Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-18-2015, 11:35 PM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,175
Two issues with the 300 + TC.
- First, to get a small bird large in the frame, distance like 7m or so is necessary, at this distance, 420mm lead to a tiny DOF, for a bird not fully stable on a branch, it's hard to have it perfect in focus, unless shooting at f11 or more, then diffraction kicks in.
- Second, TC basically magnify the image from the DA300 including resolution limit, diffraction, CA etc.. In theory, the TC give an image resolution advantage with cameras limited by sensor resolution (i.e K10,K200,K5) where the sensor does not record higher spatial frequencies that are available out of the lens. However, with K-5iis and K-3, the TC does not bring a resolution advantage over cropping in the 24Mpixels sensor, not even a benefit in terms of noise since with TC one stop of light is lost (= same light spread over the sensor compared to the light falling on the crop area).

The DA*300 is very good alone. For more reach: Sigma 500 f4.5 . I'd like to have a 400mm prime, even if it is f5.6, but there isn't any Pentax autofocus version yet.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 04-18-2015 at 11:45 PM.
04-18-2015, 11:54 PM   #17
Veteran Member
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,310
This thread should be labeled "Save $500" ......I think I have.

Maybe I'll just try and get closer...where I can..... mmm maybe I'll just specialise in Emus....

But I do want a $1,500 560mm .....

(and thats Canadian or Australian $ to)

Last edited by noelpolar; 04-18-2015 at 11:59 PM.
04-19-2015, 04:47 AM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,782
I fought with the DA*300 1.4HD tc with ok results. I determined that most of the problem was shutter induced vibration. The focus was good.

I had used a vanguard tripod and Jobu gimbal for a long time with the Da*300 with good results. I was getting soft shots with the tc attached. Test shots for focus calibration made it very clear what was going on. It was vibrating like a tuning fork.

If you can get the shutter speed high enough the problem goes away. Yes, the two second delay and mirror up can eliminate vibration blur, but try shooting wildlife like that. Baiting wouldn't be enough, maybe clubbing and stuffing.

I have seen great results here, so I don't know why my two bodies in that combination with either DA*300 lenses I had at the time has the same issues.

The bokeh in busy backgrounds common to where I shoot was ugly as well. The DA*300 will produce that in some situations, and the tc just magnified it.

A sigma 500mm came my way and I sold the tc.
04-19-2015, 04:52 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,669
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
This thread should be labeled "Save $500" ......I think I have.

Maybe I'll just try and get closer...where I can..... mmm maybe I'll just specialise in Emus....

But I do want a $1,500 560mm .....

(and thats Canadian or Australian $ to)
Dammit. You were supposed to take the plunge first so we could see whether or not it was worth buying for the F*300 combo. Now I might have saved $500 too

04-19-2015, 04:58 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
The bokeh in busy backgrounds common to where I shoot was ugly as well. The DA*300 will produce that in some situations, and the tc just magnified it.
Well from the originating thread the bokeh is not so buzy on the original image for example of normhead but become busy once post processed. I have seen it on my own image (for totally different subjects) when I push contrast/sharpness, the bokeh quality suffer.

I understand that somebody with photoshop could apply the change locally and avoid such things. I understood too why normhead would not want to spend 2 hours doing that.
04-19-2015, 05:02 AM   #21
Veteran Member
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,310
QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
Dammit. You were supposed to take the plunge first so we could see whether or not it was worth buying for the F*300 combo. Now I might have saved $500 too
I think that would be best.....I'm pretty happy with the 300 and K3......my thoughts are basically that if you add the unavoidable IQ loss with the TC (no matter how small), to the extra difficulty working at 420mm, along with the hassle of deciding to have the TC on or not........well I think I'm better slapping myself around the face to remind me that, for me, it's just a hobby and move on!

Anyway, back to saving for the FF.....then I'll wait for the 36meg APSC K3V

You Mr Driline....should use the $500 to get a FA77!

