[Dave L]

I have one of the first 55-300's, bought new in June 2008. It is very sharp. But I've got a lot of experience in photography, so maybe it's me.I'm very conscious of iso, shutter speed, setting a reasonable F stop, focusing area, etc.

BTW I don't think you can use the old adage about a prime, always being better than a zoom. Yes, it used to be that way, in the early days of zooms. But designs have improved.

It is in the case of the DA* 300mm versus the 55-300 (both of which I have). DA*300 blows the 55-300 at 300mm out of the water, it's better at F4 than the 55-300 at F8. Chalk and cheese!

But at web sizes and with the 55-300 at F8 in bright conditions, there's not much in it in the middle of the frame. That extra 2 or more stops often makes one hell of a big difference though. So in a different way does its extra size and weight!

---

Last edited by Dave L; 12-11-2014 at 11:32 PM.

[GeneV]

For travel, the 55-300 is light, compact and more than acceptable. However, at 300mm, the detail from the DA* is in a class by itself. Here is just a very quick and dirty example. This shot with the DA*300 was at F/4.5 and hand- held at ISO 800 on the K3 with on-board flash and a little underexposed. Even at this higher ISO, the 100% crop lets you count the vessels in cat's eye and the individual hairs in the fur around it at the point of focus in the corner of the eye. For birding or other wildlife,this gives one latitude to crop or use a teleconverter.

The depth of field on a close shot at or near F/4 is not for the faint of heart at focusing. Here, the low-light AF was checked on my Katzeye (appropriate) split screen and was dead on. At the 100% crop, DOF barely extends across the entire eye at F/4.5 I can't imagine what F/2.8 would be like on the few faster 300s.

[GeneV]

Here is a comparison 100% crop for the 55-300. The shot from the DA55-300 below is at the same FL and similar distance, with the same K3 and same 800 ISO as the cat's eye, but the zoom is at F/9. The 55-300 is more than acceptable, and I am happy with it as a print. However, comparing the eyes and the fur to the feather details, one can see that DOF aside, there is a significant advantage to the DA* almost wide open over the zoom at its best aperture.

[csa]

There's no doubt a very high priced DA*300 will produce better results than the lowly $200 55-300. However, for some of us, the ultimate lenses are out of our reach for just a "hobby". My original question has been lost:

"Any 300/300+ lens (under $500), be sharper than the 55-300 @300? Any examples?"

Thanks to all that replied. When I get my Tokina ATX 400, then I'll rethink my 55-300.

---

Last edited by csa; 12-12-2014 at 10:47 AM.

[GeneV]

There's no doubt a very high priced DA*300 will produce better results than the lowly $200 55-300. However, for some of us, the ultimate lenses are out of our reach for just a "hobby". My original question has been lost:

"Any 300/300+ lens (under $500), be sharper than the 55-300 @300? Any examples?"

Thanks to all that replied. When I get my Tokina ATX 400, then I'll rethink my 55-300.

There seemed to be some doubt about that statement expressed in some responses.

IMHO, the answer to your original question is "not really." Most of the lenses you find that offer a significant improvement over the 55-300 without a big penalty elsewhere are more than $500, even used. After years of watching Ebay and KEH, that is how I ended up the the DA* 300 when it dropped to $1k. Below $500, you will get some improvement with an older K or M fixed FL, manual lens, but it will come at a price in convenience that is a dubious trade off. A used FA* is only $200 or so less than the DA*. Even an "A" mount manual lens that is a significant improvement will likely start at $500.

[csa]

Thanks Gene; that is a great explanation to my original question! I appreciate it.

[audiobomber]

The A*300mm is sharper than the 55-300mm, if you nail the focus. More likely to fringe though.

[GeneV]

An A * was what I had in mind when I posted that an A mount would cost at or more than his $500 limit. I don't see a lot of those going really cheap these days.

The other A lens which interested me in this range was the 400mm. The extra reach and the speed is about like the DA* with the 1.4 teleconverter. Again, it will be at least $500 these days for a good used copy.

My philosophy in looking at these lenses is:

1) Fine points of lens sharpness are overrated. The dove photo from the 55-300 is a 100% crop of a 24mp photo that looks great.
2) The DA 55-300 is light, portable, acceptable and always in my bag.
3) The main reason to upgrade is to gain performance significant enough that I can extend the lens' reach by cropping or a converter. This comes at a penalty of price, size and weight.

To get an upgrade which will extend the reach, you pay. I can spend $500+ and manual focus or closer to $1,000 (DA* or FA) and get AF. The latter was more appealing.

