[Neville]

I have a Pentax DA 55-300mm zoom lens, which has served me well with my wildlife photography and track athletics events.

However, I am intrigued by the SMC Pentax DA* 300mm F4 ED (IF) SDM prime lens, and the reviews are all very good.

The problem is that the prime lens is more than triple the price of the zoom lens.

I would like some opinions as to whether the cost warrants the benefits of getting the prime lens. In other words, I need to justify the outlay to my better half...

[TER-OR]

I'm kind of in the same boat, with a trashed DA55-300 - second time it's broken, actually. Not the lens' fault, once mine and once a dog's.
The 55-300 has served me well, and zoom has its advantages when finding and tracking a bird you can zoom in for closer shots.

I think the 300 prime is brilliant, based on my viewing other peoples' images. At 300mm there is likely no comparison.

One big plus, if you buy used, is that you can sell for the same amount if you get buyer's remorse. These lenses hold their value on the secondary market.

[JohnX]

The two lenses are in completely different leagues IQ wise, albeit the 55-300 is very good.

I would first analyse the exif of the photographs taken with the 55-300 to see what your 'preferred' focal length is when using it. 'Wega2' has a tool called 'ExposurePlot' that will do this for you.

If predominantly at the 300 end, than you'll know what's going to happen next.

[jatrax]

I would like some opinions as to whether the cost warrants the benefits of getting the prime lens.

You are talking apples & oranges. A consumer zoom and a 'pro' level prime. Only you can say if it is worth the money to you but the IQ will be noticeably better.

I used a 55-300 for several years and was very well pleased with it. It is an excellent lens in it's class. I moved up to the DA*60-250 and was stunned at the difference. The 55-300 is very good, the 60-250 is clearly and noticeably better. I don't have the DA*300 but the IQ with it should surpass the 55-300 easily.

The down side of course is that it is not as flexible and it is much bigger and heavier. But there are tradeoffs in everything, you just have to go with what works best for you. And as TER-OR says used prices hold up very well.

---------- Post added 06-04-14 at 07:31 AM ----------

Oh, and once you move up to DA* glass there is no going back, so consider the DA*300 as only a down payment on all the other glass you will need to match it...............

[calculator01]

My DA-L 55-300 is awesome from 55-299, after that, there is no replacement for the DA*300.


Really the two compliment each other. I use the DA* when I know I need 300mm+.


To keep it short, buy a good used one and the cost is fully justified.

[cali92rs]

I had the DA* 300mm and it is the best telephoto lens I have ever personally owned.
It is a little over a stop faster than the 50-300mm. Don't discount the value of a stop.

Having said that, if you are doing athletic events, then a zoom, in my opinion becomes almost a requirement. You don't know if you are going to be a hundred yards, or 10 feet from an athlete, and frequently, you will be both. At that distance, the DA* becomes pretty useless unless you want to see only the athletes eyes and nose.

That's why you will see pro sports photographs invariably carry at least 2 rigs. One reason is they need a backup in case one fails. And also because one camera has a wide to short telephoto zoom and the other either has a longer zoom, such as the 70-200mm, or a telephoto prime.

A single prime simply does not meet their flexibility needs.

[Driline]

In one word YES! I recently purchased the F*300 prime and was previously using a Tokina F4 100-300 zoom which is no slouch either.The prime lens pictures are incredible. Easily the best lens I own and if you look at my signature you will see I have some nice gear.

[c.a.m]

I can offer the following thoughts...

I have never used the 55-300 but own a DA* 300. I think the 300 is an exceptional lens. When I take it out, I always return with many keepers, some of which prompt 'wows' from family or friends who see the photos. I'm very satisfied with it. On my scale of 1-10, it's an 11. Heck, in some photos, I've seen a sharp reflection of myself in the eyes of deer and squirrels!

However, as a prospective buyer, I needed to sort out three main factors: could we afford the lens within our family's budget, would a fixed focal length get used frequently enough to justify the cost, and would a zoom (55-300 or 60-250) be more 'useful'? We stretched the budget a bit (buying the lens shortly after upgrading a K-5 to a K-5 ii). And yes, definitely, I think the results are worth the cost. I also have a 70-200 for those times when I need a zoom, albeit at a shorter focal length.

I might add that I make a point of using the lens often, for example, planning outdoor hikes with wildlife as the main subject. This helps to show that the money wasn't wasted.


Hope this helps.

- Craig

[ramseybuckeye]

The DA55-300 was the the first lens I bought new (in 2009), it was my favorite lens for a long time. The 55-300 was exceptional at 300mm when the light was good and my hands were steady, but could be frustrating in low light. Since most of my usage of the lens was at 300mm, I had decided long ago that I wanted the DA*300, but I also wanted to try a Sigma 50-500 zoom. I rented the Sigma last May and took it to Magee Marsh during the warbler migration. It worked well, that extra 200mm was nice, but I decided the extra speed made the DA*300 a better choice. I was able to finally get one in late 2013 and I'm really happy with it. I'm able to shoot wide open (f4) and get great results, with more detail in the pictures. Plus I knew eventually the Pentax teleconverter was coming also, so that's a future addition to length. Since I've had the DA*300, the 55-300 has been used, maybe once, but I can't bear to sell it. My oldest son has a new K-50 and that should serve him well.

