DA*300 vs 150-500 birding

Reptilezz · 10-13-2013, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

It does not become a 600mm. It's a 400mm with the edges cut off.

I use a DA L 55-300, often with a 1.4x tele-converter, for birding. I don't shoot from a blind, I just walk quietly in the woods and hope something comes in range...guerrilla birding. Something longer would be nice, but I value portability over all else.

Beaver Lake May 20, 2013 - a set on Flickr

Great Bear Jun 01, 2013 - a set on Flickr

Great Bear Jun 12, 2013 - a set on Flickr

Great Bear Jun 15, 2013 - a set on Flickr

The only reason I would want a longer lens is for shooting Montezuma. Maybe one day I will be able to afford one. In the meantime I think a Q with a K adapter might work. I'll have to get one before the spring migration.

Montezuma NWR & Audubon May 04, 2013 - a set on Flickr

Montezuma NWR Jun 19, 2013 - a set on Flickr

Aug 11, 2013 - Montezuma NWR - a set on Flickr

Montezuma Aug 31, 2013 - a set on Flickr

Montezuma - Sep 15, 2013 - a set on Flickr

Wow i love the yellow bird! Does the 1.4x tc give better image quality than the 1.7x?

Reptilezz · 10-13-2013, 01:13 PM

Just incase it matters, i mainly shoot small honey eaters, kingfishers (depending on what time of year, is summer in Australia atm), Crested Hawks (here every day), and medium sized birds like magpie size. I think the main size of birds that i shoot are about the same size as robins.

derekkite · 10-13-2013, 01:42 PM

Another consideration is auto focus. The 150-500 is very nice on my k5, but the da300 is troublesome. later bodies might be different.

Reptilezz · 10-13-2013, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by derekkite

Another consideration is auto focus. The 150-500 is very nice on my k5, but the da300 is troublesome. later bodies might be different.

Oh really? I would have thought the DA300 would have been faster?

**Miguel** · 10-13-2013, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Reptilezz

Just incase it matters, i mainly shoot small honey eaters, kingfishers (depending on what time of year, is summer in Australia atm), Crested Hawks (here every day), and medium sized birds like magpie size. I think the main size of birds that i shoot are about the same size as robins.

Seems like you need a really fast focusing and large aperture lens. Are there 300mm f2.8 lenses for Pentax?

M

Reptilezz · 10-13-2013, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Miguel

Seems like you need a really fast focusing and large aperture lens. Are there 300mm f2.8 lenses for Pentax?

M

Yes there is a tamron adaptall 300mm f2.8 and a sigma as well but im not sure if the sigma has a pentax mount. I dont really want a 300 f2.8 yet though because i dont have a good enough tripod lol.

RobG · 10-13-2013, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Michaelina2

Since you are probably going to post process, crop and most likely use manual focus to make a successful image, anyway, you might consider a Q7 with PK adapter.

The Q7 with PK adapter is manual focus only, correct?

RollsUp · 10-13-2013, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by woodywesty

I know I need to have 500mm of real magnification and a 1.4 teleconvertor on on a 300mm will only get me in the range of 450mm. This is a "game changer" as it looks like the Sigma 500mm is the only real option.

There's the SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter if you can find one. Your DA* will become a 510mm F6.7 lens when used with this TC.

OJGoreng · 10-13-2013, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Reptilezz

Yes there is a tamron adaptall 300mm f2.8 and a sigma as well but im not sure if the sigma has a pentax mount. I dont really want a 300 f2.8 yet though because i dont have a good enough tripod lol.

The current Sigma one comes in Pentax mount and works with their dedicated teleconverters (not all of their Pentax mount lenses do; the supertelezooms don't, for instance), so it's easily converted into a f/5.6 600mm. It's a large chunk of money, though, though even with the price of the 2x converter added still a bit less expensive than the f/4.5 500 and a lot less than the Pentax f/5.6 560. I don't think I've seen any sample shots with this combo on a Pentax though. Also, it only works with screw-drive AF, which may be cumbersome if you try to creep up on something due to the noise.

One thing that hasn't come up.... do you insist on buying new? If not, you might consider getting the DA* for its IQ, and a used older Sigma as a supplement for certain situations. I think the going rate of the old model I have (first version 170-500) is in the order of about €300. Might be different over there, but then there's German eBay.

**Michaelina2** · 10-13-2013, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by RobG

The Q7 with PK adapter is manual focus only, correct?