Last edited by noelpolar; 04-19-2015 at 05:09 AM.
04-19-2015, 07:05 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,669
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
You Mr Driline....should use the $500 to get a FA77!
What a way to hit an LBA addict right where it counts

04-19-2015, 08:13 AM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
The only real issue here for me is, does the 150-450 perform better than the 300 with 1.4 TC which would be 420mm at ƒ5.6. I absolutely will not pay $3000 for a heavy lens that doesn't give me better results than a lighter more portable combination.

So I'd really like to see some good results from the DA*300 ƒ4 and 1.4 TC. But looking at Nicholas' DxO scores above, it would appear to be as my experience would suggest. It's better to get closer with a short lens. Use the longer lens only if you can't get close enough with a shorter lens. The long lens is always your last resort, but sometimes it's your only option.

QuoteQuote:
(1) start with a static, flat test target (ISO 12233 test target or newpaper page, camera on a tripod, good daylight equivalent light, wide-open plus progressively other apertures, manual focus);

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/293399-pent...#ixzz3XlgAO1mc
But, I am always reminded that Imaging Resources squeezed 3800 lw/ph out of a D800 image, but admitted, it took them 7 tries to achieve that working in a dedicated lab. Home made test facilities are really not much better than shooting real world tests, though they can help with telling if a lens is decentered or front or back focusing.

I guess what I'm looking for form the 300 and TC is a real world example that shows off how good it is. You only need one. If one guy can do it one time, then it's just a matter of technique. If no one gets acceptable images then the odds of me coming up with one are pretty slim.

But, if jatrax's image is taken from over 100meters away, that looks real good to me. At that point, I'm willing to say, OK all you guys with the big lenses, show us what you've done at a similar distance that is better.

And that to me is what is missing here. People are making up stuff about what's possible with TCs that is in error. I've discussed this so many times with the same folks, I'm not even going to respond this time. People obviously have their own reasons for believing what they want.

But I will add, there is a lot of hogwash up there.

TCs don't run into a resolution limit on a good lens, because that lens still out-resolves the a 24 MP sensor by a good margin. A good lens will not hit its APS-c resolution limit for blue light until 100 MP. There's lots of room to expand your image before you hit a resolution limit. Even with my A-400, it's pretty useless with a 1.7 on it but still functional with a 1.4, and it's not a "star" lens. I've never had my DA* lens run into a "resolution limit". That whole line of thought is just nonsense.

In my experience the resolution loss because of the atmosphere over long distances is way more pronounced than the lack of the lenses resolving power for even ancient lenses like my A-400.

Last edited by normhead; 04-19-2015 at 08:32 AM.
04-19-2015, 08:34 AM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 346
Original Poster
QuoteQuote:
Looking at #1 and #2 my feeling is that #2 is softer. However, since #2 was taken at a longer distance and then cropped so the bird is the same size as in #1 I'm not sure how that is a fair comparison. But maybe I don't understand this. I would think a fair comparison would be the same subject (focusing target maybe) at the same distance and then the 300mm one cropped so that the object was the same size. Does that make sense? Also your #1 and #2 are at different ISO figures so that will have an impact
Yes the #2 is a lot softer. Sure it would be better to compare at the same distance, same light conditions, etc... I have to do it for better comparison, but it's not that easy in real condition shooting. I'll try on my 2015 bee-eater season (if they come back again), it's my best spot to do it.

QuoteQuote:
Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if SR was on or off. And I cannot figure out how to check that.
It's written in the RAW's exifs, but Photoshop doesn't export it in the JPG exifs. You can use Phil Harvey's command line tool to extract it. I'm developing an user-interface to use it easily, but the project is on pause at the moment (if you want me to check for you you can send me the RAW). I don't know if another exif viewer can extract this metadata.

QuoteQuote:
Ok I'll add a bit here
Handheld out of a car,bit of wind..Raw processed in lIghtroom--WB,levels,shadows,and some sharpening
single point AF-S,Hoya HD UV filter on

last one shadows pulled alot to see feathers(or what's left of them )
Thanks for the samples. Seems the same IQ than the one I get, but it would be easier to see on an unsharpened 100% crop.

