[Lowell Goudge]

Dave

I don't disagree at all with the comments except the green button issue.

I generally set my exposure once carefully then don't change until shooting conditions change. For an outdoor soccer game that should not be an issue.

size and weight, yes same as the DA 300, which I use all the time to argue with people that digital lenses are not , due to smaller image circle, any lighter than FF lenses.

BUT.......

except for the Generation 1 SIgma APO 70-200F2.8 EX (non dg non macro) plus sigmas 1.4x TC it is sharper than most other ways to get to 300mm and a whole lot cheaper.

[mattt]

a whole lot cheaper.

Amen to that!

[yeatzee]

Size/weight - It's a rear lens cap shorter than my 400mm f5.6, 77mm filter, 1020 grams. It doesn't set records, in fact pretty close to the DA* 300/4, but you'll know it's there. Not a casual travel lens.

MFD - Only focuses to 13 feet.

Compatibility - like any other K, but with the size/weight to make pressing the green button more challenging.

Optically, look to others to pick it apart. I think it's great. At this price level, the competition is a handful of consumer zooms, many of which are not that great past 200mm and none of which go to f4.

I mean more why its the best bargain 300mm

[rfortson]

I think the SMC 300 f/4 is a great lens for the money. You can get a good copy for less than $300. I had good luck with mine, but I never used it for action. Still, with the correct technique, you can do it. Sports was shot with manual focus for years, so it can obviously be done. The green button and focus confirmation make it a tad easier, but it's still not a snap.

Here are two of my favorite shots with the SMC 300 f/4, both taken on the K100D:

[Lowell Goudge]

I think the biggest challenge for sports and any MF lens is the need to always be thinking the next shot. Follow the play continually setting the focus using the focusing scale, to be close to focus, then fine adjust when you put the camera to your eye. The K300/4 has a 270 degree focus throw which makes for accurate but slow focus acquisition if you don't set it close in advance. The tak 200F3.5 is much worse with almost a full turn from min to max focus yet once you acquire the action, tracking it is not an issue

[yeatzee]

Well the 18 blade tak. 300mm F/4 can be had easily afaik for under $200. Performance wise...

[Jewelltrail]

@ Pentax Forums, I suspect this will be as popular as an all-night dentist, but competing in popularity contests was never my thing anyway. I wrote a review for the SMC 300 f4 in our database.

I was thrilled to have found a copy of the SMC 300 f4 in mint condition. I bought it for $200, and couldn't wait for it to arrive. The lens is a splendidly crafted piece of art, with F4 & can be handheld, though it needs a tri-pod mount. I found the lens sharp wide open, & capable of producing fine images under favorable conditions. However, one does not always get favorable conditions. In high contrast & even in not so high contrast situations, the images this lens produced on my K20d were lit up like the color white glowing under a Black light. I have shot a lot of lenses on the K20d, but never saw Ca aglowing like it did when this lens tried to reproduce images in unfavorable light.

Before I am attacked for my experience, I want to repeat I am not saying the lens can not make quality images on Digital; rather, I am saying the lens forces compromises on the user and they were more than I was willing to settle with--it is that simple. Also, the lens’ poor close-focusing capabilities were a let down for me.

What I did was make a Pentax 330mm f 5.6 lens, which outperformed the SMC 300 f4 in every way, except speed. I took a SMC 6 x 7 165mm 2.8, coupled it to a 2x tele, and started shooting. The lens was awesome, producing great images with stunning bokeh. Moreover, the close-focusing distance of this lens was just over 5 feet, which allowed amazing close-up shots. Ca/pf was under control, even in harsh lighting. This lens even weighed in less than the SMC 300 f4. And oooooooh, so sharp.

COST: I got the 2x tele for free in a purchase of a 400mm Sigma 5,6 on the Bay, and found the 165mm 6 x 7 on the Bay for about $90--shipped. So, for under $100 I had a Pentax 330mm 5,6 which produced beautiful photos--easily outperforming the SMC K, which I sold quicker than you can say “CA.”

[Just1MoreDave]

I noticed some unfavorable conditions this afternoon so here's my example. It's f5.6, 1/1000 and ISO 100. I have something worse if I can find it.

[yeatzee]

Another plus for the Takumar 18 blade version is the lack of prominent CA, purple fringing, etc.

[8540tomg]

Another plus for the Takumar 18 blade version is the lack of prominent CA, purple fringing, etc.

Yeatzee - No question the Tak is a fine lens but the SMC K 300/4 isn't exactly chopped liver:





Tom G

[Lowell Goudge]

Another plus for the Takumar 18 blade version is the lack of prominent CA, purple fringing, etc.

what I notice different between preset tak's and later SMC taks or K mounts is that the presets have more pronounced longitudinal CA as opposed to latteral CA, although they exhibit both to some extent, the typical effect you get with the presets is that foreground OOF subjects have a purple halo, and backgrouns OOF subjects have a green one. This is most obvious in your Immature Night Heron shot.

I don't have the 300 Tak preset,m, but I have a 200 F3.5 that exhibits the same thing

[Lowell Goudge]

Yeatzee - No question the Tak is a fine lens but the SMC K 300/4 isn't exactly chopped liver:





Tom G

No, I can't argue that one tom, as I have the same lens. but where I find CA on the 300 is visible also in your shots, just as you begin to move outside the depth of field, there is sometimes a purple edge. You can see it a little on the right hand side of your upside down finch. it is easy to get rid of in PP especially with the CA removal tool in PSP X3. I forget now what you are using.

Nice shots BTW

[Jewelltrail]

8540tomg: Yeatzee - No question the Tak is a fine lens but the SMC K 300/4 isn't exactly chopped liver:

I knew, if there was one person in the forum who could make this lens sing, it would be you. Those are excellent shots, though I'm sure you agree the light is favorable to your subject here.

[8540tomg]

I knew, if there was one person in the forum who could make this lens sing, it would be you. Those are excellent shots, though I'm sure you agree the light is favorable to your subject here.

Thanks Jewelltrail,

I have some perfectly horrible K 300/4 shots I could post as well. I have found if you work with a lens long enough you find its strengths and move on from there. It seems pointless to me to complain about what a lens can't do as they all have some drawbacks. I paid $200 for this lens twenty some years ago and it has served me well. I think it can still be had for around the $200 mark and for that price it remains a bargain IMO.

Tom G

[8540tomg]

No, I can't argue that one tom, as I have the same lens. but where I find CA on the 300 is visible also in your shots, just as you begin to move outside the depth of field, there is sometimes a purple edge. You can see it a little on the right hand side of your upside down finch. it is easy to get rid of in PP especially with the CA removal tool in PSP X3. I forget now what you are using.

Nice shots BTW

Thanks Lowell,

We are charter members of the K 300/4 club. I thought that PF was bokeh. No question the K 300/4 is prone to PF and CAs. In the first image I think it works to my advantage in the out of focus areas. You do need to remain aware of the background with this particular lens. That being said the same is true of all lenses but perhaps a bit more so with this one.

Cheers

Tom G