Pentax-A* 300mm f/2.8, wow

vonBaloney · 12-14-2013, 07:50 PM

So this just arrived, sharp as hell, and where are the aberrations?

Question for those who have or have used it -- there is little to no resistance/dampening in the focus ring. My Tamron Adaptall 400/4 is kinda the same way -- both are IF designs -- so probably normal, just wondering. First time I've touched any of these A* big telephotos.

Is the DA* 300/4 this good IQ-wise? I know it isn't as fast, but it is also cheaper, lighter, and has AF. I bought this on a whim since it came up and it was a good price (has some cosmetic paint loss) knowing I could sell it for at least what I paid for it, but it is so awesome I have a feeling the Tamron 400 (which is merely great compared to this) and a few others just became for sale. If I manage to hang onto it until an FF comes out, I imagine the value might go up again...

Adam · 12-14-2013, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

So this just arrived, sharp as hell, and where are the aberrations?

Question for those who have or have used it -- there is little to no resistance/dampening in the focus ring. My Tamron Adaptall 400/4 is kinda the same way -- both are IF designs -- so probably normal, just wondering. First time I've touched any of these A* big telephotos.

Is the DA* 300/4 this good IQ-wise? I know it isn't as fast, but it is also cheaper, lighter, and has AF. I bought this on a whim since it came up and it was a good price (has some cosmetic paint loss) knowing I could sell it for at least what I paid for it, but it is so awesome I have a feeling the Tamron 400 (which is merely great compared to this) and a few others just became for sale. If I manage to hang onto it until an FF comes out, I imagine the value might go up again...

The DA* 300's image quality is very impressive. I've never compared it directly to one of the faster 300s, but I don't see how it could be any worse, especially considering that lens tech has definitely evolved over the decades.

rawr · 12-14-2013, 10:19 PM

3kg for the A*300 vs 1kg for the DA*300.

That's all I need to know

.
I'm not strong enough to lug that around all day, plus camera(s), bag, tripod etc ...

siamthai · 12-15-2013, 12:17 AM

The DA*300 is an outstanding lens. A reason for using the A* 300mm must be if one need f/2.8.

vonBaloney · 12-15-2013, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by siamthai

The DA*300 is an outstanding lens. A reason for using the A* 300mm must be if one need f/2.8.

Yes, or a full-frame. (DA* 300/4 may do ok there too, we'll see.) This 300/2.8 is basically flawless image-wise, at least in my limited testing so far. Even with the 1.7x AFA, you're still getting top-notch prime quality -- turns it into a very nice semi-AF 500/4.5. Some people complain about the quality with the 1.7x, but it is great on a good prime lens -- I can only assume they are missing focus. Also the perfect lens to put on the Q! What to do, what to do...

goubejp · 12-15-2013, 02:21 AM

Mine had blue fringing on high contrasted areas, gone at f4.

Barbarosa · 12-15-2013, 04:05 AM

Need converter A 2x-l to make good birding machine.

GaryH · 12-15-2013, 04:59 AM

I have been through some of the lenses you mention. Ended up with the DA 300mm after selling my most excellent Adaptall 400 f4. It gave great reach with the AFA but the handling and use of large tripod and gimbal made it more work. I use the DA 300 without the AFA handheld quite a bit and with the AFA on a monopod. IQ is great and 300mm full AF is nice.

normhead · 12-15-2013, 08:35 AM

Especially for small birds, AF makes your life easier. But I love my A-400, but it's not a * and doesn't work well with the 1.7 converter.

vonBaloney · 12-15-2013, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by goubejp

Mine had blue fringing on high contrasted areas, gone at f4.

What was the focus action like?

ElJamoquio · 12-15-2013, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

Yes, or a full-frame. (DA* 300/4 may do ok there too, we'll see.) This 300/2.8 is basically flawless image-wise, at least in my limited testing so far. Even with the 1.7x AFA, you're still getting top-notch prime quality -- turns it into a very nice semi-AF 500/4.5. Some people complain about the quality with the 1.7x, but it is great on a good prime lens -- I can only assume they are missing focus. Also the perfect lens to put on the Q! What to do, what to do...

Never had a 300. Had a 600 briefly that had just absolutely wretched PF.

vonBaloney · 12-15-2013, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Never had a 300. Had a 600 briefly that had just absolutely wretched PF.

Yes, I've heard that. Seems completely absent here, although I will try to stress it this week. So far just been shooting out the window...