QuoteQuote:
To me looks like that on some pictures you are simply out of focus, tending to say that your lens is back focused slightly... Did you try to calibrate the lens to your body?
QuoteQuote:
I'm seeing the same thing as others have said. The pictures look a bit out of focus. I'd look for a static subject and use manual focus. Re-test and try again.
QuoteQuote:
I suggest you do some auto-focus tests on tripod with a stationary target.

EDIT: I guess I was a bit slow typing.
QuoteQuote:
Pic #4 - undertail coverts are pin sharp but eye is out of focus. A focus problem here
QuoteQuote:
I agree with this. It looks like there is a small miss in focus on some of them, or simply not getting the eye 100% in focus.
QuoteQuote:
I always thought the basics of testing procedures for lenses (and TC) was:

(1) start with a static, flat test target (ISO 12233 test target or newpaper page, camera on a tripod, good daylight equivalent light, wide-open plus progressively other apertures, manual focus);

(2) move on to real world tests (inc SR on/off).

Then draw conclusions.

These TC tests have jumped straight to (2).
Well, I just tried (again) to calibrate the 300 alone and the 300 + TC. With the 300 alone I see no focusing problem. With the TC adding +10 correction seems better. I have to do it again at a wider distance and outdoors though. BUT ! The depth of field is so shallow at 300 & 420mm that even if the lens is front / back focusing when I focus on the eye, some place in the picture must be in focus, right ? For example in shots #1 & #3, the sharpness is best on the shoulders, and not on the eyes. Still the #1 is a lot sharper if you look at the sharpest area on each picture. For the #3, the focus seems to be right on the eye. There could be front/back focus problem, still some area on the picture is in focus. I find the results with the TC a lot softer, when looking to the in-focus area of the pictures, which is not always on the subject eyes.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that focusing is in cause there, no ? I'm gonna try the calibration outdoors at a wider distance...

QuoteQuote:
Here is a series of pictures taken with the K5 + DA* 300 + Pentax HD 1.4X teleconverter posted in my Flickr account ...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdlphotos/sets/72157645777277486

While some pictures are quite decent at 420mm, some are still not quite as sharp as they should be.
There are 21 pictures there, a good sampling.
Note: a whole bunch of images were deleted (not posted) because of the said softness; i.e.: a good percentage of them were certainly not as good as the K5 + DA*300 alone.

My photostream is rather filled with bird pictures taken with the DA*300 (no TC) and you can browse at will:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdlphotos/with/16325838011/

So, I think the lens on its own performs better than when combined with the TC.
I have similar results using the Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 with that same very lens and camera.

My (non-scientific) opinion is that any TC will degrade the overall end result(s), no matter how small the effect is.

JP
Thanks for the samples ! I don't have the Tamron 1.4 but its great that you have both. Based on what a lot of people are saying about the Pentax, and on its price, I expected better results.

QuoteQuote:
Are you running the firmware that was designed to accommodate the TC? I think it was 1.16
I am, it was the first thing I did when I saw the first results. It didn't change anything.

QuoteQuote:
Not really but that's me accustomed to shorter focal length where prime are indeed sharper and also K3 that remove the low pass filter and make things sharper.

To give you another idea of sharpness from DxO:
HD DA 35 macro ltd is measured as 13MP on K3 and 8MP on K5...
DA 35 f/2.4 both measured as 11MP on K3 and 7MP on K5.

But DA*300 is measured as 9MP on K3 and 7MP on K5... and while shorter prime all show at least some little improvement from 16 => 24MP (K5-IIs vs K3) the DA*300 show none, it max out with K5-IIs.

So yes if you compare the DA35 macro on K3 with a DA*300 on K5 you'll think the DA*300 shoots are soft.

