[Swarf]

I'm thinking about getting a mid/long range zoom. The Pentax 60-250 is too pricey, so either the Pentax HD DA 55-300 or the Sigma 120 - 400 seem favourite. I'll be using it for some wildlife and some landscape.

What would you suggest and why?

Phil

[hcc]

The 55-300 WR lens would be an excellent choice if your camera is WR. Alternately the 55-300mm (non WR) is another great choice. The 55-300mm lens was regarded as an excellent value of money lens.

In addition, if you have a Pentax camera, it makes sense to use Pentax lens because it is recognised by the camera if you need to use in-camera processing (eg distortion correction).

My 5 cents...

[jatrax]

55-300 is hard to beat. Unless you need 400 in which case it is useless. I`m not sure it is fair to compare those two, they have different design purposes.

55-300 is a more versatile range. I think 120mm is too long for most landscapes. The 120-400 might be better for wildlife but the 55-300 is a very good general telephoto.

[savoche]

Yep, the 55-300 is very versatile. I'm very happy with some of the landscapes I have shot with it. I think 120mm is a bit too long for that most of the time.

On the other hand, I'd say 300mm is too short for birding, at least for smaller birds.

Another thing is that the 55-300 is small and light compared to almost anything in that range. You will be thankful for that when hiking.

[miltona580]

I have the DA L version of the 55-300. It's not as good as the premium DA* lens, but its pretty darn good. I would not hesitate to recommend it with the caveat that IQ is not as good as the DA* lens, but its still better than anything old other than the f/2.8 constant zoom lenses. It blows away my older consumer grade zooms from the 90s.

[Des]

I think 120mm is too long for most landscapes.

I agree. In fact, even 55mm is often too long for landscapes. Whether you opt for the 120-400 or the 55-300, you will probably find yourself carrying one or more extra lenses (e.g. 12-24, 16-45, 17-70, 18-55, 18-135, or one or two of the compact wide-normal primes, possibly including a macro lens).

Getting much beyond 300mm in Pentax, on a budget, involves a lot of compromises. See this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/235233-what...in-budget.html
You either pay top dollar for a good 300mm prime + teleconverter (even a Pentax-F or FA 300 costs close to $1000), hunt for a good 400mm prime (uncommon, expensive, bulky and heavy), or get one of the big heavy bulky zooms like the Bigma (Sigma 50-500, which weighs close to 2kg). And don't forget the cost, weight and bulk of a decent tripod.

I considered the Sigma 120-400 when looking for a birding lens but decided against it because it is reportedly very soft above 300mm. Also if you are going to carry all that weight (1.7kg), you might as well get the Bigma, the 150-500 or the 170-500 for the extra length. But all of these are specialist lenses, not for carrying around everyday (in my opinion anyway). Don't forget that many people find even 800g lenses like the DA*60-250 too heavy for everyday use.

As between the 120-400 and the 55-300, if I were you I would go for the latter and crop the long end shots as required. The portability and versatility of the 55-300 will mean you use it much more often.

If you find 300mm too limiting, down the track, you might look at the zoom in the mid-100s to high-300s which is shown on the Pentax lens roadmap.

I'll throw up another option. If you want a one-lens option for travel/walks in the countryside, 18-250 (Sigma or Tamron/Pentax) or 18-270 (Tamron/Pentax) is a good compromise. They are about the same size and weight as the 55-300. Although you will miss the extra length of the 55-300 for birding/wildlife, and the long end may be a little bit softer, the extra width is a great bonus. You can still get quite good results - especially if you (a) shoot RAW, (b) use either in-camera distortion correction (available with the Pentax-branded lenses) or PP with DxO Optics Pro (a marvellous program), and (c) use some judicious cropping for long shots. I went for 6 years with a Tamron 18-250 as my only lens, and used it for the full range of nature shots (landscapes, flowers, insects, plants, birds, animals, etc). Over time, I found that a high proportion of my shots were either at the widest end or the longest, so I have added an ultra-wide (12-24) and a birding lens (170-500). Even so, on a walk I still often take just the 18-250 for its convenience, versatility and light weight, and still get very pleasing results.

