Best choice for handheld telephoto lens

IchabodCrane · 12-02-2014, 06:43 AM

Side story of a lens I would NOT call hand-holdable.... Was at a big football game on Saturday night and had a brief chance to chat with one of the press photographers. He had a Canon 400/2.8. What a monster of a lens (with price tag to go along with it).

reeftool · 12-02-2014, 06:47 AM

Hand holding a telephoto will likely be different for each person and consistently getting sharp shots is going to take practice regardless. For hiking, I would recommend a zoom because it's much more versatile and the 55-300 will be much lighter in your pack after a long day on the trail. I don't bring any of my telephoto primes hiking unless I am hiking to a spot where I know I will use it. Actually, for general hiking, I don't bring a long lens at all any more because I rarely would ever use it. I hike with a Sigma 17-70 on the camera and a DA 15 in my pack.

loco · 12-02-2014, 06:50 AM

The 55-300 is the only "long" lens I own (I rented the DA* 300), so I've used it quite a bit. While it can be a very competent lens in terms of IQ, mine has always had AF accuracy issues. Plus, the AF is very slow and tends to rack all the way through on occasion which has made me lose numerous shots. If I had had to use that lens for my eagle tour, I'm not sure I'd have gotten any decent shots.

So, for birds in flight, it's probably not a great choice. At least it wouldn't be for me. However, if you are planning to photograph more stationary animals, it will work well. It's certainly lightweight and very hand-holdable.

Ace · 12-02-2014, 02:23 PM

Thanks for all of the great info. I am leaning toward picking up a used DA-L 55-300 for now and saving for something a little more robust. I never would have thought of the F or FA 300 but they look intriguing. The DA* 60-250 looks amazing but it sure does look more like a tripod type of lens. I usually pack a tripod, so I'm not fully against a bigger lens but with wildlife, sometimes there is no time for setup. Either way, I suppose at the price of a used 55-300, there is no reason not to have one in my bag. I just ordered a Sigma 17-50 2.8 (Please no negative info because it's already been purchased

) so the 55-300 would be perfect fit.

**UncleVanya** · 12-02-2014, 03:09 PM

I have an older Sigma 400mm f5.6, there are newer versions with better IQ but the older version is quite light and easy to handhold. Bear this in mind if the 300mm of the 55-300 is insufficient.

**ramseybuckeye** · 12-02-2014, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by loco

The 55-300 is the only "long" lens I own (I rented the DA* 300), so I've used it quite a bit. While it can be a very competent lens in terms of IQ, mine has always had AF accuracy issues. Plus, the AF is very slow and tends to rack all the way through on occasion which has made me lose numerous shots. If I had had to use that lens for my eagle tour, I'm not sure I'd have gotten any decent shots.

So, for birds in flight, it's probably not a great choice. At least it wouldn't be for me. However, if you are planning to photograph more stationary animals, it will work well. It's certainly lightweight and very hand-holdable.

The DA version of the lens does have quickshift (QS), I learned to use the QS all of the time to avoid that long slow autofocus, get it close with QS then hit the AF.

loco · 12-02-2014, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

The DA version of the lens does have quickshift (QS), I learned to use the QS all of the time to avoid that long slow autofocus, get it close with QS then hit the AF.

You are right, of course, Tom. I have the cheapo DA L version.

I'm sure the quick shift does help a lot.

Sandy Hancock · 12-02-2014, 04:53 PM - **2 Likes**

In good light the DA*300 is quite hand-holdable. Even on the Q with a teleconverter ;-)

Blue moon

**csa** · 12-02-2014, 05:54 PM

I've been having a great time shooting with my DA 55-300. So far, I've always handheld it with no problems. I'm of small stature with small hands, and it feels very comfortable for me to handhold it while shooting.

peterjcb · 12-02-2014, 06:42 PM

your really can't go wrong with the 55-300. It's a very nice lens with good IQ.
I also have a FA 80-320mm which I've gotten some surprisingly good results with and I really like it especially at it's current price.

Dave L · 12-04-2014, 02:51 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by loco

The 55-300 is the only "long" lens I own (I rented the DA* 300), so I've used it quite a bit. While it can be a very competent lens in terms of IQ, mine has always had AF accuracy issues. Plus, the AF is very slow and tends to rack all the way through on occasion which has made me lose numerous shots. If I had had to use that lens for my eagle tour, I'm not sure I'd have gotten any decent shots.

