[Scorpio71GR]

speaking of LBA.... mine....

I'm currently in the throes of a serious lens purchase.... DA*300 or DA* 60-250......

Very different lenses. I love my 60-250. I actually developed the modified baffle people are using so it will work on FF. The DA*300 is a much better wildlife lens. The 60-250 suffers terribly from focus breathing at minimum focus distance. It really depends on what you want to use them for. I use my 60-250 for landscapes alot. If I was looking for a wildlife or birding lens then the DA*300 is the best choice.

[pepperberry farm]

Very different lenses. I love my 60-250. I actually developed the modified baffle people are using so it will work on FF. The DA*300 is a much better wildlife lens. The 60-250 suffers terribly from focus breathing at minimum focus distance. It really depends on what you want to use them for. I use my 60-250 for landscapes alot. If I was looking for a wildlife or birding lens then the DA*300 is the best choice.

that's the sort of info/experience I'm after....

I am torn between the two, but I'm seeing substantially different shots for either lens... the DA*300 shots tend towards BIF, etc, while the DA*60-250 shots are more static shots....

I'm thinking I may need to rent both and see what I like about them...

[Scorpio71GR]

I actually have another lens already on the way. A Sigma 180mm 3.5 macro. I came across one for $445. I have never seen a K mount one close to that. Normally they are twice that amount. There is no way I could ever afford a FA*200 macro. I almost was going to pass on the Sigma 28 but I have really wanting a wide angle low light lens for the K-1.

[Scorpio71GR]

that's the sort of info/experience I'm after....

I am torn between the two, but I'm seeing substantially different shots for either lens... the DA*300 shots tend towards BIF, etc, while the DA*60-250 shots are more static shots....

I'm thinking I may need to rent both and see what I like about them...

FWIW my Tamron 70-200 has more magnification at 200mm then my 60-250 has at 250mm at MFD. However the 60-250 goes wider, is weather sealed, more compact, and lighter. I use the Tamron for action shots and where I am in low light situations. The 60-250 also is a bit awkward to handle at 250mm. I did not like it on my K50. On the K3 it was Ok, but better with the grip. I believe the DA*300 is shorter than the 60-250 fully extended.

[pepperberry farm]

agreed - and if I bought the DA* 60-250mm, it's primary use would be at 250mm or more with a TC...

back to the DA*300 (or the F/FA variants)....

[Scorpio71GR]

agreed - and if I bought the DA* 60-250mm, it's primary use would be at 250mm or more with a TC...

back to the DA*300 (or the F/FA variants)....

Sounds like it's the 300 then. The F*300 seems to be the preferred version. I used one years ago. It is a bit slower at f4.5 but much more compact. It also is the FA* white, so you can make the Cannon people jealous. The FA*300 has the silver finish that is easily scratched. The FA*300 did not come with a dedictated tripod mount, but most users get a Cannon 70-200 tripod mount to use. The DA*300 is larger than the F or FA version, but is f4. That might be a consideration when using a TC. I have heard of a few people with DA*300 SDM failures but not too many. The K3, HD 1.4TC, and DA*300 gives you a fully weather sealed kit that translates all data from the lens to the camera. This is the way I most likely will go. My Sigma 50-500 has become too much for me to carry.

[pepperberry farm]

meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum... the K35/3.5:

[Scorpio71GR]

I really like the 2nd one. I have always wondered what made you favor the K35 over the DA35.

[pepperberry farm]

I really like the 2nd one. I have always wondered what made you favor the K35 over the DA35.

for me it was the rendering of the DA 35 that I didn't care for - far too clinical/cold for my taste..... while the K35/3.5 has such a warmer touch to it....


also - I did not replace the DA35 with the K35; I replaced it with the Sigma 28mm f1.8, which I really like....

[paulh]

for me it was the rendering of the DA 35 that I didn't care for - far too clinical/cold for my taste..... while the K35/3.5 has such a warmer touch to it....

I had the DA35 for awhile, and never considered it "cold". To me it had the classic SMC rendering and colors - sharp and pleasant to my eyes, anyway. Maybe lacking a bit in character, though compared to the K's and Taks.

Another from the A35/2.8, one of my favorites. Nearly wide-open and with the focus-select accidentally set to Auto, which gives it a kind of dreamy look:

[pepperberry farm]

I had the DA35 for awhile, and never considered it "cold". To me it had the classic SMC rendering and colors - sharp and pleasant to my eyes, anyway. Maybe lacking a bit in character, though compared to the K's and Taks.

tomatoe vs tomato......


I'm glad that my DA35 found a new home and I have a solid replacement for it at that focal length.....

[chuck_c]

Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9 on the Pentax K-1


Woodpecker ritual by Chuck Campbell, on Flickr

[KC0PET]

K-3 with DA70 f/2.4

[aslyfox]

morning stretches at the Kansas City Zoo

mature Trumpeter Swan

almost mature Cygnet

mallard duck

K 3 + SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro

[pepperberry farm]

just before sunrise this morning