[Buddha Jones]

As requested I did some tests this morning with the various setups at various aperature settings. All images were done tripod mounted and fired with a cable release at an object about 30 feet away. I couldn't come up with a neat way to put them all together so I uploaded them as sets to my Flickr account which you can get to here The Buddha Jones' photosets on Flickr

The tests were not under harsh conditions, the sky was slight overcasted, and the object was under a tree so there was a little shade, difficult but not harsh. Both lenses performed very acceptable with the 1.4x TC, the 2.0x TC on the other hand was a different story. As expected IQ suffered, more with the 300 than the 200 and AF was not functional on the DA*300, can't remember if that was true for the DA*200. The 2.0x is nice to have but I dont imagine me using it any time soon again.

I had SR off but think I was still getting some camera shake with the 300mm or something cuz some images in some sets showed up blurry, I think I may need to adjust my eye-cup cuz they may of been OOF. I have gotten much sharper images than those I got today.

[TomInJax]

Jay,

I could be wrong, but to me it looks like shake on the 300 pics. I am not sure how you took the photos, but a tripod with the 2 sec mirror lockup setting should fix this.

I am curious about the 300, I am seriously thinking about selling the VL 125 to pay for it. I just purchased a very nice A50mm/2.8 macro so I have something to replace it functionally.

Would you do what I am thinking about for the 300mm, considering what you have shot with it? In other words, would you trade the VL for the 300?

[Buddha Jones]

That is a tough question, it would have to boil down to priority because that is not exactly and apples to apples trade. And the dif between a 50mm and a 125mm macro is kinda big. If I were in your shoes I would probably sell the Bigma to pay for the DA*300mm and a 1.4x TC before I get rid of the VL125. In my eyes it is easier to replace reach than a quality macro.

[Miserere]

That's great, BJ. I agree with Tom that there is some movement in the 300mm pics I've looked at (haven't looked at all of them). Even so, I think there is little difference, if any, between the 200mm + 1.4 TC combo and the 300mm. If I had to make a decision on what to buy, and didn't need 420mm reach, I would go with the DA* 200mm and the Tamron TC, and put the money difference towards a future DA* lens

You really went beyond the call of duty here, BJ! Thanks again.

BTW, what tripod do you have?

[kbrabble]

Thanks for the test. I have been contemplating on buying a 1.4x converter, and putting off getting the 300mm for now. From the pictures, there does not appear to be a whole lot of a difference.

[Buddha Jones]

That's great, BJ. I agree with Tom that there is some movement in the 300mm pics I've looked at (haven't looked at all of them). Even so, I think there is little difference, if any, between the 200mm + 1.4 TC combo and the 300mm. If I had to make a decision on what to buy, and didn't need 420mm reach, I would go with the DA* 200mm and the Tamron TC, and put the money difference towards a future DA* lens

You really went beyond the call of duty here, BJ! Thanks again.

BTW, what tripod do you have?

I think that either combo does real well with the 1.4xTC, I, unfortunately am a pretty big guy, I ain't sneaking up on anything. As for my tripod combo I have the Bogen / Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod Legs (Black) with 486RC2 Compact Ballhead, I may get a bigger head and put that one on my monopod.

Here is a better example of what the DA*300mm and Tamron 1.4x TC can produce. This is a baby house finch that hatched with its 3 brothers on my porch (happens every year). I was able to get close to this guy because he was not a pro at flying yet. I shot this in my backyard on my monopod leaning up against a fence. The bokeh is very nice IMO, front and back. Details are all there. You can count the eyebrows on that little guy.



And here is a 100% crop

[Buddha Jones]

Thanks for the test. I have been contemplating on buying a 1.4x converter, and putting off getting the 300mm for now. From the pictures, there does not appear to be a whole lot of a difference.

That is what I did at first, but in some harsher tests that I have done with the DA*200mm and Tammy TC made some hideous PF, from a lens where PF is almost non-existant. It must be the coatings on the Tammy is my best guess.

This is what prompted me to get the DA*300mm.

[Torphoto]

thanks for this

[kenyee]

hate to say it, but is there PF in that lightpost pic? I thought the DA*300 wasn't prone to this and only the DA*200 was? :-(

[Buddha Jones]

hate to say it, but is there PF in that lightpost pic? I thought the DA*300 wasn't prone to this and only the DA*200 was? :-(

That was my point in posting that pic, the DA*200mm by itself has no PF issues, but when you put the Tamron 1.4x TC on it, you get PF, which is why I bought the DA*300mm so I wouldnt have to use the TC and ruin any images.

[John Kovarik]

Hey Buddha! Great job! The finch is exceptional. Your tests confirm mine, although I have not used the DA*s/TCs on a tripod. My view is that the TC on the 300, is OK for closer pix but not worth it on longer shots. I mostly do not use the TCs on the 300 anymore.

Good work!

[danielchtong]

As requested I did some tests this morning with the various setups at various aperature settings. All images were done tripod mounted and fired with a cable release at an object about 30 feet away. I couldn't come up with a neat way to put them all together so I uploaded them as sets to my Flickr account which you can get to here The Buddha Jones' photosets on Flickr

BJ,

I think I may chime in as well

I posted my comparison shots of DA200mm + Kenko 1.5x vs A300mmF4. The TC combo works really well with full AF and the SDM as well

DA200mm+Kenko1.5TC Vs A300mmF4 - Photo.net Pentax Forum

I only did sharpness test only.

The degradation of the TC with A300mmF4 happens to be so much that it is not worth the hassle at all

Daniel, Toronto