[12345]

I'm interested in more "reach" as I will be traveling soon to a place with lots of wild animals...

I already own the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 (Silver Edition) but it's a bit disappointing as far as IQ/AF goes. I'm seriously considering the *60-250, but it's a bit on the pricey side. Then I came across the Tammy 70-200 2.8, and I thought, "a fast zoom, with macro (I do a lot of macro work) for $200 cheaper, what can't be good about this?" However, 200mm is not much "zoom", so I would have to have a TC for it's intended purpose. I see that someone was selling that exact combo here on the Marketplace so I presume that it's a viable option? Is the Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 a good option, or is there something better? Does anyone have any thoughts about it? IQ, autofocus speed and accuracy, etc.

-Thanks!

[blackcloudbrew]

I don't have the Tammy 1.4x t/c but I do have the Kenko 1.5x t/c and have used it with my Tamron 70-200. IIRC the Tammy 1.4 t/c is considered the best of the bunch (not counting the new Pentax t/c but that's many more dollars). I used to own the FA 80-320 as well and know what you mean about that, it's a consumer lens good just not great and putting a t/c on it would only tend to reduce it's image quality (for that matter any t/c would reduce a lens' image quality). My kenko t/c works ok with the 70-200 but as is indicated in the manual auto focus become unstable below f4 (and I can verify that this is the case). However, as far as image quality goes I would say that there is some slight reduction with a t/c on the 70-200.

If you read reviews here of the Tamron 70-200 you may read comments about it hunting on focus or that's it's slow or noisy. Personally, while I can't say that these conditions don't happen on mine, I can say that I've never found them a problem or limiting. I really like that lens and as I recall, you can focus to about 3 feet with it making it a nice standoff lens for close focus work (it's not really a macro lens though just a close focus lens). It's really sharp too.

---------- Post added 05-21-2015 at 12:09 PM ----------

I've gone back through my images and have tried to locate some where I used my t/c with the 70-200, and can't find them. However, here is an example of the Tammy at close focus (likely about 3 feet) from a rose.

[biz-engineer]

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro and 1.4x TC works well with good IQ when closed 1 stop (f5.6), and with the K-3 at least, the AF is straight to the point (noisy but no hesitation). The downside for wildlife, depending how close you are, is the noise of screwdrive AF. Now if you thing of using the Tamron 70-200 in manual focus to avoid the AF noise, the AF ring is significantly stiff with the 1.4x TC. But in the future, I believe that the DFA 70-200 + 1.4x TC will be a very good combo because, with APS-C it will be a nice telephoto for short range wildlife (with silent and reliable AF) , and on a full frame, the DFA 70-200 will be a very good portrait zoom. And use a prime of 500mm or longer for small or far animals. The copy of my Tamron 70-200 macro is as sharp or even sharper and more contrasty than the DA300, but the DA300 has a warmer rendering, the Tamron 70-200 is relatively more neutral.

[12345]

Thanks for your comments! From what I've read about the 70-200, it does look really good. What I'm after though, is how good with a Tamron 1.4x TC? And is the slight difference in price between that combo and the *60-250 enough to make up for the hassle of a TC for an extra 30mm on the long end? @biz-engineer, you mentioned the noisy screwdrive AF... I'm not so worried about the noise as I am about AF performance. However, I'm glad you brought it to mind, I doubt I would have thought of it! How much better would the 60-250's SDM be?

[biz-engineer]

How much better would the 60-250's SDM be?

I can't tell you if the SDM is good on the 60-250, I do not have one. To make your mind you could looks a different reviews in the lens database of Pentaxforum. Here https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Star-60-250mm-F4-SDM-Zoom-Lens.html . And here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html .

[12345]

Thanks @biz-engineer, I guess I'll have to hope that someone who owns a 60-250 will come along then! The reviews of the 70-200 all seem to be extremely good; it does seem though that AF is it's weakest point, a weakness which would only be exacerbated by using a TC I'm thinking...

[clackers]

I find the Tammy 70-200 works just fine with the Pentax 1.4 TC. :-)

[jpzk]

I'm interested in more "reach" as I will be traveling soon to a place with lots of wild animals...

I already own the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 (Silver Edition) but it's a bit disappointing as far as IQ/AF goes. I'm seriously considering the *60-250, but it's a bit on the pricey side. Then I came across the Tammy 70-200 2.8, and I thought, "a fast zoom, with macro (I do a lot of macro work) for $200 cheaper, what can't be good about this?" However, 200mm is not much "zoom", so I would have to have a TC for it's intended purpose. I see that someone was selling that exact combo here on the Marketplace so I presume that it's a viable option? Is the Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 a good option, or is there something better? Does anyone have any thoughts about it? IQ, autofocus speed and accuracy, etc.

-Thanks!

I used to own the Tammy 70-200 and used it a few times with the Tamron 1.4X TC.
Sold the Tammy because I acquired the DA*300/4 for birding but I kept the Tamron TC.
The latter works well and is reviewed as one of the best: Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Cheers!

[biz-engineer]

a weakness which would only be exacerbated by using a TC I'm thinking...