Yes... With the PK adapter, it's an almost 'back to basics' manual everything setup. To assist with focus fine tuning, the camera permits 'focus peaking' the image, plus it can be 'zoomed,' or enlarged in the view finder for confirmation.

An extensive discussion of adapted lens use can be found, here...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images.html

Also, if you decide to go this route, I highly recommend the Pentax branded PK adapter. At first it seems kinda pricey, but it is precision built and makes using the Q system much more effective and enjoyable.

Now, if you really really need AF, look into the Q-mount 06 Telephoto lens. Its reach has limits, but it punches well above its weight.

Cheers... M

RobG · 10-13-2013, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Michaelina2

Yes... With the PK adapter, it's an almost 'back to basics' manual everything setup. To assist with focus fine tuning, the camera permits 'focus peaking' the image, plus it can be 'zoomed,' or enlarged in the view finder for confirmation.

Ah, that's a shame. It makes the Q much less of an option for me at least. Wit a split image focussing screen it might be ok, but the standard Pentax screen just isn't bright enough for me to judge focus accurately manually.

**boriscleto** · 10-13-2013, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by RobG

Ah, that's a shame. It makes the Q much less of an option for me at least. Wit a split image focussing screen it might be ok, but the standard Pentax screen just isn't bright enough for me to judge focus accurately manually.

The Q doesn't have an OVF, only the rear LCD.

**Michaelina2** · 10-13-2013, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by woodywesty

It appears that I have been "confused" while reading all the lens descriptions on the B&H web site. Various descriptions like "equivalent to 859mm in 35mm format", "comparable APS-C focal length: 450mm" had me thinking that I would get 450mm of magnification instead of 300mm. Now that I see that I would get no more magnification out of the DA 300mm than my old Super Takumar 300mm I have no need for the DA 300mm. I know I need to have 500mm of real magnification and a 1.4 teleconvertor on on a 300mm will only get me in the range of 450mm. This is a "game changer" as it looks like the Sigma 500mm is the only real option.

Assuming your goal is to produce a subject that is pleasingly in focus...

Do not overlook the DOF gain of a 300mm lens cropped to 450mm (APS-C) vs. a true 450mm lens (FF).

For example, using a 300mm lens with a subject at 50 feet distant @ f/4.0, the DOF is 1.33 ft. The DOF of the 450mm lens (all else being the same) is 0.58 feet. This is a huge advantage for the lighter/maneuverable 300mm (crop 450mm), over the much heavier/clumsy 450mm (FF).

Fine tune the example to fit your anticipated circumstances, then calculate it yourself...

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Most modern higher density sensors can easily handle further image cropping during post processing. I've been shooting the DA*300/4 at wildlife subjects since 2008 starting with the K-20 and working thru to the K5IIs. Out of my thousands of successful hand-held images, I can count on one hand the number of times a longer FL may have helped (I have a Pentax 1.7 TC, too.).

...my 2 cents... M

**Michaelina2** · 10-13-2013, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by RobG

Ah, that's a shame. It makes the Q much less of an option for me at least. Wit a split image focussing screen it might be ok, but the standard Pentax screen just isn't bright enough for me to judge focus accurately manually.

Granted, all of this does not seem as convenient as a DSLR for 'snap' type shooting.

In actual practice, using the rear focus screen works much better than one might initially imagine. All it takes is some outside-the-box thinking. Plus, it does not seem to present problems for me and I'm over 70yo with slowly developing cataracts .

BTW: Did you read through the link I provided to see how others deal with it?

Cheers... M

RobG · 10-13-2013, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

The Q doesn't have an OVF, only the rear LCD.

Oh, I forgot that. It would be useless then. First I'd need bifocal glasses to be able to switch from spotting the subject to looking at the LCD, and holding it at arm's length with a DA300 on the end would be pretty awkward.

Definitely tripod territory IMO.

