[Venom3300]

Do you have a 55-300 ? Looking at your list of published camera equipment, I see no trace of a 55-300.

How do you arrive at your view ?

I rented one. other than it being light weight and cheap, it had no redeeming qualities. the CA was atrocious. sharpness in the center was acceptable but thats about it.

[snimcho]

I read carefuly all opinions and I also found an excellent da300 review here:
Review: Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

So, I'm convinced that 60-250 is a good lens, better than 55-300 but also I understand that for wildlife da300 is the best.
I expect best results in a combination with the new Pentax 1.4x TC, but because the price is a little bit high for me at that moment, I will have to wait for a while

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

[cali92rs]

I read carefuly all opinions and I also found an excellent da300 review here:
Review: Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

So, I'm convinced that 60-250 is a good lens, better than 55-300 but also I understand that for wildlife da300 is the best.
I expect best results in a combination with the new Pentax 1.4x TC, but because the price is a little bit high for me at that moment, I will have to wait for a while

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Before you run off an make that purchase, I may reconsider that 60-250mm. A zoom is invaluable, especially if you don't know the terrain. And 300mm can be quite long if you are in a forest setting unless you are only shooting in very wide open areas.
In my opinion, the loss in IQ for cropping to match the FOV of a 300mm (and not that much cropping would be needed because the difference between 250 and 300mm is literally about 1 degree) would be made up for by the ability to shoot wider when you are closer to the animals.

[snimcho]

Both 60-250 and da300 are excellent lenses but I think da300 may be better for using with a TC. For birds the FL is never enough) I'm not sure but I expect on 60-250 best results with a TC on f5.6. DA300 may be will have good results from f4. In the forest one stop less could be very handy.
Otherwise I love zooms. It provides range of focal lengths and also is easier to find the target on the long end because you can zoom.

[normhead]

Both 60-250 and da300 are excellent lenses but I think da300 may be better for using with a TC. For birds the FL is never enough) I'm not sure but I expect on 60-250 best results with a TC on f5.6. DA300 may be will have good results from f4. In the forest one stop less could be very handy.
Otherwise I love zooms. It provides range of focal lengths and also is easier to find the target on the long end because you can zoom.

OK really?
For general purpose photogpraphy, the DA*60-250 is not only a great wildlife lens, it'a great landscape lens, sharp side to side and sharp wide open at ƒ4. If you are buying the lens for birds, the DA* 60-250 is not your best. But as a general lens to have in your kit, the 60-250 part says it all. The 300 has an advantage in length..but you sure give up a lot to get it, 190mm of range.

Try this with your 300..


or this


Or this...


But you can still do this


or this...


And the DA*60-250 works great with the Pentax 1.4 TC




Stick to what you know....

The DA*60-250 is one of those lenses to buy a Pentax for. It may not be long enough for you. But the IQ all through it's range is outstanding. If you're going to find fault with it, it will be it's not 2.8 or faster, or it isn't long enough. Or possibly it doesn't focus quite fast enough for you. Other criticisms are suspect. If you're looking for a lens to attack it's IQ at any ƒ-stop or focal length, look somewhere else.

Especially with wildlife, shooting larger mammals I have images taken at 135mm. I've seen photographers walk away from animals I was taking pictures of because they were too long. If you are doing only birds, the 300mm is better, but a 500mm or 600mm is better still.

[Vinelander]

I recently evaluated both an HD 55-300 and a 60-250, each brand-new. Concerning the 55-300, I have to agree with previous statements: the lens is usable at the tele end, but never gets into good territory. At 300 mm, you need f/11 for the center to sharpen up. Above 150 mm, corners never go beyond being barely acceptable. Also, at any focal length, the maximum aperture doesn't get you more than mediocre sharpness, even in the center. And yes, autofocus is so obnoxiously loud as to disqualify the lens completely for sensitive environments.

With the 60-250, much depends on whether you get a good sample. I've had both a good and a terrible one. The terrible one was grossly unusable at f/4 beyond 100 mm, and mediocre beyond 200 mm independently of aperture. The good one was very sharp from f/4 at all apertures but had significant back-focus at the tele end (that couldn't be corrected via camera adjustment because then the wide end would front-focus). Also, any 60-250 will suffer from heavy focus breathing at the tele end, meaning unless you're close to infinity, you actually get a ~ 200 mm, or even less at close range. (It isn't even a real 250 mm lens, from what I can tell, rather like a 230 mm or so. The 55-300, on the other hand, seems to be a real 300 mm. If focal length is what you need, that should factor in your decision.)