**PPPPPP42** · 12-17-2013, 02:12 PM

Dampening of manual focus in A lenses seems to be all a matter of grease. Some lenses seem to have very little grease in the gears or a very thin grease was used. Grease will also take up slop in a slightly loose front lens half (basically hydro locks the helicals together). You would have to send it to someone like Eric to have it completely cleaned out and very carefully and properly re-coated with the appropriate viscosity grease to add dampening. Even though I applied it super thinly and removed all excess before assembly, I used too heavy a grease by accident when I took my A50 1.4 apart (it had an issue) and now its over damped which is irritating considering its super long focus throw, so its easy to go too far the other way too.

goubejp · 12-17-2013, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Barbarosa

Need converter A 2x-l to make good birding machine.

Forget that. Results are good with the 1,4L, poor with the 2L (I tried both). No walkaround, must buy a long lens for birding - I went for the FA*600 and it's a great lens.

vonBaloney · 12-17-2013, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by PPPPPP42

Dampening of manual focus in A lenses seems to be all a matter of grease. Some lenses seem to have very little grease in the gears or a very thin grease was used. Grease will also take up slop in a slightly loose front lens half (basically hydro locks the helicals together). You would have to send it to someone like Eric to have it completely cleaned out and very carefully and properly re-coated with the appropriate viscosity grease to add dampening. Even though I applied it super thinly and removed all excess before assembly, I used too heavy a grease by accident when I took my A50 1.4 apart (it had an issue) and now its over damped which is irritating considering its super long focus throw, so its easy to go too far the other way too.

I have had/do have a number of other Pentax A lenses, some with more dampening, some with less, none of which have troubled me. This is the only internal focusing design though (nothing moves or extends externally on the lens) and you can hardly tell you are moving anything at all (inside) when turning the ring -- you can move it with one finger easily. It is very similar to the Tamron SP 400/4 which also moves pretty freely. (And both of which have a focus limiter so you can snap-in or make a hard stop at any particular position.) It is fine for me, I'm just wondering when it comes time to sell whether someone is going to complain about it so I'm wondering what the "official" amount of dampening is, or just how most of them are. I imagine the other big A* IF lenses would be the same (A* 400/2.8, A* 600/5.6).

12-14-2013, 07:50 PM	#1
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	*Pentax-A 300mm f/2.8, wow** So this just arrived, sharp as hell, and where are the aberrations? Question for those who have or have used it -- there is little to no resistance/dampening in the focus ring. My Tamron Adaptall 400/4 is kinda the same way -- both are IF designs -- so probably normal, just wondering. First time I've touched any of these A* big telephotos. Is the DA* 300/4 this good IQ-wise? I know it isn't as fast, but it is also cheaper, lighter, and has AF. I bought this on a whim since it came up and it was a good price (has some cosmetic paint loss) knowing I could sell it for at least what I paid for it, but it is so awesome I have a feeling the Tamron 400 (which is merely great compared to this) and a few others just became for sale. If I manage to hang onto it until an FF comes out, I imagine the value might go up again...

12-14-2013, 08:56 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Originally posted by vonBaloney So this just arrived, sharp as hell, and where are the aberrations? Question for those who have or have used it -- there is little to no resistance/dampening in the focus ring. My Tamron Adaptall 400/4 is kinda the same way -- both are IF designs -- so probably normal, just wondering. First time I've touched any of these A* big telephotos. Is the DA* 300/4 this good IQ-wise? I know it isn't as fast, but it is also cheaper, lighter, and has AF. I bought this on a whim since it came up and it was a good price (has some cosmetic paint loss) knowing I could sell it for at least what I paid for it, but it is so awesome I have a feeling the Tamron 400 (which is merely great compared to this) and a few others just became for sale. If I manage to hang onto it until an FF comes out, I imagine the value might go up again... The DA* 300's image quality is very impressive. I've never compared it directly to one of the faster 300s, but I don't see how it could be any worse, especially considering that lens tech has definitely evolved over the decades. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

12-15-2013, 04:59 AM	#8
GaryH Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Philadelphia, Pa Photos: Gallery Posts: 764	I have been through some of the lenses you mention. Ended up with the DA 300mm after selling my most excellent Adaptall 400 f4. It gave great reach with the AFA but the handling and use of large tripod and gimbal made it more work. I use the DA 300 without the AFA handheld quite a bit and with the AFA on a monopod. IQ is great and 300mm full AF is nice. Last edited by GaryH; 12-15-2013 at 07:12 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax-A 300mm f/2.8	jatrax	Pentax Price Watch	8	04-11-2013 01:35 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax-F 100mm f/2.8, Pentax-F 50mm f/1.7, Sigma 105mm f/2.8, and Sigma 24-60mm F/2.8	hiep2503	Sold Items	7	12-21-2012 09:13 AM
Pentax A* 300mm f/2.8	Fl_Gulfer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	02-10-2008 08:54 PM
If you had a choice: Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG vs. Pentax FA* 300mm f/2.8 ED IF [NOS?]	m8o	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	07-27-2007 07:27 AM

12-14-2013, 10:19 PM	#3
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	3kg for the A300 vs 1kg for the DA300. That's all I need to know . I'm not strong enough to lug that around all day, plus camera(s), bag, tripod etc ...