[audiobomber]

An A * was what I had in mind when I posted that an A mount would cost at or more than his $500 limit. I don't see a lot of those going really cheap these days.

I sold mine two years ago at a bad time. Someone was offering a whack of them for around $450. The Price History graph, SMC Pentax-A* 300mm F4 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database, shows an average price below $500 but I suspect you're right, the cost may have gone up lately.

I'm not surprised, that lens was always undervalued, and now that it can be mounted on any MILC, demand should be high. The comparatively tiny A*300 would be an amazing lens to use with the Sony A7 family. A FF sensor would reduce fringing, and focus peaking is a huge boon.

[Dave L]

My philosophy in looking at these lenses is:

1) Fine points of lens sharpness are overrated. The dove photo from the 55-300 is a 100% crop of a 24mp photo that looks great.
2) The DA 55-300 is light, portable, acceptable and always in my bag.
3) The main reason to upgrade is to gain performance significant enough that I can extend the lens' reach by cropping or a converter. This comes at a penalty of price, size and weight.

To get an upgrade which will extend the reach, you pay. I can spend $500+ and manual focus or closer to $1,000 (DA* or FA) and get AF. The latter was more appealing.

That was my thinking when ordering the DA* 300mm. Not to replace the 55-300 but to effectively extend both reach *and* low light capabilities at 300mm. It's a bit like having a 55-300 and a 200-500 in your bag, maybe more with the teleconverter that's next on my shopping list. Trouble is, you need a new and bigger bag, and it's not much use when travelling light. Could save some weight by replacing the 55-300 with the 100mmWRmacro (I'd already have the 1.4 TC) and cropping as needed.

[GeneV]

I sold mine two years ago at a bad time. Someone was offering a whack of them for around $450. The Price History graph, SMC Pentax-A* 300mm F4 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database, shows an average price below $500 but I suspect you're right, the cost may have gone up lately.

I'm not surprised, that lens was always undervalued, and now that it can be mounted on any MILC, demand should be high. The comparatively tiny A*300 would be an amazing lens to use with the Sony A7 family. A FF sensor would reduce fringing, and focus peaking is a huge boon.

The lens review page for the A*300 shows an average price of $489, which is not much below $500, and that includes people who bought them long ago.

I have also thought about using some of my Pentax film lenses on the Sony family FF cameras. So far, I only have a crop sensor Sony body, but it has been fun to use the adapter for PK. It is a bit off topic, but so far, I find the focus peaking on the A6000 to be next to useless compared to the Pentax version.Too much lights up. Perhaps it is better in the A7 series. OTOH, the instant magnification in the EVF is terrific.

[csa]

"The other A lens which interested me in this range was the 400mm."

Since I will have a mint Tokina 400 F5.6 ATX AF shortly, this handles this range for me.

"replacing the 55-300 with the 100mmWRmacro"

For my usage, this would not work at all. I plan on getting a 100mm Macro, but it will be in addition to the 55-300.

[Venom3300]

"The other A lens which interested me in this range was the 400mm."

Since I will have a mint Tokina 400 F5.6 ATX AF shortly, this handles this range for me.

"replacing the 55-300 with the 100mmWRmacro"

For my usage, this would not work at all. I plan on getting a 100mm Macro, but it will be in addition to the 55-300.

let me know how you like the Tokina 400 AF AT-X. Thats what I have and what I suggest to anyone looking for an alternative to the DA 55-300.

I find mine sharper and quicker to focus than the 55-300.

[csa]

I'll post about it, with some pictures. I don't plan on the Tokina replacing the 55-300, rather it will be in addition to it; adding just a little longer reach. Reading all the suggestions provided here, it may be a long while before I get something to replace the 55-300.

[normhead]

In the long haul, no older piece of glass is going to work well with a TC. The purple fringing which is border line acceptable on old glass used on a camera becomes unacceptable when enlarged by a TC. So long haul, I'd go DA*300 and 1.4 TC. Going at this second time around I might even consider a DA*200 ƒ2.4 and a TC to bing it up to close to 300. You can add a TC for length when you need it, but there's nothing I can do to get ƒ2.8 on my DA*60-250 in low light. And further to that, DA* s a sharp enough to maintain resolution with the 1.4 TC, that is they out-resolve the sensor by at least 1.4. I wouldn't count on that with a 55-300. That being said, if you want to get to 300 inexpensively the DA 55-300 is by far the best way to do it. It's strong at 300mm, which is a rarity for a lens of this price and quality. And other _ _ to 300mm lens I know of is soft in the long end. A DA*200 ƒ2.8 and 1.4 TC is a couple grand.