I do have to admit that the 135-370+- tele zoom on the roadmap is intriguing also.

[uttam.hathi]

i dont understand the conversation, pentax 300mm prime and DA 55-300!!!!, i use F* 300 4.5 after that i have junked 50 200 (i know that 55 300 is better than 50- 200, but these 2 are in the same league)

[Lowell Goudge]

I have a Pentax DA 55-300mm zoom lens, which has served me well with my wildlife photography and track athletics events.

However, I am intrigued by the SMC Pentax DA* 300mm F4 ED (IF) SDM prime lens, and the reviews are all very good.

The problem is that the prime lens is more than triple the price of the zoom lens.

I would like some opinions as to whether the cost warrants the benefits of getting the prime lens. In other words, I need to justify the outlay to my better half...

But the 300/4 is not Tripple the price of a 100-300/4 zoom, or a 70-200/2.8 zoom with a 1.4xTC. You need to compare similar classes of lenses. The 55-300 might be one of the best consumer level tele zooms out there, and is certainly a bargin compared to the big heavy more "pro" lenses. (Assuming a 70-200/2.8 is a pro lens)

[c.a.m]

i dont understand the conversation, pentax 300mm prime and DA 55-300!!!!, i use F* 300 4.5 after that i have junked 50 200 (i know that 55 300 is better than 50- 200, but these 2 are in the same league)

There is general agreement that the DA* 300 (and others of the same class) performs better than the 55-300. However, the issue is its relatively high cost. Some of us always need to make a trade-off between affordability (e.g., within a family's limited budget that has many demands), desirability, and performance.

- Craig

[snostorm]

Hi Neville,

IMO, if you find yourself shooting your DA 55-300 at the long end quite a bit, and you are seeking a lens that can give you better results at this FL and longer, then a premium 300mm prime can be justified. If you find yourself only using the max FL occasionally, then maybe not, and staying with the DA 55-300 would be more practical.

The three big advantages of a 300 f4 class premium prime are:
1. Better IQ
2. Faster aperture, but this is mitigated somewhat by the very good high ISO of the newest generations of CMOS sensors.
3. The ability to get extra reach with quality Rear TCs (mounted between the lens and the camera). These teleconverters lower the amount of light transmitted by the lens by 1 stop for every 1.4x of magnification. With Pentax DSLRs, AF reliability really starts to struggle as max aperture of the lens used approaches f8, so most consumer long and ultra tele zooms are generally unsuited for reliable TC use since their max aperture usually range between f5.6 and f6.3. The extra stop of max aperture (between f5.6 and f4, for example, can allow full AF support with a TC, even in less than optimal light. If you feel that you might want even more reach in the future, then a good TC can give you that, especially with a premium quality prime, at considerably less cost, and at much less cost in not only price, but also in size and weight.

That being said, Pentax is a pretty unique case when it comes to rear TCs. With screw drive lenses (all series other than DA/SDM or DC with in lens AF motors), there are a number of relatively inexpensive screw drive compatible AF TCs available in K mount, and most of them are pretty good Tamron, Kenko, Sigma (with physical compatibility issues with some lenses), Promaster, and Vivitar seem to all give pretty good results. With SDM and DC in lens motor lenses, the only TC that will give you seamless reliable AF is the new HD AW 1.4x Rear Converter at @ $600. If you decide to go with a premium prime, with possible TC use in mind, I'd suggest looking into finding a good F* or FA* 300 f4.5, a Sigma EX 100-300 f4 APO, or one of the relatively rare AF 300 f4s that were produced in what seems to be very limited numbers by Tamron, Tokina, and maybe Sigma.

Scott

[cali92rs]

Of course the DA* is much better in terms of IQ.

But you know what it's not better at...being a 50mm lens too.

He specifically mentioned photographing sports. The athletes usually don't stay the same distance from you on the court, field etc. They are right next to you one play, then 20 seconds leter they are running away from you.

That is a big trade-off in my opinion. If he gets the prime lens, there will be shots that are flat out not available to him when the action gets real close.

[Basie]

I have both these lenses and if it just worked out that whenever I need something long the DA* 300 F4 lands on my camera. It is just so much better at the long end and for me the added weight and price was worth it. I agree with cali92rs that a zoom will be necessary for what you describe. Things come pretty close with the 300 and many times too close. But for zoom work and not all out IQ at long focal lengths the 55-300 is hard to beat. The one stop does not make such a difference if you use TAv in a K5.

It looks as if you need both lenses. I bought mine through Nivo min South Africa