[Kayaker-J]

I have the DA L version of the 55-300. It's not as good as the premium DA* lens, but its pretty darn good. I would not hesitate to recommend it with the caveat that IQ is not as good as the DA* lens, but its still better than anything old other than the f/2.8 constant zoom lenses. It blows away my older consumer grade zooms from the 90s.

I'm very interested in this 'modestly-priced, MODERN, all-'rounder consumer tele zoom' is better than old glass thing. Compared to older, cheap, plastic-y (and I don't mean unreasonably so...) zooms... well, it stands to reason. But what about old glass that was once considered quite "pro-worthy", to coin a term? Conspicuously "non-disposable" metal MF examples, in particular. Is a DA L Pentax really going to beat, much less blow away, my Nikkor 100-300mm/5.6 AI-S, which for a time in the '80's, at the very least, was good enough for light-packing nature/landscape pros published regularly in such media as 'National Geographic'? I'm not asserting -- I'm asking. I think we need to define our terms. For perspective, could you list the lenses that got "blow[n] away" by the DA L Pentax? Thanks for your assistance and the clarification.

---

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 03-19-2014 at 04:20 PM.

[VisualDarkness]

Go for the 55-300, I don't think 100mm extra at the long end is worth the extra bulk, only the ones that goes to 500mm.

[Kayaker-J]

I agree. In fact, even 55mm is often too long for landscapes. Whether you opt for the 120-400 or the 55-300, you will probably find yourself carrying one or more extra lenses (e.g. 12-24, 16-45, 17-70, 18-55, 18-135, or one or two of the compact wide-normal primes, possibly including a macro lens).

Getting much beyond 300mm in Pentax, on a budget, involves a lot of compromises. See this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/235233-what...in-budget.html
You either pay top dollar for a good 300mm prime + teleconverter (even a Pentax-F or FA 300 costs close to $1000), hunt for a good 400mm prime (uncommon, expensive, bulky and heavy), or get one of the big heavy bulky zooms like the Bigma (Sigma 50-500, which weighs close to 2kg). And don't forget the cost, weight and bulk of a decent tripod.

I considered the Sigma 120-400 when looking for a birding lens but decided against it because it is reportedly very soft above 300mm. Also if you are going to carry all that weight (1.7kg), you might as well get the Bigma, the 150-500 or the 170-500 for the extra length. But all of these are specialist lenses, not for carrying around everyday (in my opinion anyway). Don't forget that many people find even 800g lenses like the DA*60-250 too heavy for everyday use.

As between the 120-400 and the 55-300, if I were you I would go for the latter and crop the long end shots as required. The portability and versatility of the 55-300 will mean you use it much more often.

If you find 300mm too limiting, down the track, you might look at the zoom in the mid-100s to high-300s which is shown on the Pentax lens roadmap.

I'll throw up another option. If you want a one-lens option for travel/walks in the countryside, 18-250 (Sigma or Tamron/Pentax) or 18-270 (Tamron/Pentax) is a good compromise. They are about the same size and weight as the 55-300. Although you will miss the extra length of the 55-300 for birding/wildlife, and the long end may be a little bit softer, the extra width is a great bonus. You can still get quite good results - especially if you (a) shoot RAW, (b) use either in-camera distortion correction (available with the Pentax-branded lenses) or PP with DxO Optics Pro (a marvellous program), and (c) use some judicious cropping for long shots. I went for 6 years with a Tamron 18-250 as my only lens, and used it for the full range of nature shots (landscapes, flowers, insects, plants, birds, animals, etc). Over time, I found that a high proportion of my shots were either at the widest end or the longest, so I have added an ultra-wide (12-24) and a birding lens (170-500). Even so, on a walk I still often take just the 18-250 for its convenience, versatility and light weight, and still get very pleasing results.

For Swarf, maybe some "hybrid" approach to a kit could make sense, depending on AF requirements. I'm thinking of the landscape/etc. part now, in principle. Depending on Swarf's real-world priorities, consider some possibilities:

Your observations regarding the practical issues are why I'm giving m4/3 with adapted lenses a shot at handling the tele end of things with appropriate subjects. Obviously, I'm not daunted by foregoing AF in these situations. When you do the math, m4/3 can beat cropped APS-C quite substantially with regard to available pixel sites within your final image frame. And might I assume that Olympus's format-specific 16mp processing could have technical advantages over that in an APS-C Pentax which doesn't know it's working on a reduced pixel field for later, greater expansion to any given display dimension? I'm not sure -- I'm asking.

