's about the focal length. You can't hand hold any 300 mm lens and get as good results as you would on a tripod. If you don't believe me, I suggest you take your camera outdoors and give it a try. Even at 1000 of a second, there will probably be a noticeable difference in pixel comparisons. Hand held is for short focal lengths, and even then a tripod is probably better.

12-22-2010, 09:16 AM	#15
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by dadipentak I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that--unless you're very patient & stealthy--300mm is pretty much the minimum FL for wildlife (and, even that that, patience and stealth improve your chances significantly.) Nothing beats the privilege of owning an expensive lens with a short warranty combined with a high probability of having several SDM issues. Thanks, but I'll pass on that go with a more reliable 3rd party option backed up with a real warranty.