The longer the focal length, the bigger it is, the more you pay, the less quality you get. Or you need to pay much much more or to have the lenses much much bigger... Maybe the 150-450 being so expensive and huge would be a great improvement here. We will see.

I always trusted through that the TC added quality, I have seen crops (more at K5 times) where there details you could not get without a TC by cropping... But I also seen that it was also typically coming with more CA and things like that. Many also confirm that.

So for me it hold true but when I see normhead pointing his shoot before post processing I feel more you are not alone having "not so sharp" picture out of the DA*300 + TC.

In all honestly the whole set of picture on the 1.4 TC thread you can see many picture that are soso from a pure technical point of view... Because we cumulate TC+crops, because there many birding etc and that a very difficult discipline.

Feathers are not the easier thing for a lense too. Most lenses measurements in lp/lw are done on contrasty target in studios and typically accept 50% contrast drop off while the texture of feather are far less contrasty and can easily be lost in particular if the light is not good.
Doing nearly exclusively wildlife and landscapes (with a softy 18-55), I'm not used to the 35's sharpness, so I'm totally satisfied with my 300 ^^. And yes, with the 300, the K3 doesn't seem to improve things that much. The limitations I have for now and that would decide me to buy new gear is the ISO handling and the focal length. That's why I'm considering the 150-450, and, maybe, the FF. That's also why I bought the TC. The K3 is tempting for its new auto-focus, but I managed to resist until now !

QuoteQuote:
Beware that with an FF 450 will not offer more reach than 300mm on APSC. And the pixel density to march 16MP K5 is already 37MP. And finally the lense apperture (up to f/5.6) mean that the AF would struggle with the TC (f/8 wide open).

But if the lense is indeed better, that might be interresting to use the 150-450 without TC in place of DA*300... well if you like the price and weight
Yes it's early to decide. I'm mostly considering the FF because I'm planning a working holidays in Australia next year, and I'd like to be as nicely equipped for landscaping as I can afford. Not sure if I will though
When using it for wildlife, what could interest me is its high-sensitivity handling. We'll see.


QuoteQuote:
all valid points. my bet is on the DA*300 to perform better in terms of IQ than the 150-450.... especially wide open.

also if 1. cropped isn't good enough for you, then you just need to give up on long lenses. It really doesn't get any better. An excellent 400mm lens will struggle to match a mediocre 50mm lens. The DA300 alone is excellent. This is as good as it gets...
Yep the 150-450 will probably not be as good at the 300 (but it could, the 300 is getting old. At least the 150-450 will be a lot better on the AF). But if it's better than the 300 + TC (and a lot better), it could worth it for me.

QuoteQuote:
Two issues with the 300 + TC.
- First, to get a small bird large in the frame, distance like 7m or so is necessary, at this distance, 420mm lead to a tiny DOF, for a bird not fully stable on a branch, it's hard to have it perfect in focus, unless shooting at f11 or more, then diffraction kicks in.
- Second, TC basically magnify the image from the DA300 including resolution limit, diffraction, CA etc.. In theory, the TC give an image resolution advantage with cameras limited by sensor resolution (i.e K10,K200,K5) where the sensor does not record higher spatial frequencies that are available out of the lens. However, with K-5iis and K-3, the TC does not bring a resolution advantage over cropping in the 24Mpixels sensor, not even a benefit in terms of noise since with TC one stop of light is lost (= same light spread over the sensor compared to the light falling on the crop area).

The DA*300 is very good alone. For more reach: Sigma 500 f4.5 . I'd like to have a 400mm prime, even if it is f5.6, but there isn't any Pentax autofocus version yet.
Well the Sigma 500 is out of budget for me at the moment ^^. And I don't know how it performs against the Canon / Nikon versions...

QuoteQuote:
This thread should be labeled "Save $500" ......I think I have.

Maybe I'll just try and get closer...where I can..... mmm maybe I'll just specialise in Emus....

But I do want a $1,500 560mm .....