No , actually it is the other way around. The AF is more decisive and accurate with TC + Tamy, than with TC + DA300 SDM. There are two reasons for that: first reason the tamy is f2.8, the DA300 is f4 (DA60-250 is also f4 and also SDM, same system), second reason, the screwdrive AF of the Tamy offer more damping to the AF servo, there is no hunting with the Tamy (this means the AF move and lock), while with the DA300 SDM AF there is very often an additional fine tuning step being performed after an initial AF move because the inital SDM AF run moves beyond the focus point, so the camera has to adjust. However, both solutions work.

Beyond the technical reality, photographers also have subjective preferences, and that's okay. But the 60-250 and 70-200 are different enough that it should not be an issue to select one of them based on their features. The 60-250 has silent AF, f4, weather sealed and not designed for full frame, and it extend when zooming. The Tamy has a screwdrive AF, f2.8 (better to work with a TC), it is not weather sealed, it does not extend when zooming in and it is full frame compatible.

[snimcho]

I think for traveling DA 55-300 is not a bad option because the size and weight but I don't know how it compares to FA 80-320.
Some examples:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/16484518561/in/album-72157650667325716/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/16298587538/in/album-72157650333272469/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/16300045629/in/album-72157650333272469/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/15866176513/in/album-72157650333272469/

[pacerr]

The Pz-AF 1.4 and either the Tammy AF 70-200/2.8 or its older sibling, the Adaptall SP 80-200/2.8, are excellent choices. I had the Pentax AF 1.7 TC and quickly re-sold it as it provided no advantage with those lenses or with my DA*300.

[12345]

Hey, thanks everybody for your opinions! I guess that answers all my questions about AF etc. Now the only thing I haven't really heard about is the IQ of the 200 + 1.4x TC compared to the *60-250, does anyone have any idea how they compare in that regard? I'm going to guess that 200 + 1.4x TC is going to have to lag a little in that regard, but I'd like an idea of how much!

@snmicho, your answer intrigued me! I don't know why it never occurred to me to try a "higher end" compact zoom instead of the much older 80-320. (The 55-300 still has the screw drive AF though) The main things that appeal to me are the price, (less than 1/2 the price of the other 2 options), and increased focal length. I just read through all 19 pages of the 55-300's review, and I liked what I saw in regards to the increased magnification of the 55-300 compared to the *60-250. I will be using it with a K-5 IIs, and the reviewer seemed to think that that combo went together very nicely. Of course the 300mm can't compare in IQ, but when comparing images upsampled to match the *60-250, there's not a whole lot of difference. The AF performance of the 55-300 vs. *60-250 greatly surprised me, although I guess it just confirms what @biz-engineer told me. Compared to the 200 + 1.4x combo, it's basically just a price difference isn't it? (They're both screwdrive, and the difference in FL is only 280 < 300. Max aperture would be the main difference I guess, not to mention that you can use the 200 alone @ f/2.8

Unfortunately, I don't seem to be any closer to making up my mind! I don't want to spend a lot of $$$, but I still want a good lens. I know that if I spend $300 on the 55-300, I'll get a decent, but still mediocre lens. But if I bite the bullet, spend $800 and get the 70-200 and TC, then I've got almost as much zoom, while I've got a nice high quality and fast (~macro) lens! Am I right, or am I missing something?

---------- Post added 05-23-15 at 11:37 AM ----------

One more thought, would it be better to get a 2x TC instead of only 1.4x? (effective 400mm f/5.6?) I realize that it would increase the effective aperture, but on a 2.8 lens it's still not too bad, right? On the marketplace right now is: $100 Pentax Rear Converter-A 2X-S 2x TC, A wonderful TC, Great condition Is that any good, or am I better off sticking with the 1.4x?

[biz-engineer]

In the area of tele lenses, there is a frontier of performance that money can buy. Once we figure this out, and once we figure out what we want to photograph in which conditions, we can know what lens suit the purpose. 400mm is not for the same usage as 200mm. For photographying a horse, a bear, or a crocodile in a zoo, 200mm is most of the time long enough, 400mm can be too much (can't have all of the animal in the frame). For photographying shy, small, and/or dangerous animals in the wild 400mm is often not long enough. Beyond the 70-200mm-300mm the price of tele lenses increase dramatically faster than the focal length. For instance, for a 200mm f2.8 lens that cost $800, a 3 times longer lens (600mm f4) costs at least 10 times more. So in order to spend the amount of money that's just right for you, you need to know what kind of photos you will limit yourself with. For sports, a faster lens is better. For still animals a slower lens is ok but used on tripod then. For small or far animals a longer lens is needed, for photographying large of closed animal, shorter lens is ok. etc...

[snimcho]

I'm also curious how Tammy 70-200+1.4xTC compares with SDM 60-250 ( 280/f4 vs 250/f4). May be someone who has taken pictures with both could help here.
If Tammy 70-200+1.4xTC really lags a little behind the SDM 60-250, then it would be quite interesting how it compares to DA 55-300

[pacerr]

One factor that hasn't been addressed is size and weight, not only of the camera/lens combination but of the other lenses and accessories you may be inclined to carry in a given situation.

There's a very real difference between carrying the DA 55-300 or the Tammy 70-200 or DA* 300 around for a few hours - much less a day. The potential advantage of the heavier gear isn't going to do you much good if you're reluctant to carry 'em and you'll almost always want to supplement those lenses with a second, wider lens.

There's a lot of wisdom in picking up an inexpensive DA L 55-300 and shooting with it for a few weeks gain first hand experience. My own DA L is a welcome back-up to the 70-200 and DA* 300 for casual outings.