[Jannis]

I'm thinking about shoting with longer telephoto for a long time. I mean modest wildlife, ZOOS etc... (not safari) I had old FA series 80-200 but sold it. I had also cheapo Tamron 70-300 Macro - but its IQ was very poor on the long end. Then, I have aquired one 50-200 WR and 55-300WR (accidentally) - But, 55-300 was on its long end almost same IQ as at 200mm upscaled - and almost same IQ that is upscaled image from 50-200 on long end - due to that and fact, that 50-200 is smaller and has faster AF, I have kept the DA50-200WR and sold 55-300.
Now, although I´m quite satisfied with my 50-200 when stopped down to f8, I´m looking to improve my telephoto capabilities - so, I have 3 ways (and 3 questions) in my mind:

1) Buy new telephoto lens: If I consider to buy new lens - can anyone compare advantages and disadvantages od DA*200 ($890) and DA*300($1100) (I dont considering DA*60-250, because I have DA*50-135 - so much overlap)

2) What about using new teleconverter($370) with my DA*50-135 - it turns it to 70-189 f/4 - and bonus will be using on my 100 macro to get above 1:1

3) What about upgrading body and cropping? I currently have K-5II and it is really nice camera.But if i get K-3 ( with current rebate it is $920 - but with no extra stuff, no grip, no card... - european prices aren't as good as US deals). This way I get more detailed picture from all my lenses, aren't I? With sufficient resulting power I can get 75-200 from my *50-135? due to incerease in resolution - and maybe more - considering absence of AA filter.


Wich way are you thinking, is best (which has best value/price ratio)?
I cannot considering buying used, becouse I connot find good used deals in EU end buying outside EU tends to be more expensive than new here due to tax and duties.
Thanks for any comment and advices

PS: My gear: K-5II (non s), and my tele lenses are DFA 100 WR, DA*50-135, DA50-200, DA18-135, DA50f/1.8 and old manual Takumar 200/4
PPS

[FantasticMrFox]

But, 55-300 was on its long end almost same IQ as at 200mm upscaled - and almost same IQ that is upscaled image from 50-200 on long end - due to that and fact, that 50-200 is smaller and has faster AF, I have kept the DA50-200WR and sold 55-300.

Are you sure you didn't just get a bad copy of the 55-300 (I assume you got the HD WR?)? Reviews are pretty good and most people consider it to be far superior to the 50-200 WR.

[TER-OR]

My 55-300 seems to have some backfocus I need to correct. I'd suggest looking at that issue, too.
I would like to get the DA300 though the budget won't allow right now.

[jatrax]

55-300 is pretty good in that price range, as noted above maybe you had a bad copy, or it needed focus adjustment.
Or perhaps you need to work on your long technique, 300mm requires good skills. 200mm can be hand held easily but 300 you need to work at it.

Best of your choices would be the da 300 but you give up the zoom which can be a disadvantage in some situations. I am not sure the TC would give you enough length on the 50-135.

[Jannis]

Thanks for suggestions.

Are you sure you didn't just get a bad copy of the 55-300 (I assume you got the HD WR?)? Reviews are pretty good and most people consider it to be far superior to the 50-200 WR.

Maybe it was bad copy. But I must spend about 370 buck to test, if it is true or not

Maybe, my copy of 50-200 is so good, in other hand
this is example from my last visit of Zoo:


and some 100% crops (first is fur of hyena at 200/8, second eye of eagle at 180/5.6)



I know that is not razor sharp on 100% - but it is far better than was my 55-300 on 300.

My 55-300 seems to have some backfocus I need to correct. I'd suggest looking at that issue, too.

I cannot test it, becou i Havent got it any longer, but when I done my comparasion, I used tripod and LV.

I think, I'm not alone with this observation. I have read on this forums, that others find with their copies same thing.

---------- Post added 03-13-15 at 02:50 PM ----------

55-300 is pretty good in that price range, as noted above maybe you had a bad copy, or it needed focus adjustment.
Or perhaps you need to work on your long technique, 300mm requires good skills. 200mm can be hand held easily but 300 you need to work at it.

Best of your choices would be the da 300 but you give up the zoom which can be a disadvantage in some situations. I am not sure the TC would give you enough length on the 50-135.

Best of your choices would be the da 300 but you give up the zoom which can be a disadvantage in some situations. I am not sure the TC would give you enough length on the 50-135.

Thanks - it seem, that about 200mm is enought for me. The question is IQ/price/weight ?

And what do you think about my body (instead of lens) upgrade option?

[crewl1]

The DA*300 is a step above your current lenses and will give you the best improvement in your shots for long range.
Your current body is fine, no need for the K-3 IMO for what you do.
The DA*200 is too close to your 50-135 and the IQ is not as good as the *300 especially in CA/PF.
The only consideration is f you are only shooting in zoos it may be too long.
In the field 300mm is the wildlife shooters starting point.
The 1.4 TC on the 50-135 will get you same results as cropping so not really a need.

[csa]

I think, I'm not alone with this observation. I have read on this forums, that others find with their copies same thing.

I have the 55-300 DA, and am very pleased with it.