10-13-2013, 04:34 PM	#39
OJGoreng Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Amsterdam Photos: Gallery Posts: 197	Originally posted by Reptilezz Yes there is a tamron adaptall 300mm f2.8 and a sigma as well but im not sure if the sigma has a pentax mount. I dont really want a 300 f2.8 yet though because i dont have a good enough tripod lol. The current Sigma one comes in Pentax mount and works with their dedicated teleconverters (not all of their Pentax mount lenses do; the supertelezooms don't, for instance), so it's easily converted into a f/5.6 600mm. It's a large chunk of money, though, though even with the price of the 2x converter added still a bit less expensive than the f/4.5 500 and a lot less than the Pentax f/5.6 560. I don't think I've seen any sample shots with this combo on a Pentax though. Also, it only works with screw-drive AF, which may be cumbersome if you try to creep up on something due to the noise. One thing that hasn't come up.... do you insist on buying new? If not, you might consider getting the DA* for its IQ, and a used older Sigma as a supplement for certain situations. I think the going rate of the old model I have (first version 170-500) is in the order of about €300. Might be different over there, but then there's German eBay. Last edited by OJGoreng; 10-13-2013 at 04:40 PM. Reason: Because I should type on a black keyboard in the dark

10-13-2013, 06:20 PM	#43
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,300	Originally posted by woodywesty It appears that I have been "confused" while reading all the lens descriptions on the B&H web site. Various descriptions like "equivalent to 859mm in 35mm format", "comparable APS-C focal length: 450mm" had me thinking that I would get 450mm of magnification instead of 300mm. Now that I see that I would get no more magnification out of the DA 300mm than my old Super Takumar 300mm I have no need for the DA 300mm. I know I need to have 500mm of real magnification and a 1.4 teleconvertor on on a 300mm will only get me in the range of 450mm. This is a "game changer" as it looks like the Sigma 500mm is the only real option. Assuming your goal is to produce a subject that is pleasingly in focus... Do not overlook the DOF gain of a 300mm lens cropped to 450mm (APS-C) vs. a true 450mm lens (FF). For example, using a 300mm lens with a subject at 50 feet distant @ f/4.0, the DOF is 1.33 ft. The DOF of the 450mm lens (all else being the same) is 0.58 feet. This is a huge advantage for the lighter/maneuverable 300mm (crop 450mm), over the much heavier/clumsy 450mm (FF). Fine tune the example to fit your anticipated circumstances, then calculate it yourself... Online Depth of Field Calculator Most modern higher density sensors can easily handle further image cropping during post processing. I've been shooting the DA300/4 at wildlife subjects since 2008 starting with the K-20 and working thru to the K5IIs. Out of my thousands of successful hand-held images, I can count on one hand the number of times a longer FL may have helped (I have a Pentax 1.7 TC, too.). ...my 2 cents... M Last edited by Michaelina2; 10-13-2013 at 06:39 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA*300 versus Sigma 150-500	RockvilleBob	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	09-17-2012 08:39 PM
Garden Tests : DA*300 vs Tokina 300/2.8 vs Tamron BB 500, plus TCs	Frogfish	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	07-19-2012 10:15 AM
Sigma 50-500 vs Sigma 150-500	slackercruster	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	04-10-2012 05:33 AM
Sigma 50-500 vs 150-500 vs 170-500	juanraortiz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	10-30-2009 03:32 PM

10-13-2013, 01:09 PM	#31
Reptilezz Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 206 Original Poster	Originally posted by boriscleto It does not become a 600mm. It's a 400mm with the edges cut off. I use a DA L 55-300, often with a 1.4x tele-converter, for birding. I don't shoot from a blind, I just walk quietly in the woods and hope something comes in range...guerrilla birding. Something longer would be nice, but I value portability over all else. Beaver Lake May 20, 2013 - a set on Flickr Great Bear Jun 01, 2013 - a set on Flickr Great Bear Jun 12, 2013 - a set on Flickr Great Bear Jun 15, 2013 - a set on Flickr The only reason I would want a longer lens is for shooting Montezuma. Maybe one day I will be able to afford one. In the meantime I think a Q with a K adapter might work. I'll have to get one before the spring migration. Montezuma NWR & Audubon May 04, 2013 - a set on Flickr Montezuma NWR Jun 19, 2013 - a set on Flickr Aug 11, 2013 - Montezuma NWR - a set on Flickr Montezuma Aug 31, 2013 - a set on Flickr Montezuma - Sep 15, 2013 - a set on Flickr Wow i love the yellow bird! Does the 1.4x tc give better image quality than the 1.7x?

10-13-2013, 01:13 PM	#32
Reptilezz Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 206 Original Poster	Just incase it matters, i mainly shoot small honey eaters, kingfishers (depending on what time of year, is summer in Australia atm), Crested Hawks (here every day), and medium sized birds like magpie size. I think the main size of birds that i shoot are about the same size as robins.

10-13-2013, 01:42 PM	#33
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Another consideration is auto focus. The 150-500 is very nice on my k5, but the da300 is troublesome. later bodies might be different.