So yes, a good 60-250 sample will give you dramatically better images at 250 than a 55-300 at 300, so much so that cropping the 60-250 shot will still yield a better picture. But always verify the particular lens you have; the 60-250 has known quality control issues that can completely ruin its performance.

(All this is assuming you want to view your pictures at more than 2 or 3 megapixels. Otherwise the 55-300 is just fine.)

[normhead]

I recently evaluated both an HD 55-300 and a 60-250, each brand-new.

So yes, a good 60-250 sample will give you dramatically better images at 250 than a 55-300 at 300, so much so that cropping the 60-250 shot will still yield a better picture. But always verify the particular lens you have; the 60-250 has known quality control issues that can completely ruin its performance.

(All this is assuming you want to view your pictures at more than 2 or 3 megapixels. Otherwise the 55-300 is just fine.)

Good point... there are many on the forum are really happy with the 55-300. I've noticed none of the above issues with my 60-250, and have compared it favourably to primes in it's range. A great prime is still a great prime, but the 60-250 comes to close to them in may instances. And the bokeh is outstanding, the one area where non-DA* lenses fall down.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-13-2014 at 12:41 PM.

[HenrikDK]

OK really? Stick to what you know....

The DA*60-250 is one of those lenses to buy a Pentax for. It may not be long enough for you.

Did you eat something bad for breakfast - wow. Is it really necessary to bite someone's head off for making what looks like a fairly neutral and balanced comment on the merits of the two lenses?

I long ago went through the motions of deciding between the 60-250 and the 300, and went with the 300. Have had no regrets. I have other lenses to cover the shorter ranges, and really appreciate the reach of the 300 - one of my most used lenses, and I am not a birder. The 60-250 is a great lens, but so are some of the 70-200/2.8s out there, and they have the added beneif of an extra stop, but alas - shorter range and no WR. It is all compromises. So how about presenting the merits and compromises and be civil about it - especially to new members...

[HenrikDK]

The 60-250mm could have been useful for this picture, but I also like tight cropping....

[normhead]

I long ago went through the motions of deciding between the 60-250 and the 300, and went with the 300. Have had no regrets. I have other lenses to cover the shorter ranges, and really appreciate the reach of the 300

And that makes you an expert on the DA*60-250?

There's a difference between posting inaccurate opinion and a helpful opinion. So you didn't buy the DA*60-250, but you too know all about it. Seems to be becoming a theme in this thread. Guys who don't own the lens know more about the lens than guys who do, because they read about it somewhere, and feel their comments based on their lack of use, should stand right up here with folks who actually use the lens.

With the 60-250, much depends on whether you get a good sample. I've had both a good and a terrible one. The terrible one was grossly unusable at f/4 beyond 100 mm, and mediocre beyond 200 mm independently of aperture.

Good point, but there is no lens on earth that's not true for. Read the experience from the guys at lens rentals if you don't believe me. If you buy a DA*300 you need to check you have a good copy. If you buy a 55-300 you need to have a good copy. It's not really more of an issue with one lens than another.

I'm not sure but I expect on 60-250 best results with a TC on f5.6.

If you're not sure, why are you offering an opinion? Ya, it irritates me when I have to defend a lens based on experience with the lens, when others are posting their impressions, based on what they've read on the internet. My request would be... don't do that. Say what you know, let others say what they know without having to correct what you think you know.

The 60-250mm could have been useful for this picture, but I also like tight cropping....

I guess if you had a couple images taken with the DA*60-250 we'd have something to compare with... and we could decide which image or images we'd like best, but you don't so we'll never know.

I have no issue with the DA*300 and I may still purchase one. Right now we are deciding between that and the 200 2.8, because for wildlife, ƒ2.8 would create the opportunity for a faster shutter speed in some instances and with a 1.4 TC it would be 280mm and ƒ4,pretty close to the 300. But regardless, you can pimp the 300 all you want.. trashing the DA*60-250 on bogus points, please, spare us the agony. I don't do this because I like doing it. I do it because I hate seeing a great lens trashed by people who don''t even own it, have never compared it's images or performance to other lenses.

A balanced opinion doesn't mean you make up things that might be wrong with one of the lenses just to have something bad to say about it.

[HenrikDK]

And that makes you an expert on the DA*60-250?

