[frogoutofwater]

Last night, I had a portfolio review/mentoring session with an experienced pet photographer. She shoots with a Canon. As we were going through my portfolio, she picked out a number of images that she thought were my strongest photos and voila, they were all taken with the newish WR DA 55-300. (And she didn't stint on constructive criticism regarding other images so this wasn't a general "ooh love everything you do" session.) She particularly liked a number of images where I recall photographing the animal from about 20 or so feet away, with a focal length of about 250-300mm. She noted how crisp the subject appeared and how nice the bokeh and background were.

It's nice to know that an affordable, easily portable and WR lens can produce such high quality images. I knew that, of course, but it's nice to hear it from someone else.

[carrrlangas]

good to know! But... Why not share the pictures with us!?

[frogoutofwater]

good to know! But... Why not share the pictures with us!?

These are two of the photos she liked (not pets, actually, even though it was a mentoring session about pet photography):

Catskill Animal Sanctuary - frogoutofwater

Zoo animals - frogoutofwater

[boriscleto]

Shouldn't be too long before tibbitts tells you how wrong this is because of all the "Quality Control" issues...

[rawr]

I'm not surprised.
Even the cheapo version of the 55-300 (the DAL 55-300) is, IMHO, a great little lens. Shot well, it can really deliver some nice results.

Scarlet Honeyeater w Orange Marmalade grevillea on Flickr

[carrrlangas]

These are two of the photos she liked (not pets, actually, even though it was a mentoring session about pet photography):

Catskill Animal Sanctuary - frogoutofwater

Zoo animals - frogoutofwater

Off topic but, a little contradiction shooting in an "animal sanctuary" and a zoo, don´t you think?

[normhead]

The DA 55-300 seems to be the best (affordable) lens I never owned. Unfortunately owning a DA* 60-250 and 1.4 TC means I'll probably never own it.

I feel like I'm missing out. When I started out in digital with my *ist the Sigma 70-300 was the greatest thing since sliced bread. My how times have changed. It's looking like the 55-300 is one of those lenses capable of standing out and selling cameras. ( As in people will buy the camera to get the lens.) Usually the issue with zooms is not as good bokeh compared to DA*s or primes. The DA 55-300 does' seem to suffer from that.

I wonder if it works with the 1.4 TC.

[frogoutofwater]

Off topic but, a little contradiction shooting in an "animal sanctuary" and a zoo, don´t you think?

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Did you simply mean it's odd to use the word "shoot" when talking about sanctuaries and zoos? If so, then yes, it's an awkward term to use - I feel kind of the same way about the phrase "nice capture" ...

Or are you making a reference to the ethics of organizations that keep animals (including possibly wild animals)? In particular:
1) Do you mean it's a bit of a contradiction to photograph in a zoo when you also are a supporter of an animal sanctuary?
2) Or do you mean that the zoo and the sanctuary are similar in that they both have captive animals and organizations that keep animals captive are doing something inappropriate?

If you are talking about ethics and your question is more along the lines of (1), then I can see your point. I have been thinking more about this issue lately but haven't decided yet how I feel about the role and practices of zoos (even zoos like the NYC zoos that say they are dedicated to the conservation of wild species). I am debating whether to renew my membership this year.

If your question is more along the lines of (2), I don't agree. The Catskill Animal Sanctuary exists to rescue and rehabilitate abused and neglected farm animals. They're domesticated animals and they live out their lives in peace, doing what they want to do, once they are at the Sanctuary. There are opportunities to view and interact with the animals under controlled circumstances as part of the Sanctuary's education and advocacy function but in those circumstances, the focus remains on protecting the animals and respecting how they want to be. (Some of the animals are more people-oriented than others, and the ones that aren't interested in people aren't pushed into interacting with people.)

I'm aware that there are so-called animal sanctuaries out there that are operated just as a way for the "owners" to possess wild animals (and sometimes make a profit from putting them on display). And there are also some really sad cases of hoarding, where people collect wild animals, farm animals or pets because they can't control themselves - and then neglect or abuse the animals. (A number of the animals at CAS were rescued from hoarders.)

So with respect to the CAS, although I took the photographs for my own pleasure, I have shared all of the "keepers" with the CAS and told them that they can use them for educational or promotional purposes.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 02:41 PM ----------

The DA 55-300 seems to be the best (affordable) lens I never owned. Unfortunately owning a DA* 60-250 and 1.4 TC means I'll probably never own it.