12-15-2013, 12:17 AM	#4
siamthai Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Svealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 172	The DA300 is an outstanding lens. A reason for using the A 300mm must be if one need f/2.8.

12-15-2013, 12:48 AM	#5
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029 Original Poster	Originally posted by siamthai The DA300 is an outstanding lens. A reason for using the A 300mm must be if one need f/2.8. Yes, or a full-frame. (DA* 300/4 may do ok there too, we'll see.) This 300/2.8 is basically flawless image-wise, at least in my limited testing so far. Even with the 1.7x AFA, you're still getting top-notch prime quality -- turns it into a very nice semi-AF 500/4.5. Some people complain about the quality with the 1.7x, but it is great on a good prime lens -- I can only assume they are missing focus. Also the perfect lens to put on the Q! What to do, what to do...

12-15-2013, 02:21 AM	#6
goubejp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: France Photos: Albums Posts: 804	Mine had blue fringing on high contrasted areas, gone at f4.

12-15-2013, 04:05 AM	#7
Barbarosa Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Sanski Most Posts: 147	Need converter A 2x-l to make good birding machine.

12-15-2013, 08:35 AM	#9
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Especially for small birds, AF makes your life easier. But I love my A-400, but it's not a * and doesn't work well with the 1.7 converter.

12-15-2013, 10:50 AM	#10
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029 Original Poster	Originally posted by goubejp Mine had blue fringing on high contrasted areas, gone at f4. What was the focus action like?

12-15-2013, 01:51 PM	#11
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by vonBaloney Yes, or a full-frame. (DA* 300/4 may do ok there too, we'll see.) This 300/2.8 is basically flawless image-wise, at least in my limited testing so far. Even with the 1.7x AFA, you're still getting top-notch prime quality -- turns it into a very nice semi-AF 500/4.5. Some people complain about the quality with the 1.7x, but it is great on a good prime lens -- I can only assume they are missing focus. Also the perfect lens to put on the Q! What to do, what to do... Never had a 300. Had a 600 briefly that had just absolutely wretched PF.

12-15-2013, 02:29 PM	#12
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029 Original Poster	Originally posted by ElJamoquio Never had a 300. Had a 600 briefly that had just absolutely wretched PF. Yes, I've heard that. Seems completely absent here, although I will try to stress it this week. So far just been shooting out the window...

12-17-2013, 02:12 PM	#13
PPPPPP42 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Albums Posts: 947	Dampening of manual focus in A lenses seems to be all a matter of grease. Some lenses seem to have very little grease in the gears or a very thin grease was used. Grease will also take up slop in a slightly loose front lens half (basically hydro locks the helicals together). You would have to send it to someone like Eric to have it completely cleaned out and very carefully and properly re-coated with the appropriate viscosity grease to add dampening. Even though I applied it super thinly and removed all excess before assembly, I used too heavy a grease by accident when I took my A50 1.4 apart (it had an issue) and now its over damped which is irritating considering its super long focus throw, so its easy to go too far the other way too.

12-17-2013, 02:56 PM	#14
goubejp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: France Photos: Albums Posts: 804	Originally posted by Barbarosa Need converter A 2x-l to make good birding machine. Forget that. Results are good with the 1,4L, poor with the 2L (I tried both). No walkaround, must buy a long lens for birding - I went for the FA*600 and it's a great lens.

12-17-2013, 03:08 PM	#15
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029 Original Poster	Originally posted by PPPPPP42 Dampening of manual focus in A lenses seems to be all a matter of grease. Some lenses seem to have very little grease in the gears or a very thin grease was used. Grease will also take up slop in a slightly loose front lens half (basically hydro locks the helicals together). You would have to send it to someone like Eric to have it completely cleaned out and very carefully and properly re-coated with the appropriate viscosity grease to add dampening. Even though I applied it super thinly and removed all excess before assembly, I used too heavy a grease by accident when I took my A50 1.4 apart (it had an issue) and now its over damped which is irritating considering its super long focus throw, so its easy to go too far the other way too. I have had/do have a number of other Pentax A lenses, some with more dampening, some with less, none of which have troubled me. This is the only internal focusing design though (nothing moves or extends externally on the lens) and you can hardly tell you are moving anything at all (inside) when turning the ring -- you can move it with one finger easily. It is very similar to the Tamron SP 400/4 which also moves pretty freely. (And both of which have a focus limiter so you can snap-in or make a hard stop at any particular position.) It is fine for me, I'm just wondering when it comes time to sell whether someone is going to complain about it so I'm wondering what the "official" amount of dampening is, or just how most of them are. I imagine the other big A* IF lenses would be the same (A* 400/2.8, A* 600/5.6).