So, for birds in flight, it's probably not a great choice. At least it wouldn't be for me. However, if you are planning to photograph more stationary animals, it will work well. It's certainly lightweight and very hand-holdable.

With the DA* 300 on my K-5 I do have occasional slow focus issues in low light but mostly, and nearly always in good light, it's OK. I would expect a K-3 to offer some improvement in that respect, can anyone confirm?

Comparing the DA* 300 with my 55-300DA, it's effectively much longer, because of the better image quality. Perhaps moreso on a K-3 (my next likely purchase). In handheld tests, I have found the DA*300 to produce a similar image quality to the 55-300 (@ 300mm f/l) at roughly between 1.5 and 2 times the distance, depending on conditions and whether you are interested only in the frame centre or more towards the edge. The darker the conditions, the greater the difference seems to be in practice.

Driline · 12-04-2014, 03:23 PM

Of course the F*300. I think it has = or better IQ than my FA 31 plus it's very light and easily hand holdable. I spent about $950 for it used right here on the marketplace.

langkata · 12-04-2014, 03:48 PM

Stop that Driline. It's bad enough to have to see that lens in your signature when you post and now you go posting pictures like that! I definitely plan on picking that lens up one day.

**UncleVanya** · 12-04-2014, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by peterjcb

your really can't go wrong with the 55-300. It's a very nice lens with good IQ.
I also have a FA 80-320mm which I've gotten some surprisingly good results with and I really like it especially at it's current price.

What advantage (if any other than price) does the 80-320 have over the 55-300?

**sbrentbill** · 12-04-2014, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

Nothing against any of the other lenses mentioned, but the DA*300 is easily hand holdable. I have also used the DA55-300 which is good as long as you have the light, and I have also used the Sigma 50-500 and it too is fine handheld.
DA*300:

Great picture!

12-02-2014, 04:53 PM - 2 Likes	#23
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	In good light the DA300 is quite hand-holdable. Even on the Q with a teleconverter ;-) Blue moon Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 12-02-2014 at 06:10 PM.*

12-04-2014, 02:51 PM - 1 Like	#26
Dave L Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Hampshire UK Posts: 306	Originally posted by loco The 55-300 is the only "long" lens I own (I rented the DA* 300), so I've used it quite a bit. While it can be a very competent lens in terms of IQ, mine has always had AF accuracy issues. Plus, the AF is very slow and tends to rack all the way through on occasion which has made me lose numerous shots. If I had had to use that lens for my eagle tour, I'm not sure I'd have gotten any decent shots. So, for birds in flight, it's probably not a great choice. At least it wouldn't be for me. However, if you are planning to photograph more stationary animals, it will work well. It's certainly lightweight and very hand-holdable. With the DA* 300 on my K-5 I do have occasional slow focus issues in low light but mostly, and nearly always in good light, it's OK. I would expect a K-3 to offer some improvement in that respect, can anyone confirm? Comparing the DA* 300 with my 55-300DA, it's effectively much longer, because of the better image quality. Perhaps moreso on a K-3 (my next likely purchase). In handheld tests, I have found the DA300 to produce a similar image quality to the 55-300 (@ 300mm f/l) at roughly between 1.5 and 2 times the distance, depending on conditions and whether you are interested only in the frame centre or more towards the edge. The darker the conditions, the greater the difference seems to be in practice. Last edited by Dave L; 12-05-2014 at 02:13 PM.*

12-04-2014, 03:23 PM	#27
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,697	Of course the F300. I think it has = or better IQ than my FA 31 plus it's very light and easily hand holdable. I spent about $950 for it used right here on the marketplace. Last edited by Driline; 12-04-2014 at 03:53 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best recommendation for Telephoto Lens	audiodoc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	12-10-2013 02:55 PM
Best choice for a first macro lens?	Javaslinger	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	08-30-2012 03:16 PM
Best choice for a long, prime portrait lens?	m88k	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	08-11-2010 03:13 PM
Best lens for handheld museum photography?	Timarete	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	56	05-03-2009 01:27 AM
Best tripod for a heavy telephoto lens?	FastPhotography	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	10	01-23-2008 08:20 PM

12-02-2014, 06:43 AM	#16
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Side story of a lens I would NOT call hand-holdable.... Was at a big football game on Saturday night and had a brief chance to chat with one of the press photographers. He had a Canon 400/2.8. What a monster of a lens (with price tag to go along with it).

