[Jean Poitiers]

Also, can anyone tell me about the A* 200mm macro? At 1.5 grand seems WAY overpriced, with the sharpness of current macros, how does it compare with the 100mm pentax and 90mm tmron?

I had a Tamron 90 before I got a D FA 100 WR ... the Pentax is better IMHO and worth the extra price over the Tamron macro. Check out the PF user reviews for both lens ... J

[gooseta]

thanks, i will check out the 100 macro

[Blue]

So would you recommend the 100mm, 50, or 70?

Sigma also discontinued the 105mm EX DG macro which is unfortunate because it was a great macro lens. However, the D FA 100/2.8 WR macro by Pentax is hard to beat in that focal range. The Sigma 70 is a good lens as well.

[audiobomber]

So you're saying that the 300 with 1.5 is as good at the 150-500 at 450? Also can you tell me if there is any iq difference between m* 300 and a* 300?

I've never tried an M*300mm, but it seems to be the same formula (groups, elements, blades) as the A*300. AFAIC, manual focus is slow and tricky enough on a long tele without having to worry about exposure too. I don't think the savings in cost between M and A would be worthwhile.

I was saying two separate things about the A*300 vs Sigma 150-500mm, which I think you've intermixed:

1. My A*300 with Kenko 1.5X was sharper than the Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM at 500mm (but more CA).

2. The Sigma was often shorter than the 300mm plus TC in actual use, because it loses range at distances less than infinity. Check the graph below to see what I mean. This fellow plotted actual focal length vs. subject distance for the 150-500 at maximum zoom. For example at 4 meters subject distance, a common subject distance for birding, the Sigma has an effective focal length of about 365mm. The A*300mm is not an internal focus lens, therefore doesn't shorten like this.

Focal Length versus Subject Distance - Sigma 150-500mm

[Vindemiatrix]

The d fa 100 wr is worth every penny, I bought mine used for 525 but would've paid full price no doubt.

[bdery]

The d fa 100 wr is worth every penny

That is true. It's true of most Pentax lenses, actually. No dogs in the current lineup.

[gooseta]

I've never tried an M*300mm, but it seems to be the same formula (groups, elements, blades) as the A*300. AFAIC, manual focus is slow and tricky enough on a long tele without having to worry about exposure too. I don't think the savings in cost between M and A would be worthwhile.

I was saying two separate things about the A*300 vs Sigma 150-500mm, which I think you've intermixed:

1. My A*300 with Kenko 1.5X was sharper than the Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM at 500mm (but more CA).

2. The Sigma was often shorter than the 300mm plus TC in actual use, because it loses range at distances less than infinity. Check the graph below to see what I mean. This fellow plotted actual focal length vs. subject distance for the 150-500 at maximum zoom. For example at 4 meters subject distance, a common subject distance for birding, the Sigma has an effective focal length of about 365mm. The A*300mm is not an internal focus lens, therefore doesn't shorten like this.

Focal Length versus Subject Distance - Sigma 150-500mm

Does the pentax DA* 300mm have this issue too?
Also to the person who said it's a small saving, the M*300 is £400, while the DA* is £900 if you're lucky, Like i said I LIKE mf on long teles, because when /I shoot planes i dont like the af moving around.

[audiobomber]

Does the pentax DA* 300mm have this issue too?
Also to the person who said it's a small saving, the M*300 is £400, while the DA* is £900 if you're lucky, Like i said I LIKE mf on long teles, because when /I shoot planes i dont like the af moving around.

The DA*300mm is an IF lens, therefore range does decrease with subject distance. From anything I've seen on this topic, primes do not suffer nearly as much loss in range as zooms.

If you are talking about my comment on small savings, I was not comparing the cost of the M*300 to the DA*300. I was comparing the cost of the M*300 and A*300. I believe the difference is around $100-200, well worth it to me (YMMV).
M*300mm - manual focus, manual exposure only
A*300mm - manual focus, auto exposure
DA*300mm - auto focus, auto exposure

[ihasa]

Re the 35mm, I'd stick with the f2.4 which is just as good, optically as the 35/2. The difference in max aperture is negligible IMHO. The 31mm might be a tempting upgrade in the future but I wouldn't make it a priority.

[gooseta]

So should i go with the DA 300 or M 300

[derekkite]

Is the metering mode for M lenses done with the Green button?

[audiobomber]

So should i go with the DA 300 or M 300

If you want to save money, I recommend neither, get the A*300mm. If you want the best, get the DA*300.

Is the metering mode for M lenses done with the Green button?

Yes, but the way you've stated it is confusing. Metering mode and metering are different concepts. Metering mode is how the camera meters
- across most of the frame (Matrix),
- in the center of the frame (Center Weighted), or
- center point only (Spot).
Manual exposure (M) lenses cannot use Matrix metering. They also cannot use P-TTL flash.

Pressing the Green button will set shutter speed to correctly expose at the selected ISO and mechanical aperture setting.

[derekkite]

I've never had an M lens, but used K lenses. For a long lens if the usage is wildlife or something not static, the green button metering is not very useful. This would be a consideration between the DA* and the M* 300mm.

[audiobomber]

I've never had an M lens, but used K lenses. For a long lens if the usage is wildlife or something not static, the green button metering is not very useful. This would be a consideration between the DA* and the M* 300mm.

I agree, that's why I much prefer the A*300 to the otherwise identical M*300.

[gooseta]

but I LIKE MANUAL EXPOSURE! Anyway I have decided either M or DA.