(and thats Canadian or Australian $ to)
Yep it's always better to get closer, but not always possible. And even when possible, it still better for the subjects quietness to be 1.4 time farther.
Well the 560 had a huge price drop, it's now 4000€ IIRC... But even at this price the Sigma could be a better choice.

QuoteQuote:
+10

Since the OP's point using the examples provided eludes me, perhaps he can help by posting an image, or provide a link to an image, that demonstrates the 'better' results he desires beyond what he is getting.

Just curious... M
Not sure to understand, you mean better results with the 300 alone ? I'm looking for that, I'm totally happy with my 300. If you were speaking of the 300 + TC, well I don't have picture samples in full size or 100% crops links, I started the discussion because a lot of people are saying that this is a killer combo. In my case it's not (or, I don't find it is), so I'd like to know what's wrong. It may just be that what some consider as a "killer combo" is not what I expect. Still, I remember an example of two TCs stacked on the 560, and it was quite impressive (I downloaded the RAW IIRC)...


QuoteQuote:
I fought with the DA*300 1.4HD tc with ok results. I determined that most of the problem was shutter induced vibration. The focus was good.

I had used a vanguard tripod and Jobu gimbal for a long time with the Da*300 with good results. I was getting soft shots with the tc attached. Test shots for focus calibration made it very clear what was going on. It was vibrating like a tuning fork.

If you can get the shutter speed high enough the problem goes away. Yes, the two second delay and mirror up can eliminate vibration blur, but try shooting wildlife like that. Baiting wouldn't be enough, maybe clubbing and stuffing.

I have seen great results here, so I don't know why my two bodies in that combination with either DA*300 lenses I had at the time has the same issues.

The bokeh in busy backgrounds common to where I shoot was ugly as well. The DA*300 will produce that in some situations, and the tc just magnified it.

A sigma 500mm came my way and I sold the tc.
I'll try again with higher shutter speed, if I can. Are you happy with the Sigma ? How does it performs against the 300 alone ?
04-19-2015, 08:54 AM   #25
Veteran Member
RAART's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oakville, ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,095
Too bad that I do not have DA300 to test it out and see what results I will get, but the Norm Head have so many good results from that lens that I tend to believe that it might be also some user errors there too, especially on K-5 what you are using. I owned K-5II and the camera was really good but you have to have really good technique to get excellent results from it especially with long lenses. With K-3 everything changed and it is much better camera and some people say that it is hunting more than K-5's models but my body tend to do just some micro adjustments and than nail the focus and it is taking more time than K-5's, but the focus is right on the dot. I borrowed once the Sigma 150-500 from a friend before he sold it for similar reason you have and at that time I had both cameras K-5II and K-3 and the Sigma performed amazing on the K-3 but not on the K-5II, it needed even adjustment of 5 or 7, do not remember anymore... K-3 zero adjustments. Just my 2c
04-19-2015, 09:07 AM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 346
Original Poster
QuoteQuote:
Too bad that I do not have DA300 to test it out and see what results I will get, but the Norm Head have so many good results from that lens that I tend to believe that it might be also some user errors there too, especially on K-5 what you are using. I owned K-5II and the camera was really good but you have to have really good technique to get excellent results from it especially with long lenses. With K-3 everything changed and it is much better camera and some people say that it is hunting more than K-5's models but my body tend to do just some micro adjustments and than nail the focus and it is taking more time than K-5's, but the focus is right on the dot. I borrowed once the Sigma 150-500 from a friend before he sold it for similar reason you have and at that time I had both cameras K-5II and K-3 and the Sigma performed amazing on the K-3 but not on the K-5II, it needed even adjustment of 5 or 7, do not remember anymore... Just my 2c
Well for me when I get results like #1 I consider the sharpness as amazing. Maybe not right on the eye, but that may be my fault, I may have done the focus on the shoulders, the bird may have slightly moved between the focus and the shot, etc... Still I find sharpness on the focused spot is perfect (please remember that you are seing a non-sharpened full-size picture and check this version for a 800px one - still not sharpened)

QuoteQuote:
Example, taken at 7 meters, with DA*300 + x1.4 TC , + lot of sharpening.
Thanks, taken with which camera ? Could you post it with no sharpening ?


