[cadart]

I need help. I cannot decide whether I want get the da 300mm or 60-250 zoom.
Both are by reputation fantastic lenses but if you had to choose between them what would you go for??
Personally I like the flexibility of a zoom but will I get a better IQ from the prime 300????
And they are about the same price.
What does everyone think???????
Cheers in advance for feedback because I really need to be swayed either way. (Yes I am weak)

[mushin]

Do you have a specific need for a 300mm lens? In my experience, a 300mm is too long for most things and not long enough to reach out for wildlife. Unless you really need a 300, I think the 60-250 is far more versatile and it is an incredibly sharp lens. I'm not sure it will beat the 300mm prime but even if it doesn't it is still a better use of some serious bucks as far as I'm concerned.

[cadart]

i dont really have a specific need for the 300mm but i do like getting a picture that you can only get with a telephoto.
but i really do like the option of zooming in or out if i need to. Some might say i would regret getting the 300mm because i then wont have the
option of zooming but if the iq of the 300mm is alot better, i think i would forget about that......but i just dont know!!!!

[Anvh]

I've used the DA*60-250 a couple of times, it's sharp and good but i never really liked it. The Sigma 100-300 was more my cup of tea and i liked the DA*300 also better.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good lens, it's not for nothing a lot of people like it but i simply couldn't appreciate the renders and the handling of the lens.

[DSims]

I tried to DA*60-250, and that helped me decide I didn't want one. I did like the DA*300, although I opted for the older F* version.

Because any of the *300 lenses will give you very nice images with great subject isolation, I think that's the better choice. Really, you should have that plus something like the DA*50-135 if you don't already.


What's interesting is when you have a longer prime you take what fits in the frame, and you quickly realize that what fits can be very interesting and an appropriate way to capture the subject. Because of the IQ and subject isolation it doesn't seem like a handicap to me. I decided to go with just primes over 135mm (which means a K200/2.5 and an F*300/4.5) - with the Pentax system you'll get better IQ that way, unless you have the relatively rare Pentax FA*80-200.

When I'm using the 200 I usually think I don't need a 300, and when I'm using the 300 I think I'm fine without a 200. It just goes to show you that you can really work with what you've got either way. But I like them both very much, and they're quite different from each other (one being MF, for example), so I plan to keep them both. So I use the 200 when I want its beautiful rendering or its smaller size. If I need AF I take the 300 and FA135 or DA*50-135 - it doesn't cause a problem that I don't have anything in-between. I know any of these lenses will give me good images, and that's what matters to me.


So my advice to you is to try the 300. If after using it a while you really find that the lack of zoom is a problem for you, then return it or re-sell it. If you don't try you'll never know, and you'll be missing out on a lot. If you try the 60-250 first you'll never know how much more compelling your images could be - and for me, that's the whole point of taking photos.

[DVaughan007]

Hey,

I am facing a similar dilemah. I aim to use mine for sport (mainly surfing) pics. Currently i use the DA 55-300 or DA*50-135. The latter if the break is close to shore. I was also considering picking up a cannon 400 f5.6L or 100-400L dont want to though! I figured the 60-250 would also be useful for video however I find 300mm is much needed. I also eagerly await the release of our SDM teleconverter! which I presume would work more effectively on a prime?

hope my thoughts aid yours
Goodluck

[EricBrown]

I can't speak for the 60-250, but have only heard/read good things about it. I do have the DA 300 and I do love it. Build and image quality are excellent. You will get close in tight isolation shots which I like to do. But, I feel you won't go wrong with either lens.

[Sandy Hancock]

I sold my DA*60-250 on. Although it was compact at 60mm, it became HUGE at 250mm. Its close-up performance was also well behind the DA*300 or my Sigma 80-200. Although the IQ was perfectly fine it didn't dazzle me.

The DA*300 will only be prised from my cold, dead hands.

[Anvh]

I am facing a similar dilemah. I aim to use mine for sport (mainly surfing) pics. Currently i use the DA 55-300 or DA*50-135. The latter if the break is close to shore. I was also considering picking up a cannon 400 f5.6L or 100-400L dont want to though! I figured the 60-250 would also be useful for video however I find 300mm is much needed. I also eagerly await the release of our SDM teleconverter! which I presume would work more effectively on a prime?

Difference between 250mm and 300mm isn't that great, it's only 20% difference regarding the AOV, so a few degrees.

You could look at the Sigma 100-300, it focus faster and better connect with the DA*50-135.

Primes indeed work better on TC.

[Kerrowdown]

I would go for the prime, for no other reason than I'm a prime man.

I have an older cousin the SMC Pentax-A* 300mm F4, which I admit doesn't get used that often, that's because of the type of photography I do, not a reflection on the lens.

But, that having been said, when it's needed it does deliver.

[bdery]

Personally I like the flexibility of a zoom but will I get a better IQ from the prime 300????

Marginally better, but not leagues ahead.

It's really a personal choice. I could not see me using a fixed focal length at 300mm, too restricted. So I chose the 60-250. It's much more convenient, and when I want to use a tele, I rarely want to use ONLY a tele. But if you intend, say, to go birding with it, then you will always use it at the longest focal length, so a 300 could make sense.

In short, go with your intended use.

[baro-nite]

Difference between 250mm and 300mm isn't that great, it's only 20% difference regarding the AOV, so a few degrees.

I bought the 60-250 thinking the same thing, but then discovered that the 60-250 undergoes a surprisingly large reduction in effective focal length as you shorten the focus distance. At 6 meters the 60-250 at full zoom has about the same angle of view as the DA*200. That's one reason I sold the 60-250 and bought the 300; I need the reach more than I need the zoom capability. Other than that I was very impressed by the 60-250.

[stormtech]

I bought the 60-250 thinking the same thing, but then discovered that the 60-250 undergoes a surprisingly large reduction in effective focal length as you shorten the focus distance. At 6 meters the 60-250 at full zoom has about the same angle of view as the DA*200. That's one reason I sold the 60-250 and bought the 300; I need the reach more than I need the zoom capability. Other than that I was very impressed by the 60-250.

For that exact reasoning is why I ended up owning both lenses. A lot of our shooting is with small song birds that are ~20-30' away. So in effect, the 60-250 is more like a 60-200, then also have the 300. This works out well as my wife and I shoot together a lot, and she likes a zoom better and I like a long prime - best of both worlds.

[joe.penn]

I had the DA*300, fantastic lens and hard to beat for the build quality and the image quality, this lens can also be really sharp. I now shoot with the Sigma 300 2.8 and the Sigma 100~300 f/4. The 100~300 gives me what I need in the way of composition when popping up close on wildlife while the 300 prime gives me what I need while flushing out wildlife along the river banks for bird-in-motion shots.

Now, as mentioned, if you are intending to use it for birding, what kind of birding? If you are just out wondering around the woods or fields for birds, something longer than 300 would be needed (unless you are some sort of ninja and can WALK/SNEAK UP on birds without them noticing).

[Anvh]

I bought the 60-250 thinking the same thing, but then discovered that the 60-250 undergoes a surprisingly large reduction in effective focal length as you shorten the focus distance. At 6 meters the 60-250 at full zoom has about the same angle of view as the DA*200. That's one reason I sold the 60-250 and bought the 300; I need the reach more than I need the zoom capability. Other than that I was very impressed by the 60-250.

Yeah close focusing, the focal length is indeed when the lens is at infinite pont of focus.

I'm curious though, you are talking about reach at 6 meters, how should i picture that?