[emalvick]

You can just pick a sharp prime lens and use it for all shots. When you need reach, sharpness can allow you to crop. When you need wider perspectives, you can stitch multiple shots. One lens to rule them all

True... I already do that at the wider end. But there is a limit to the detail you get by cropping for added reach. I haven't quite tested enough to see what that limit is, but as a quick guess, trying to get the reach of a 100 mm lens out of a 50 mm shot would seem to lose you 75% of your resolution (that may not be right or exact). I would think that if it was that easy more people would do just that.

[emalvick]

This I completely agree with, especially the last sentence. Photography really helps to see things differently, to pay attention to even the smallest things, which would be otherwise easily ignored. In today's hectic world it gives a moment of peace and chance to really see where we live in.

As long as we chose to pay attention... I think digital photography in some regards has been a step backwards for me, and probably many others. I started with a film SLR growing up in the 80's and 90's. I only had 2 prime lenses and no money (high school and undergrad days). I had to conserve film, and my shots show it in the high quality results (as a percent of total shots) that I got. Post-processing wasn't a concern. The only thing I could really control was aperature, shutter speed, maybe light, and composition. Those last two things made a shot or didn't. It also made me think a lot more.

A digital camera changed that (a p&s to be exact). Now I had little control over exposure but the ability to snap photos to my hearts content and to post-process distracted me from the point of photography. It was too easy to take a photo of everything and lose sight of the art and composition. I knew I had lost that sight, which led me to a dSLR once I had a job. And I thank this forum and all the wonderful photographers pro, hobbyist, and so on for inspiring and reminding me of what's important.

I'm done digressing. I'm still browsing photos here, lens reviews, and so on. I may not take a long prime with me on my vacation, but I'd still like to play with one, even if it is old. I just love the way they feel. I also love that some of these lenses predate me (primes in general not necessarily the ones I'm looking at)

[audiobomber]

I have a DA 55-300mm and an A*300 f4. I find I'm carrying the prime exclusively. The size is almost the same, though the prime is twice as heavy. Both have lovely colour and contrast, CA is lower with the A lens. The prime is a stop faster, which is very important in this part of the world. Mainly, I am not satisfied with 100% crops at 300mm with the zoom, and the A lens holds resolution right down to pixel level (K20D). On a related theme, the zoom won't support a TC, it's too soft. The prime mates very well with the Kenko 1.5X.

I had a Sigma 150-500 OS which I returned. The A*300 with Kenko TC is just as long and significantly sharper.

[emalvick]

I have a DA 55-300mm and an A*300 f4. I find I'm carrying the prime exclusively. The size is almost the same, though the prime is twice as heavy. Both have lovely colour and contrast, CA is lower with the A lens. The prime is a stop faster, which is very important in this part of the world. Mainly, I am not satisfied with 100% crops at 300mm with the zoom, and the A lens holds resolution right down to pixel level (K20D). On a related theme, the zoom won't support a TC, it's too soft. The prime mates very well with the Kenko 1.5X.

I had a Sigma 150-500 OS which I returned. The A*300 with Kenko TC is just as long and significantly sharper.

Your response, was what I was somewhat expecting... and I find your size reference very useful. Twice as heavy doesn't sound horrible given that I think the zoom is quite light. It is nice to know that the size is almost the same. I think that would concern me more from a transportability standpoint.

I suppose the only real difference is that I see you are talking about the A. I hadn't really looked into that one. It seems a bit harder to come by and probably a bit more expensive. I'll have to keep my eye out. If I start getting to where such a lens is within half of what the DA 300 is, I'll probably hold out for the DA. Part of the appeal on the M300 was that I can find it for around $200. I'm not anxious to spend over $1000 for the DA, yet, but if an A*300 is going to run me over $500, I'll probably just wait on the DA. I'm a geeky engineer, I like log scales. 2 x more doesn't ever sound as bad as 10 x more.

[audiobomber]

The A usually runs around $450-500. The difference is worth it for auto aperture IMO.

[abacus07]

Neither the A or M are easy to find AFAIK. But getting the M* for $200 is a steal and makes it difficult to pass up imo. The lens review section has the M* selling for $400-550 and the A* selling for $500-700.