There's a difference between posting inaccurate opinion and a helpful opinion. So you didn't buy the DA*60-250, but you too know all about it. Seems to be becoming a theme in this thread. Guys who don't own the lens know more about the lens than guys who do, because they read about it somewhere, and feel their comments based on their lack of use, should stand right up here with folks who actually use the lens.
.

You are missing my point I don't see anyone trashing the 60-250 - it is all in you head. I see lots of comments that says the 60-250 provides more flexibility, and is a great lens. So is the DA* 300. Why get all bend out of shape because someone chooses a lens differnt than what you did? Sometimes those of us who own the 300 would like the flexibility of the zoom. Bet 60-250mm owners like yourself sometimes would like a little longer reach.

[Vinelander]

Good point, but there is no lens on earth that's not true for. Read the experience from the guys at lens rentals if you don't believe me. If you buy a DA*300 you need to check you have a good copy. If you buy a 55-300 you need to have a good copy. It's not really more of an issue with one lens than another.

Yes, all models have bad copies and all samples must be checked (mostly for subtle things like asymmetries, decentering, autofocus inaccuracies and so forth). And the problem is certainly not exclusive to the 60-250, or to Pentax. But it is relatively rare in a > $1000 lens. From all I've heard and seen, the 60-250 doesn't simply have sample variation in the usual sense but comes it two fundamentally different varieties: one sharp at f/4, the other so hazy you'd think the assembly guy must have been on LSD when he put it together. That's something a potential buyer should be aware of.

[normhead]

Yes, all models have bad copies and all samples must be checked (mostly for subtle things like asymmetries, decentering, autofocus inaccuracies and so forth). And the problem is certainly not exclusive to the 60-250, or to Pentax. But it is relatively rare in a > $1000 lens. From all I've heard and seen, the 60-250 doesn't simply have sample variation in the usual sense but comes it two fundamentally different varieties: one sharp at f/4, the other so hazy you'd think the assembly guy must have been on LSD when he put it together. That's something a potential buyer should be aware of.

Sigh, I guess you didn't read Lens Rentals like I asked you to. It happens in $10,000 lens, it happens in $15,000 lenses. It just happens with lenses. But hey, believe what you want.

---------- Post added 10-13-14 at 05:07 PM ----------

You are missing my point I don't see anyone trashing the 60-250 - it is all in you head.

I was posted once by the OP, and once by me.

I'm not sure but I expect on 60-250 best results with a TC on f5.6. DA300 may be will have good results from f4.

Inaccurate information based on speculation. IN actual fact, I've shown with all my lenses that subject detail increases with focal length. The lens involved or if there is a Pentax TC makes no difference. What makes a difference for "best results" is the focal length of the lens. A 350mm DA*60-250 with a 1.4 will give better results than a DA*300 without. So will a DA* 300 with a 1.4. These kinds of statements shouldn't be guesses. If we want to suggest that a DA* 60-250 with TC at ƒ5.6 and 300mm is worse than a DA*300mm at ƒ4 then it's easy, do the test. Tell us what your results are. We await your results. I suspect both shot at 300mm the prime would have a slight advantage. But I'd want to prove to myself it would be worth changing lenses for. That will take an actual comparison. I know my Tamron 90 is slightly better than my DA*60-250 at 90mm, but i also know the difference is so small I wouldn't take either lens off the camera for the other one.

For all we know, a DA*60-250 with TC might outperform the DA*300 for the intended purpose. After all the same 50mm that is the difference between the 250 in the long end, and the 300 is also the difference between the 60-250 with TC at 350 and the DA* 300. The more variables you throw in the more complicated it gets... its better not to speculate which lens might do what in what circumstance.

[snimcho]

Thanks for all answers and pictures. All of you are very kind. I wouldn't say that one lens is better than other. Especially these two lenses are both great. Both will produce great results and I'm trying to find which one I will like to carry more. If I could, I'd buy both but there is no sense to carry both as they are heavy and close to each other as parameters.
I started to look for a fast lens after taking some pictures in the forest. One example:
da55-300 at 300/f8 + Tamron 1.4x ~400/f11; ISO5000; 1/160s

[snimcho]

I'd like to add some 55-300 pictures. These are some of the best I have taken. The lens is definately acceptable but not stellar
I still thinking how to improve my technics with that lens.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/16460319896/in/album-72157650333272469/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/16484518561/in/album-72157650667325716/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/16298609518/in/album-72157650333272469/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/16486310345/in/album-72157650333272469/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/16300408997/in/album-72157650333272469/