12-02-2014, 06:47 AM	#17
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	Hand holding a telephoto will likely be different for each person and consistently getting sharp shots is going to take practice regardless. For hiking, I would recommend a zoom because it's much more versatile and the 55-300 will be much lighter in your pack after a long day on the trail. I don't bring any of my telephoto primes hiking unless I am hiking to a spot where I know I will use it. Actually, for general hiking, I don't bring a long lens at all any more because I rarely would ever use it. I hike with a Sigma 17-70 on the camera and a DA 15 in my pack.

12-02-2014, 06:50 AM	#18
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	The 55-300 is the only "long" lens I own (I rented the DA* 300), so I've used it quite a bit. While it can be a very competent lens in terms of IQ, mine has always had AF accuracy issues. Plus, the AF is very slow and tends to rack all the way through on occasion which has made me lose numerous shots. If I had had to use that lens for my eagle tour, I'm not sure I'd have gotten any decent shots. So, for birds in flight, it's probably not a great choice. At least it wouldn't be for me. However, if you are planning to photograph more stationary animals, it will work well. It's certainly lightweight and very hand-holdable.

12-02-2014, 02:23 PM	#19
Ace Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Nevada Posts: 38 Original Poster	Thanks for all of the great info. I am leaning toward picking up a used DA-L 55-300 for now and saving for something a little more robust. I never would have thought of the F or FA 300 but they look intriguing. The DA* 60-250 looks amazing but it sure does look more like a tripod type of lens. I usually pack a tripod, so I'm not fully against a bigger lens but with wildlife, sometimes there is no time for setup. Either way, I suppose at the price of a used 55-300, there is no reason not to have one in my bag. I just ordered a Sigma 17-50 2.8 (Please no negative info because it's already been purchased ) so the 55-300 would be perfect fit.

12-02-2014, 03:09 PM	#20
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	I have an older Sigma 400mm f5.6, there are newer versions with better IQ but the older version is quite light and easy to handhold. Bear this in mind if the 300mm of the 55-300 is insufficient.

12-02-2014, 04:39 PM	#21
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,292	Originally posted by loco The 55-300 is the only "long" lens I own (I rented the DA* 300), so I've used it quite a bit. While it can be a very competent lens in terms of IQ, mine has always had AF accuracy issues. Plus, the AF is very slow and tends to rack all the way through on occasion which has made me lose numerous shots. If I had had to use that lens for my eagle tour, I'm not sure I'd have gotten any decent shots. So, for birds in flight, it's probably not a great choice. At least it wouldn't be for me. However, if you are planning to photograph more stationary animals, it will work well. It's certainly lightweight and very hand-holdable. The DA version of the lens does have quickshift (QS), I learned to use the QS all of the time to avoid that long slow autofocus, get it close with QS then hit the AF.

12-02-2014, 04:52 PM	#22
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye The DA version of the lens does have quickshift (QS), I learned to use the QS all of the time to avoid that long slow autofocus, get it close with QS then hit the AF. You are right, of course, Tom. I have the cheapo DA L version. I'm sure the quick shift does help a lot.

12-02-2014, 05:54 PM	#24
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	I've been having a great time shooting with my DA 55-300. So far, I've always handheld it with no problems. I'm of small stature with small hands, and it feels very comfortable for me to handhold it while shooting.

12-02-2014, 06:42 PM	#25
peterjcb Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Weddington, NC Posts: 468	your really can't go wrong with the 55-300. It's a very nice lens with good IQ. I also have a FA 80-320mm which I've gotten some surprisingly good results with and I really like it especially at it's current price.

12-04-2014, 03:48 PM	#28
langkata Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Baton Rouge Photos: Albums Posts: 68	Stop that Driline. It's bad enough to have to see that lens in your signature when you post and now you go posting pictures like that! I definitely plan on picking that lens up one day.

12-04-2014, 03:49 PM	#29
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	Originally posted by peterjcb your really can't go wrong with the 55-300. It's a very nice lens with good IQ. I also have a FA 80-320mm which I've gotten some surprisingly good results with and I really like it especially at it's current price. What advantage (if any other than price) does the 80-320 have over the 55-300?

12-04-2014, 06:59 PM	#30
sbrentbill Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 5	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye Nothing against any of the other lenses mentioned, but the DA300 is easily hand holdable. I have also used the DA55-300 which is good as long as you have the light, and I have also used the Sigma 50-500 and it too is fine handheld. DA300: Great picture!