Originally posted by Driline
Isn't this like the "Holy Grail" of all lenses in that range? If that's true then forget the Pentax 60-250 or DA*300. This is "The One" Neo.
I would have purchased this lens, but a Pentax F*300 fell into my lap and I couldn't say no

When I saw your thread in praise of the F*300 -
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/264916-some...x-f-300-a.html - it looked pretty much like the Holy Grail to me! And only 880g (about 200g lighter than the DA*300). If the Sigma zoom is better it must be something really special.
Apologies to the OP for going off track.
---------- Post added 07-19-14 at 09:47 AM ----------
Originally posted by normhead
Be aware that because it is internal focus, the DA* 60-250 does not give you the magnification you might expect from a 250mm lens, unless you are focusing at infinity... I really wasn't real comfortable with mine until I got the HD DA 1.4 TC to go with it. Telescopic zooms don't provide the same IQ, but do provide more magnification, which can sometimes lead to better IQ on a small subject.
Here's a post where I show three lenses from about 12 feet. Notice the F 70-210 provides a bigger image than the DA* 60-250... now that i have the 1.4, things are equalled out again and I'd use the 60-250 in every situation.
Very interesting Norm. The 55-300 is not internal focus, so 300mm means 300mm at any focus point. My guess is that if you had had that lens in the comparison, the magnification at 300mm would have been just about perfect, with a little more space around the bird than the A400.
---------- Post added 07-19-14 at 09:56 AM ----------
Originally posted by Bryans86
I'm beginning to lean more and more towards the DA 55 - 300mm and quite possibly the WR DA 55 - 300, considering I may upgrade bodies in the future as I am very active in the outdoors.
Sound reasoning, if I may say so.
One thing I should point out is that the 55-300 has a long 1.4m (nearly 5 feet) minimum focus distance. I suggest also getting a diopter or close focus filter such the Raynox 150 so you can take closer (macro) photos of flowers, insects, etc. They don't cost much, add hardly any weight and make the lens much more versatile. (Search the forums and you will find a lot of threads about this.)