While there are other practical advantages to this approach, let's just take this example: Do I want the DA L 55-300mm shooting at 180mm on a K-5... OR a K-3, at 1.5x crop factor... or my Pentax F 135mm/2.8 in MF, shooting state-of-the-art-m4/3 at 2x crop factor? ...Or a wide-range consumer zoom at 120mm in APS-C over a less than 10 oz. carry weight C. Zeiss Contax-G 90mm/2.8 in SOTA m4/3. And the longer you go, the better this approach looks, it would seem. Does anyone have a constructive opinion here? Call this a "work-in-progress" for me, testing a hypothesis, come fairer weather. For now, I'm leaving the photo backpack at home. Thanks, everyone. -- Fred

P.S.: There's no reason one couldn't use the the DA L 55-300mm on an auxiliary m4/3 body, either for the extra reach... or for keeping this and other consumer zooms out of their typically weaker longer FL ranges. ...Assuming the handling issues aren't a deal-breaker, of course. You'd need the right aperture-controlling adapter. (And no, m4/3 bodies are NOT too small for larger lenses, within reason -- just screw some base, with or without grip handle, to the thing, for Pete's sake! Use some imagination. 😉 Don't strain the mounting flange, though; again, some imagination to the rescue.)

[tibbitts]

I'm very interested in this 'modestly-priced, MODERN, all-'rounder consumer tele zoom' is better than old glass thing. Compared to older, cheap, plastic-y (and I don't mean unreasonably so...) zooms... well, it stands to reason. But what about old glass that was once considered quite "pro-worthy", to coin a term? Conspicuously "non-disposable" metal MF examples, in particular. Is a DA L Pentax really going to beat, much less blow away, my Nikkor 100-300mm/5.6 AI-S, which for a time in the '80's, at the very least, was good enough for light-packing nature/landscape pros published regularly in such media as 'National Geographic'? I'm not asserting -- I'm asking. I think we need to define our terms. For perspective, could you list the lenses that got "blow[n] away" by the DA L Pentax? Thanks for your assistance and the clarification.

I don't have the Nikkor you asked about, but 55-300, or even 70-300, is vastly more versatile than 100-300 (which I also have, in Pentax form.) And 5.6 wide open at the shorter focal lengths is far from what a 4-5.6/5.8 provides, particularly in terms of viewing/focusing functionality. Also consider that you're now comparing performance using APS-C and digital, not 35mm and film. It really doesn't matter what the older lenses did, or can do, on film, or even FF digital (at least not in this forum.)

The only source of comparison I have is a 70-300mm Tamron LD Di, which is based on a fairly old FF design. Argueably, an "older, cheap, plastic-y" design, even compared to the Pentax 55-300, much less any lens from the '80s. On APS-C, its performance is comparable to the 55-300mm Pentax - not quite as good in some ways, somewhat better in others.

[Kayaker-J]

I don't have the Nikkor you asked about, but 55-300, or even 70-300, is vastly more versatile than 100-300 (which I also have, in Pentax form.) And 5.6 wide open at the shorter focal lengths is far from what a 4-5.6/5.8 provides, particularly in terms of viewing/focusing functionality. Also consider that you're now comparing performance using APS-C and digital, not 35mm and film. It really doesn't matter what the older lenses did, or can do, on film, or even FF digital (at least not in this forum.)

The only source of comparison I have is a 70-300mm Tamron LD Di, which is based on a fairly old FF design. Argueably, an "older, cheap, plastic-y" design, even compared to the Pentax 55-300, much less any lens from the '80s. On APS-C, its performance is comparable to the 55-300mm Pentax - not quite as good in some ways, somewhat better in others.

Well, in order:

1. I, myself, am not looking for versatile in this case. I'm concentrating on fairly high grade primes (hopefully, relatative bargains), so far as it's economically feasible; I just want to carry "everything I need, and nothing I don't", on an outing by outing basis. The bias for me is for quality over the use of "convenience lenses"; yet still keeping with the low carry weight approach. For landscape and other deliberate workstyle subjects, I think that makes good sense. For Swarf, I expanded on this notion in my other post. [Gee, I hate the intrusive spell-checker on this Nexus 7 -- it just changed "Swarf" to "Dwarf"!]

