[DSims]

For this reason, it is not the best choice for wildlife. You really risk scaring something off. It is really loud, especially if it has to make a full turn.

Do you think the F* and FA* are too noisy as well? This is a potential advantage for the DA*300. I'm usually shooting in environments where the ambient noise is often higher than the lens' noise.

I still prefer the IQ and slightly lighter weight of the older models, but focusing noise and WR might override those factors in some applications.

[SKYGZR]

"Manual Focus" would eliminate any associated "lens AF noise".....

[r0ckstarr]

Not my video, but this is how my 300* sounds. You barely hear it.

You Tube

You Tube

[DSims]

What's wrong w/the "kit lens"? (depending on what "kit lens" you wish to replace..didn't mention it in your first post) If it's the 55-300, then why not a 2x-teleconverter? Will get you "up close and personal". (I have this setup and works great w/ the K5ii--haven't really used it w/ the K-x, yet would probably also be OK.

The DA55-300 gives better IQ than it has any right to for the price, and it's nice and light. But you'll usually end up shooting around f/7.1 even before you put a TC on it. The *300s do great between f/4 and f/5.

More importantly, the images are noticeably better from the *300 lenses. Yes, you pay some money for them, but you instantly feel like a good photographer just because you changed lenses. Obviously you have to have to select the aperture, focus point, and framing, but that's about it. If you apply the same good skills you'd use otherwise you'll come out with compelling photos. You literally may have your worst 20% from the * lens looking better than the top 10% from your other lens! Of course this is after you're rid of the complete throw-always, but you tend to get fewer of those too.

---------- Post added 01-25-15 at 10:47 PM ----------

Not my video, but this is how my 300* sounds. You barely hear it.

Pentax K-5 + DA*300mm f/4 AF Speed - YouTube

Thanks - I've used the DA*300 before, and I know it's quiet. I never evaluated it for noise - probably because there's so little! Still, the video's impressive.

What I'm really wondering is if anyone's found my lens (or the FA*) too be too noisy in a nature setting.

[morgun]

I have the 18-55 and 50-200 neither are wr. The reason for the choice I laid out is I can get either lens for the same price new, the DA*300/ 60-250 are nearly half as much again, as noted the tamron 70-200 has a loud screw drive and according to the review on here not as good af. So really I see the choice as being about weather resistance and lighter weight vs zoom

[noelpolar]

I have to plug the Sigma 70-200….. when pointed at animals they do strange things for it……..


by Noelpolar, on Flickr

Now if you'd used a Tamron with the noisy screw drive focusing this is the shot you'd get:

by Noelpolar, on Flickr

I hope I've been of help…..

[Billk]

I have the DA 200mm F2.8 and the DA 300mm F4.

I got the 200mm first (about 3 years ago) intending to use it with a TC, only to find that using a TC with manual focus was useless for bird photography. So I concentrated on bigger birds and tame ones until I could afford the 300mm.

At the moment the 300mm is rarely off my camera and the 200mm is probably my fourth most used lens (after the FA 77mm F1.8 and Sigma 70mm F2.8 macro). The 200mm is still a great lens though and you wouldn't regret buying it.

[UncleVanya]

My father has the 200 f2.8 after trying the 60-250 and finding it to big and unwileft for his shooting.

[percy]

No Sigma HSM lens will work with a TC. It won't work with the Tamron one (I have it...) and it will not work with the Pentax one. Heck, only one of the Sigma 70-200 (there are 5 of them?) will even work with the Sigma TC.

When I had a Sigma HSM 70-200 (the latest model) my Tamron 1.4x teleconverter worked just fine with it (albeit with slower autofocus) with a Pentax K-5iis and a Pentax K-3

[audiobomber]

The DA55-300 gives better IQ than it has any right to for the price, and it's nice and light. But you'll usually end up shooting around f/7.1 even before you put a TC on it. The *300s do great between f/4 and f/5.

More importantly, the images are noticeably better from the *300 lenses.

I agree. My 55-300 WR needs to be stopped down for acceptable sharpness, my DA*300 doesn't.

Thanks - I've used the DA*300 before, and I know it's quiet. I never evaluated it for noise - probably because there's so little! Still, the video's impressive.

What I'm really wondering is if anyone's found my lens (or the FA*) too be too noisy in a nature setting.

I've certainly frightened lots of birds away due to AF whine with a 55-300 and my old Tamron 70-300.

[DSims]

I have to plug the Sigma 70-200….. when pointed at animals they do strange things for it……..

Now if you'd used a Tamron with the noisy screw drive focusing this is the shot you'd get:

by Noelpolar, on Flickr

I hope I've been of help…..

Great shots - I love it!


Hey, wait, you didn't fake those shots? I mean the iron is plugged in, isn't it?

---------- Post added 01-26-15 at 12:54 PM ----------

as noted the tamron 70-200 has a loud screw drive and according to the review on here not as good af.

The Tamron may still be too loud for you, but as far as AF performance I don't think that's true anymore. With current bodies (K-3 and even K-5 II or IIs) it's reported to be anywhere from slightly slower to slightly faster than the Sigma in Auto Focusing. This is because of the vast improvements in the screw-drive auto focus of those cameras, which reports & tests using older bodies don't account for.

[snostorm]

What I'm really wondering is if anyone's found my lens (or the FA*) too be too noisy in a nature setting.

Hi DSims,

I've been shooting birds for the last 10 years with Pentax DSLRs and all of my ultra teles are screwdrive. I normally shoot from less than 20 feet from my subjects, and more often than not from less than 10 feet, and I can't recall ever having a problem with AF motor noise. My most used lenses are an FA* 300/4.5, an FA* 300/2.8, and a Sigma EX 300/2.8 APO, used with and without Tamron and Sigma 1.4x AF TCs and the F 1.7x AFA. I also use two DA 55-300s (one is an HD WR) if I want to go light.

The only times I've found that I really want silent shooting is around people. I can go totally silent with either my Q or A7s, and I don't need a lot of FL for candids.

I must say that I shoot mostly in the suburbs of Chicago, and it's possible that the birds here might get more accustomed to mechanical noises, but neither the screwdrive motor nor the loud shutters of the older bodies have ever cost me a shot. I also don't use hides or camo, just stand out in the open and wait until the birds get used to my presence. In my experience, quick movements and direct-line approaches are more likely to scare animals than camera noises or flash.

Scott

[audiobomber]

I must say that I shoot mostly in the suburbs of Chicago, and it's possible that the birds here might get more accustomed to mechanical noises, but neither the screwdrive motor nor the loud shutters of the older bodies have ever cost me a shot.

That thought occurred to me as I was responding to this thread. I shoot mostly in remote locations, in the woods of Northern Ontario. The birds are very skittish, and screw noise has definitely been a problem for me at times.

[DSims]

I must say that I shoot mostly in the suburbs of Chicago, and it's possible that the birds here might get more accustomed to mechanical noises, but neither the screwdrive motor nor the loud shutters of the older bodies have ever cost me a shot. I also don't use hides or camo, just stand out in the open and wait until the birds get used to my presence. In my experience, quick movements and direct-line approaches are more likely to scare animals than camera noises or flash.

Very interesting - thanks for the response. I guess I'd have to be a ways from home here in San Angeles for our birds to care either.

[noelpolar]

Great shots - I love it!


Hey, wait, you didn't fake those shots? I mean the iron is plugged in, isn't it?

---------- Post added 01-26-15 at 12:54 PM ----------

For the record, no Dogs (or creases) were harmed in the taking of those shots.