I feel like I'm missing out. When I started out in digital with my *ist the Sigma 70-300 was the greatest thing since sliced bread. My how times have changed. It's looking like the 55-300 is one of those lenses capable of standing out and selling cameras. ( As in people will buy the camera to get the lens.) Usually the issue with zooms is not as good bokeh compared to DA*s or primes. The DA 55-300 does' seem to suffer from that.

I wonder if it works with the 1.4 TC.

Even though you have the 60-250 + 1.4TC (and make wonderful images with it), you might want to consider the 55-300 for some purposes. The specs suggest that it weighs less than half what the DA 60-250 weighs, and so for you it could be a decent walk-around outdoor/nature lens when the primary goal isn't to photograph birds at a distance.

[Tako Kichi]

The DA 55-300 seems to be the best (affordable) lens I never owned. Unfortunately owning a DA* 60-250 and 1.4 TC means I'll probably never own it.

I feel like I'm missing out. When I started out in digital with my *ist the Sigma 70-300 was the greatest thing since sliced bread. My how times have changed. It's looking like the 55-300 is one of those lenses capable of standing out and selling cameras. ( As in people will buy the camera to get the lens.) Usually the issue with zooms is not as good bokeh compared to DA*s or primes. The DA 55-300 does' seem to suffer from that.

I wonder if it works with the 1.4 TC.

It's a pity we don't live closer to each other Norm. I'd happily let you try your 1.4 TC on my DA 55-300.

I have a Kenko 2x TC but I've not tried it on the DA 55-300 (yet). I did try it on a Tokina 70-210 but the results were less than stellar as CA was a big issue.

[boriscleto]

I have a Kenko 2x TC but I've not tried it on the DA 55-300 (yet). I did try it on a Tokina 70-210 but the results were less than stellar as CA was a big issue.

The 55-300 will not autofocus on any 2x converter at more than about 200mm. The F 70-210 will autofocus on my 2x converter, and the FA 80-320 will autofocus out to about 300mm (but not a 320mm). On the other hand, the 55-300 works just fine on my cheap Vivitar 1.4x TC. Fringing is a bit stronger and the autofocus isn't quite as fast, but in the right conditions it will give good results.

[DeadJohn]

Agreed that the 55-300 is a good lens (the DA, DA-L, and the latest WR variant). Good optics, very reasonable price, and compact enough to always carry in the bag just in case a telephoto opportunity presents itself.

The only significant weakness I've noticed is recovery time from a misfocus on a bird in flight or airshow. [Whirrr sound] ... rack focus point from distant to near ... [pause] [more whirring] ... rack focus point back to where it started. If I set my camera correctly and keep my target within the autofocus area this rarely happens so it's a manageable limitation, but the lens is unforgiving of user error in AF.C.

[lesmore49]

I've had my 55-300 since June, 2008...right when they came out.

I find it's an excellent lens that punches well over it's weight, considering it's a consumer level lens. I've always been very pleased with it's performance.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 04:34 PM ----------

The 55-300 will not autofocus on any 2x converter at more than about 200mm. The F 70-210 will autofocus on my 2x converter, and the FA 80-320 will autofocus out to about 300mm (but not a 320mm). On the other hand, the 55-300 works just fine on my cheap Vivitar 1.4x TC. Fringing is a bit stronger and the autofocus isn't quite as fast, but in the right conditions it will give good results.

I have an old Pentax 2X converter and my 55-300 seems to work fine with this unit. I'm not sure, but I think I may have picked up this converter...new... sometime in the '80's.

[derekkite]

I borrowed a Canon entry level with their 300mm zoom last summer when my K5 was in for repair; I was shocked at how bad it was. The Pentax is capable in good light when you can stop down.

[mgvh]

I have the rather highly regarded Kenko Pz-AF 1.5X Teleplus SHQ and a DAL 55-300.
Using them together:

• Lose a little light, at most a stop
• Autofocus sometime hunts a bit but gets there eventually
• Significant loss of contrast
• Mixed results on whether 'enlarging' pics w/out the converter is better than ones w/ converter

>> There may be some advantage to use the Kenko 1.5x to get longer w/ the 55-300, but it usually isn't worth the bother.

[carrrlangas]

Mixed results on whether 'enlarging' pics w/out the converter is better than ones w/ converter

That´s my expierence testing FA80-320 and DAL55-300 with the Pentax AFA 1.7x. I found out that I got the same result by cropping the photo without adapter.