2. The f.5.6 Nikkor was DESIGNED to be used wide open. Consumer zooms...?? Regarding difficult focusing --> Olympus VF-4 EVF (or Pentax K-3 live view): "problem" solved? I won't be trying this for action sports. For curling, maybe... 😁

3. Reference: "Lens Database", on-site --> LOTS of K-Pentaxes and Takumars, from wide to tele, are being used on the K-5 IIs and K-3 successfully! Not just by cheapskates. 😉 Funny how the good old ones also tend to be among the good present day ones by many accounts, here in the second decade of the 21st Century. Maybe not a coincidence?

4. Well, there you go -- that ol' Tamron is about a $125 lens on eBay, isn't it? And you've just reported that the new stuff might just be a "six of one, half dozen of the other" proposition by way of comparison. Was that Tamron really competing with "film era" AI-S Nikkors back in the day, I wonder? That AF zoom assessment is interesting, though -- thanks for the input! As I said, I'm in asking mode. As for plastic AF zooms, I've got them, too (I just expect that they're going to lose in the end) -- 2x Tamron 90-300mm, Nikon 80-200mm/4.5-5.6[?] D (= aperture ring! --> necessary if I want to stick it onto my K-3, after a bit of modification)... I can't remember what all is in the experimental group here. The Tamron MF 60-300mm Adaptall-2: I have 2 of those; pretty well reviewed here... That 11+ oz. Nikon zoom was good enough for Galen Rowell, employed at f.8-f.11 (See Thom Hogan for more on that). 11 ounces is handy, if you're swinging off the side of a mountain. I view it as a cheap, small, auxiliary ultralight for "tweener" shots among my primes, when I just can't readily foot-zoom! Those old Nikkors and SMC's seem to be aging slightly better than I am, BTW. Anyway... as long as we're all having fun, right?

[miltona580]

I'm very interested in this 'modestly-priced, MODERN, all-'rounder consumer tele zoom' is better than old glass thing. Compared to older, cheap, plastic-y (and I don't mean unreasonably so...) zooms... well, it stands to reason. But what about old glass that was once considered quite "pro-worthy", to coin a term? Conspicuously "non-disposable" metal MF examples, in particular. Is a DA L Pentax really going to beat, much less blow away, my Nikkor 100-300mm/5.6 AI-S, which for a time in the '80's, at the very least, was good enough for light-packing nature/landscape pros published regularly in such media as 'National Geographic'? I'm not asserting -- I'm asking. I think we need to define our terms. For perspective, could you list the lenses that got "blow[n] away" by the DA L Pentax? Thanks for your assistance and the clarification.

My only professional grade long zoom is DA* 60-250. My older zooms are a 90s era Vivitar Series 1 and a Pentax A 28-80. Neither fare well against the DA L 55-300. I think the DA lens might compare well depending on the lens. Remember, the modern lens has newer elements that will remove PF and control aberrations better than older lenses. Modern coatings are also considerably better than the old ones. Its not as good as a professional grade lens, but I'd wager it beats any and all consumer grade lenses. Also don't look past the DA L version. The only difference between it and the SMC DA is the mount. It still has the same optical formula as the HD DA version, just with different, worse performing coatings.

[tibbitts]

My only professional grade long zoom is DA* 60-250. My older zooms are a 90s era Vivitar Series 1 and a Pentax A 28-80. Neither fare well against the DA L 55-300. I think the DA lens might compare well depending on the lens. Remember, the modern lens has newer elements that will remove PF and control aberrations better than older lenses. Modern coatings are also considerably better than the old ones. Its not as good as a professional grade lens, but I'd wager it beats any and all consumer grade lenses. Also don't look past the DA L version. The only difference between it and the SMC DA is the mount. It still has the same optical formula as the HD DA version, just with different, worse performing coatings.

I believe coatings and better designs make the newer zooms generally better, and some of that difference may show up more on digital than on film. However, newer designs are also generally more ambitious than a 100-300 f5.6, so some of that advantage may be lost to the fact that you can't find directly comparable zooms (assuming you'd want one.)