I don't think you'd gain much in image quality by moving from the K5IIs to the K3. The *300 gives absolutely stunning results, but again, since not a zoom; may not be the best choice for you.

[Jannis]

I have the 55-300 DA, and am very pleased with it.

I don't think you'd gain much in image quality by moving from the K5IIs to the K3. The *300 gives absolutely stunning results, but again, since not a zoom; may not be the best choice for you.

But I dont have the s version. I have normal II, with AA. Do you thing that 1.5x more resolution and absence of low-pass filtr canot deliver more real resolution to satisfy that expense?

[jatrax]

Thanks - it seem, that about 200mm is enought for me. The question is IQ/price/weight ?

If 200mm is enough, and you want better than the 50-200 then get the da*60-250. It is close to my most used lens. It is big and heavy and delivers awesome images. I find myself even using it in the studio because the images it produces are so good.

And what do you think about my body (instead of lens) upgrade option?

But I dont have the s version. I have normal II, with AA. Do you thing that 1.5x more resolution and absence of low-pass filtr canot deliver more real resolution to satisfy that expense?

Nothing wrong with your body. If you want to really improve the image quality you need better glass. Yes, k-3 is a great camera and will deliver great images but nothing wrong with the k-5II either. I shoot with both k-5IIs and k-3 and after processing it is very hard to see any differences.

[crewl1]

Nothing wrong with your body. If you want to really improve the image quality you need better glass. Yes, k-3 is a great camera and will deliver great images but nothing wrong with the k-5II either. I shoot with both k-5IIs and k-3 and after processing it is very hard to see any differences.

Agreed the lens will be the game changer. I have shot the DA*300 with K-5 (not ii or iis) and the images are fantastic, so much better than a consumer zoom.

The 60-250 is an option as stated, but there is quite a bit of overlap with your 50-135.

[sterretje]

If 200mm is enough, you can consider Sigma or Tamron 70-200/2.8.

I don't see an issue with overlap (as you mentioned for the 60-250) as they, in my opinion, serve different purposes.

[Kevwaly]

Given the options you mentioned, the DA*300 is the best. You won't be disappointed. If you want to upgrade the body as well later fine, but for now, not essential.

[Nicolas06]

I'm thinking about shoting with longer telephoto for a long time. I mean modest wildlife, ZOOS etc... (not safari) I had old FA series 80-200 but sold it. I had also cheapo Tamron 70-300 Macro - but its IQ was very poor on the long end. Then, I have aquired one 50-200 WR and 55-300WR (accidentally) - But, 55-300 was on its long end almost same IQ as at 200mm upscaled - and almost same IQ that is upscaled image from 50-200 on long end - due to that and fact, that 50-200 is smaller and has faster AF, I have kept the DA50-200WR and sold 55-300.
Now, although I´m quite satisfied with my 50-200 when stopped down to f8, I´m looking to improve my telephoto capabilities - so, I have 3 ways (and 3 questions) in my mind:

1) Buy new telephoto lens: If I consider to buy new lens - can anyone compare advantages and disadvantages od DA*200 ($890) and DA*300($1100) (I dont considering DA*60-250, because I have DA*50-135 - so much overlap)

2) What about using new teleconverter($370) with my DA*50-135 - it turns it to 70-189 f/4 - and bonus will be using on my 100 macro to get above 1:1

3) What about upgrading body and cropping? I currently have K-5II and it is really nice camera.But if i get K-3 ( with current rebate it is $920 - but with no extra stuff, no grip, no card... - european prices aren't as good as US deals). This way I get more detailed picture from all my lenses, aren't I? With sufficient resulting power I can get 75-200 from my *50-135? due to incerease in resolution - and maybe more - considering absence of AA filter.


Wich way are you thinking, is best (which has best value/price ratio)?
I cannot considering buying used, becouse I connot find good used deals in EU end buying outside EU tends to be more expensive than new here due to tax and duties.
Thanks for any comment and advices

PS: My gear: K-5II (non s), and my tele lenses are DFA 100 WR, DA*50-135, DA50-200, DA18-135, DA50f/1.8 and old manual Takumar 200/4
PPS

My feeling from your situation.

If you have already a 50-135 and use a lot you 50-200 for your tele need, your easiest update it is to buy nothing, leave the 50-200 home and use the 50-135 for your tele needs. When there need, crop your 50-135.

Here is a 50-135 shoot at f/5.6 (not worse than 50-200 hey !) at 80mm. This is a 100% crop, you can compare it to your hyena or aigle crop. On purpose I didn't do any post processing and removed all the DxO automatic correction. Post processed correctly this is much better.

The crop on K3 give equivalent of 400mm framing:



If you want to see some zoo shoots with it, this is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolasbousquet/sets/72157647367764626/
Don't hesite to download/look the full resolution shoots. It much more sharp than your 50-200.

The next logical step if that's not enough is to add the 1.4 TC for very reasonable price.
I suppose also selling that K5-II used and replace it with a K3 would allow for more cropping, a bit like you see here while keeping the current gear. The price and effect would be similar to what of the TC I guess if you take into account the money you would get from selling the K5-II.