10-13-2013, 01:48 PM	#34
Reptilezz Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 206 Original Poster	Originally posted by derekkite Another consideration is auto focus. The 150-500 is very nice on my k5, but the da300 is troublesome. later bodies might be different. Oh really? I would have thought the DA300 would have been faster?

10-13-2013, 01:50 PM	#35
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	Originally posted by Reptilezz Just incase it matters, i mainly shoot small honey eaters, kingfishers (depending on what time of year, is summer in Australia atm), Crested Hawks (here every day), and medium sized birds like magpie size. I think the main size of birds that i shoot are about the same size as robins. Seems like you need a really fast focusing and large aperture lens. Are there 300mm f2.8 lenses for Pentax? M

10-13-2013, 01:54 PM	#36
Reptilezz Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 206 Original Poster	Originally posted by Miguel Seems like you need a really fast focusing and large aperture lens. Are there 300mm f2.8 lenses for Pentax? M Yes there is a tamron adaptall 300mm f2.8 and a sigma as well but im not sure if the sigma has a pentax mount. I dont really want a 300 f2.8 yet though because i dont have a good enough tripod lol.

10-13-2013, 03:19 PM	#37
RobG Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Canberra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,888	Originally posted by Michaelina2 Since you are probably going to post process, crop and most likely use manual focus to make a successful image, anyway, you might consider a Q7 with PK adapter. The Q7 with PK adapter is manual focus only, correct?

10-13-2013, 04:22 PM	#38
RollsUp Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: AK USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,766	Originally posted by woodywesty I know I need to have 500mm of real magnification and a 1.4 teleconvertor on on a 300mm will only get me in the range of 450mm. This is a "game changer" as it looks like the Sigma 500mm is the only real option. There's the SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter if you can find one. Your DA* will become a 510mm F6.7 lens when used with this TC.

10-13-2013, 05:20 PM	#40
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,300	Originally posted by RobG The Q7 with PK adapter is manual focus only, correct? Yes... With the PK adapter, it's an almost 'back to basics' manual everything setup. To assist with focus fine tuning, the camera permits 'focus peaking' the image, plus it can be 'zoomed,' or enlarged in the view finder for confirmation. An extensive discussion of adapted lens use can be found, here... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/173602-reach-q-images.html Also, if you decide to go this route, I highly recommend the Pentax branded PK adapter. At first it seems kinda pricey, but it is precision built and makes using the Q system much more effective and enjoyable. Now, if you really really need AF, look into the Q-mount 06 Telephoto lens. Its reach has limits, but it punches well above its weight. Cheers... M

10-13-2013, 05:56 PM	#41
RobG Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Canberra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,888	Originally posted by Michaelina2 Yes... With the PK adapter, it's an almost 'back to basics' manual everything setup. To assist with focus fine tuning, the camera permits 'focus peaking' the image, plus it can be 'zoomed,' or enlarged in the view finder for confirmation. Ah, that's a shame. It makes the Q much less of an option for me at least. Wit a split image focussing screen it might be ok, but the standard Pentax screen just isn't bright enough for me to judge focus accurately manually.

10-13-2013, 06:16 PM	#42
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by RobG Ah, that's a shame. It makes the Q much less of an option for me at least. Wit a split image focussing screen it might be ok, but the standard Pentax screen just isn't bright enough for me to judge focus accurately manually. The Q doesn't have an OVF, only the rear LCD.

10-13-2013, 06:38 PM	#44
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,300	Originally posted by RobG Ah, that's a shame. It makes the Q much less of an option for me at least. Wit a split image focussing screen it might be ok, but the standard Pentax screen just isn't bright enough for me to judge focus accurately manually. Granted, all of this does not seem as convenient as a DSLR for 'snap' type shooting. In actual practice, using the rear focus screen works much better than one might initially imagine. All it takes is some outside-the-box thinking. Plus, it does not seem to present problems for me and I'm over 70yo with slowly developing cataracts . BTW: Did you read through the link I provided to see how others deal with it? Cheers... M

10-13-2013, 07:21 PM	#45
RobG Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Canberra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,888	Originally posted by boriscleto The Q doesn't have an OVF, only the rear LCD. Oh, I forgot that. It would be useless then. First I'd need bifocal glasses to be able to switch from spotting the subject to looking at the LCD, and holding it at arm's length with a DA300 on the end would be pretty awkward. Definitely tripod territory IMO.