The 55-300 DAL doesn't have quickshift, and every 55-300 autofocus does get lost occasionally (at least on K100s, K200s, K5s, and K5IIs), so even if you don't use quickshift to fine-tune focus, it's handy for getting autofocus to work again once it's settled way off the mark. Not critical, but a nice added feature.

I couldn't detect "real world" differences in the DA vs. HD coatings, but that doesn't mean they're not there. My experience has been that film vs. digital era coatings do matter, more than the DA vs. HD situation. The HD coatings may be easier to clean and more durable - all my testing was non-destructive, so I'm not sure.

As I mentioned, the best of the 5 55-300s I've had is, overall, about comparable to my old-design and even-more-consumer-grade Tamron 70-300 (especially after PP), so I'm not convinced it's somehow better than all other consumer-grade zooms. But the 55-300 has quickshift, and other nice features that the Tamron doesn't. Both are somewhat better overall than my 50-200DA.

Between the 18 or so Sigma, Tamron, and Pentax lenses I've tested, I've found about 50% that are obviously bad in some way (centering, etc.), so finding a good copy is probably more important than even the difference between a 60-250DA* and the worst (design) of the lenses discussed.

[Kayaker-J]

Yep, I pretty much agree with all that, miltona580 and tibbitts. In the end, it's a case by case thing. I do strongly concur about coatings: On the one or two pre-AI Nikkors I may keep, they are all of the "dot-C." designation, meaning multi-coated; the Takumars, with one exception, are S•M•C. When it came to the one new generation Pentax lens I've purchased -- the HD DA 70mm/2.4 -- I decided for the HD coated version over saving a few bucks buying the original SMC one used. For what it's worth, I saw noticeably improved results for the new version at ephotozine.com with respect to abberations... alas, with a different body/sensor. So it's hard to say for sure at this juncture. I do know that I prefer the somewhat less warm, more neutral rendering, as a general rule.

As for decentering and sample to sample variations, well, that's something you have to give to the AI/AI-S Nikkors -- relative consistency, new and over time. Not quite up to Leica and Zeiss standards there; but at one time, pros could really depend on 'em (with the exception of a very few comparative dogs). I have, I believe, 9 of the Nikon Series-E/Kiron/Vivitar 70-150mm MF Kiron-made "siblings" here to sort through, and I guess you understand why. Also, two of the 50-135mm/3.5 AI-S Nikkors. All these I mean to adapt, as necessary, for use on my K-3, as well as on m4/3. For autofocus teles, the F-series 135mm/2.8 and 70-210mm zoom will, I hope, fill the bill for me. Lucky you, Miltona580, with the DA 60-250! One purchased new in 2013 just went for comfortably under 1000 clams on evilBay a few days ago. I was almost kicking myself... but reality prevailed over gear lust, finally. Weighty telephotos, however sweet, are not for me, at this time, a priority justifying the cost.

One thing to consider, though: Certain abberations can be more-or-less fixed, and acutance can be punched up. With resolution, you've got what you've got, and that's it -- you can't fix rez deficits in post processing, though you can fool the eye-brain system with other tricks. Then there's the matter of perspective -- time and social perspective, that is. Those Nikkors were usually considered very bold and punchy lenses back in the '70's and early '80's... and now some say they "lack contrast"? Give me a break. Ghosting and flare are never good, sure; but when that isn't happening -- most of the time if you know what you're doing -- one shouldn't go into internet forum freak-out mode because of some blowhards at dpreview. That's why I like it here! 😊 And the cost for the latest enhanced performance? Often it's brute force punch and quotable center frame sharpness at the expense of micro contrast, 3D "roundness" and volume, and color rendering. Am I looking at you, modern element-packed Nikkors? -- Fred

[Des]

Also don't look past the DA L version. The only difference between it and the SMC DA is the mount. It still has the same optical formula as the HD DA version, just with different, worse performing coatings.

Two other differences: no lens hood (get a $5 one on eBay) and no Quick Shift. Personally I think Quick Shift is worth paying a bit extra for, but that depends on the user.

And of course you can get the WR version which would be worthwhile if you are likely to shoot in adverse conditions. But the WR version is currently quite a bit more expensive.

Excellent review here of the 55-300 WR:
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Review - Introduction - PentaxForums.com