So, I just did another test outdoor, confirming that with a +10 it is better with the TC :

-10 :



-5 :



0 :



+5 :



+10 :



So, I need to try again with the +10 correction and SR off, before putting 2500$ in the 150-450 ^^. But I'm not expecting better results than on #3. If that would become my average TC quality I'd be happy though.
04-19-2015, 09:08 AM - 1 Like   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,782
QuoteOriginally posted by timautin Quote
I'll try again with higher shutter speed, if I can. Are you happy with the Sigma ? How does it performs against the 300 alone ?
Longer. It is as sharp as the 300. The reason we want the tc is because 300mm is too short, you need to be very close in. That means you miss lots of shots. 400mm is very nice, and someone getting good results at 300 mm will get stunning results with a 400mm of good quality. Longer than that and technique becomes very important, and a fast long lens is big and heavy. The 500 f4.5 sigma is big and heavy.

Every lens has its sweet spot and if you stay within that limit you will get great results. I suspect the those getting excellent results from the 300+tc have shooting opportunities within the sweet spot of that combination. Those who don't are asking to much of it.
04-19-2015, 09:16 AM   #28
Veteran Member
RAART's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oakville, ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,095
QuoteOriginally posted by timautin Quote
So, I just did another test outdoor, confirming that with a +10 it is better with the TC :

So, I need to try again with the +10 correction and SR off, before putting 2500$ in the 150-450 ^^. But I'm not expecting better results than on #3. If that would become my average TC quality I'd be happy though.
That's what I mention in my first post, that you have slightly backfocused lens... I guess that will resolve your issues. Have fun using your newly discovered combo!
04-19-2015, 09:19 AM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,175
Instances of DA300+TC, on tripod, live view (no vibration from mirror), focus manually using live view+4x zoom, distance approx 7 meters, aperture f10 (for larger depth of field), ISO800, shutter speed 1/400, SR OFF, 50% crops, #1 sharpened, #2 not sharpened.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 

Last edited by biz-engineer; 04-19-2015 at 09:26 AM.
04-19-2015, 09:24 AM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,782
Photo shop has a sharpening tool that is very useful in diagnosing causes of softness. I don't use it so I don't know what it is called; a friend showed it to me and we looked at some of my shots to see what was wrong.

Is has the capability of fixing movement blur, but more interesting it displays a small graphic illustrating the elongated pixel pattern after analysis. So if you shoot something moving across the scene horizontally it will show an oblong circle long on the horizontal axis. Or will show a shaky hands, vibration or whatever the source of softness from movement. I leaned that I needed to up my shutter speed.

A soft photo with a long lens has many causes.

http://www.ehow.com/how_6954394_remove-motion-blur-photoshop.html

Step 4.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
1.4x, 300mm, 300mm lens, blur, crop, da*300, display, hd tc 1.4 da* 300 k5, image, images, k-mount, k5, k5 da*, lens, pentax hd 1.4x, pentax lens, people, pictures, post, series, size, slr lens, sr, tc, tripod, version
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Part 2 - (K-3) Compare Sigma 50-500 OS to DA*300/HD-TC crewl1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 04-20-2015 09:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: HD PENTAX-DA 1:4-5.8 55-300mm ED WR 55-300 (price reduced) transam879 Sold Items 6 07-15-2014 06:05 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-3, DA* 300mm f/4, HD 1.4x TC wtlwdwgn Sold Items 16 07-02-2014 07:30 PM
Comparing Sigma 50-500 OS to DA*300 w HD-TC crewl1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 06-23-2014 03:21 PM
Impact of TC 1.7x on IQ on DA*300 tcom Post Your Photos! 8 02-22-2009 06:07 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top