Honestly, what you really want from the description other than that is the 60-250. Not a birder very long tele like the 150-450. But a versatile long lense. And because you still use your 50-200 instead of 50-135 (an heresy !!!!! Really) you must be very sensitive to weight.

You fill like 60-250 is very similar to 50-135 but I don't how this would be any worse than a DA*200 or DA*300. That's pure psychology as obviously the 60-250 can do more than theses 2 primes at the expense of a bit lower quality (DA*300) or a bit less light gathering (DA*200). But from practical purpose, this 60-250 DO MORE than the DA*200 and DA*300. It is not much more heavy/bigger than DA*300 and there often very interresting used price for it on the market.

That the 60-250 also cover most of what the 50-135 can do (except f/2.8 really) should not be seen as an issue but additionnal asset. If you don't need the low light gathering of the 50-135, you can sell it to found the 60-250, add a DA50 f/1.8 for almost nothing so you get both better portraits and both better tele reach.

There nothing that will bring as much possibilities as a tele than this 60-250, and on day you can add the 1.4 TC and really have the ultimate reach with very high quality (a 85-350 f/5.6) while keeping something much smaller lighter than a 150-450.

All in all then:

First learn to use you DA50-135, really ! Spend some day at the zoo with it !

Then maybe see if you still miss something.

If it is not much, just a bit more reach/details You can exchange K3 from K5-II or buy the 1.4 TC.

If you still need much longer tele or not, and advise then if 60-250 + TC is really the best compromize. 60-200 f/4 AND 85-350 f/5.6 with great quality.

[UncleVanya]

My feeling from your situation.

If you have already a 50-135 and use a lot you 50-200 for your tele need, your easiest update it is to buy nothing, leave the 50-200 home and use the 50-135 for your tele needs. When there need, crop your 50-135.

Here is a 50-135 shoot at f/5.6 (not worse than 50-200 hey !) at 80mm. This is a 100% crop, you can compare it to your hyena or aigle crop. On purpose I didn't do any post processing and removed all the DxO automatic correction. Post processed correctly this is much better.

The crop on K3 give equivalent of 400mm framing:



If you want to see some zoo shoots with it, this is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicolasbousquet/sets/72157647367764626/
Don't hesite to download/look the full resolution shoots. It much more sharp than your 50-200.

The next logical step if that's not enough is to add the 1.4 TC for very reasonable price.
I suppose also selling that K5-II used and replace it with a K3 would allow for more cropping, a bit like you see here while keeping the current gear. The price and effect would be similar to what of the TC I guess if you take into account the money you would get from selling the K5-II.

Honestly, what you really want from the description other than that is the 60-250. Not a birder very long tele like the 150-450. But a versatile long lense. And because you still use your 50-200 instead of 50-135 (an heresy !!!!! Really) you must be very sensitive to weight.

You fill like 60-250 is very similar to 50-135 but I don't how this would be any worse than a DA*200 or DA*300. That's pure psychology as obviously the 60-250 can do more than theses 2 primes at the expense of a bit lower quality (DA*300) or a bit less light gathering (DA*200). But from practical purpose, this 60-250 DO MORE than the DA*200 and DA*300. It is not much more heavy/bigger than DA*300 and there often very interresting used price for it on the market.

That the 60-250 also cover most of what the 50-135 can do (except f/2.8 really) should not be seen as an issue but additionnal asset. If you don't need the low light gathering of the 50-135, you can sell it to found the 60-250, add a DA50 f/1.8 for almost nothing so you get both better portraits and both better tele reach.

There nothing that will bring as much possibilities as a tele than this 60-250, and on day you can add the 1.4 TC and really have the ultimate reach with very high quality (a 85-350 f/5.6) while keeping something much smaller lighter than a 150-450.

All in all then:

First learn to use you DA50-135, really ! Spend some day at the zoo with it !

Then maybe see if you still miss something.

If it is not much, just a bit more reach/details You can exchange K3 from K5-II or buy the 1.4 TC.

If you still need much longer tele or not, and advise then if 60-250 + TC is really the best compromize. 60-200 f/4 AND 85-350 f/5.6 with great quality.

Sage advice. I own the DA 50-200, DA* 50-135, DA* 60-250, SMC DA 55-300, and the HD DA 1.4 TC.

I find the size and weight of the 60-250 to be manageable but heavy. I like carrying the 50-135 more. With the TC the 50-135 is not as long as the 200's but close. Also as indicated cropping can help. If you like the DA 50-200, the 55-300 is typically better and very light.

[Driline]

Sage advice. I own the DA 50-200, DA* 50-135, DA* 60-250, SMC DA 55-300, and the HD DA 1.4 TC.

I find the size and weight of the 60-250 to be manageable but heavy. I like carrying the 50-135 more. With the TC the 50-135 is not as long as the 200's but close. Also as indicated cropping can help. If you like the DA 50-200, the 55-300 is typically better and very light.

Can you crop with the DA*50-135 and TC without much degradation in image quality? In other words can you substitute the 50-135 and TC for the same image quality as the DA *200 even with cropping?