[Oakland Rob]

I've already got a 55-300mm WR; a great lens.

I am wondering if I'd gain much by getting a 400mm older lens in the $200-300ish range, vs just cropping a photo taken with the 300mm. The 400mm's, like say a Sigma or a Takumar, are gonna be manual, and without the zoom it's harder to get stuff that's moving, of course. And there are other tradeoffs, obviously. But putting those aside, and just focusing on their best cases at 300mm and 400mm, am I gonna get a better picture of say a bird in the center with the 400mm vs cropping a 300mm to show the bird in the same size?

[jimr-pdx]

A good question, and hard to answer generally. If your 55-300 is good at f/5.8 vs a basic 400mm that needs to be at f/8, the ISO or shutter speed could overpower the crop for overall IQ drop. I have an old Hanimar 400/6.3 (with about 16 aperture blades!) and a DAL 55-300 - so I'll go check

[jatrax]

In general a prime will always give you a better image since it is optimized for that focal length. However, the quality of the glass also comes into play. If you compare a consumer zoom with a high quality prime, no contest. But if you compare a good quality modern zoom with a cheap prime, then things are not so clear cut.

In short the most important thing is the quality of glass. After that, usually a prime will perform better than a zoom assuming both lenses have approximately the same quality. Personally I doubt you will see much improvement in that budget over your 55-300.

If you are interested in a 400mm prime PM me I have two for sale.

[jimr-pdx]

I think AF vs MF is as important with my shots test crops show they're both lousy. Still, you can see some detail on the rhododendron flowers with both shots. I'll try again when I can, with a tripod and no sliding-glass door intervening... and 400mm EXIF/SR input

Model: PENTAX K-r
ISO: 1250
Exposure: 1/100 sec
Aperture: 7.1
Focal Length: 300mm


ISO: 1250
Exposure: 1/100 sec
Aperture: n/a (~7.1)
Focal Length: 50mm (oops)

[Mistlefoot]

I have the 55-300 (D-AL) and the SMC Pentax 400mm F5.6.
Generally speaking, I am going to do as well with the 55-300mm or comparably close. I'll take a few shots this week if I have time (and expect I should).
I rarely use the 400mm anymore. Part of that might be challenges I have with manual focus.

Advantages of the 55-300. Auto focus. Weight (as in, is your older tripod good enough weight as well as carrying).
Advantages of the 400mm. Reach. Aperture ring for older tele-converters, although I am not overly happy with QI with either tele I have).

[mgvh]

I have done some comparisons between:

• TeleTakumar 200 f5.6
• DAL 55-300
• Tele Vivitar 300mm f5.6 T mount (these and its many similar ones are cheap and widely available)
• Tou/FIVE STAR 500mm f8 (rather cheap long tube!)

My criteria:

• Primarily center sharpness (edge sharpness not that important for me w/ a telephoto)
• 'Capture rate' > how successful am I getting an acceptable pic of what I'm trying to capture (here is where autofocus / ability to manually focus come into play)
• Handheld or tripod only

Some results:

• The TeleTak 200mm and 55-300 are hand-holdable. The Vivitar 300mm is better on a tripod. The Five Star 500mm is definitely better on a tripod.
• The 55-300 @ 200mm beats the TeleTak 200, but the TeleTak has its own special appeal in terms of rendering
• The 55-300 @ 300mm beats the TeleTak 200 when it is enlarged to the same image size
• No compelling reason to use Vivitar 300mm as compared to the 55-300 (Vivitar is larger, heavier, more difficult to focus. The images are just as good as the 55-300, but as I say, no compelling reason to use it.)
• The Five Star 500mm is surprisingly decent. It's much harder to get a good capture, but when I do, it beats the 55-300 at 300mm and upsized to match the 500mm.

[hoanpham]

Answer to your question: Yes.
I have tested a few 400mm primes, and the outcomes are good. My tests are done with sony a7r and pentax. Pentax bodies has SR, that also helps in 300mm range. Crop sensors vs full frame, but I got the answer you asked.
I have 2 copies of Tokina 400/5.6 (canon, and OM), nikon ais ED-IF 400/5.6. These are FF lenses, and cost less than the pentax. The Nikon might be not so cheap, while the Tokina might be found for less. The pentax is a zoom lens, and covers more in focals, if you can shoot with it's sweet spots.

Tokina 400/5.6 various f-stops and distances:

---

Last edited by hoanpham; 05-27-2015 at 12:45 AM.

[snimcho]

I have 2 copies of Tokina 400/5.6 (canon, and OM), nikon ais ED-IF 400/5.6. These are FF lenses, and cost less than the pentax. The Nikon might be not so cheap, while the Tokina might be found for less. The pentax is a zoom lens, and covers more in focals, if you can shoot with it's sweet spots. Tokina 400/5.6 various f-stops and distances:

Your Tokina seems pretty good Can you share some birds if you have?
I can share some birds pictures from DA 55-300:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/snimcho/sets/72157650333272469

[hoanpham]

No birdshot from me, too difficult
Really nice birds you got.

Here is the album of Tokina 400/5.6:
https://plus.google.com/photos/110033839625980502651/albums/5997052363268861121

And here is samles from DA 55-300:
https://plus.google.com/photos/110033839625980502651/albums/6153499594977971585

And here is samples from Nikkor ED-IF 400/5.6:
https://plus.google.com/photos/110033839625980502651/albums/6153502494750096529

[reeftool]

Better? That would depend on the particular 400mm lens you buy but any 400mm prime lens is going to be beast to carry where the 55-300 will fit nicely in your bag without requiring a chiropractor visit after a long day. Primes are generally going to produce sharper results than zooms and if you need that 400mm, you will have to crop with the 55-300. If you are new to using a telephoto, I would suggest you start with the 55-300. Being a zoom, it's a versatile lens, has auto focus and is fairly light and easier to hand hold. Now the bad news. You're still going to need something longer if you're serious about bird photography. Most of us who have been into photography for a while have a zoom lens like the 55-300 and also something longer. I have a K300/4 which works well with the Pentax 2x Rear Converter A and also a Sigma 150-500.

[normhead]

In my own tests on subject resolution... using the 1.7 and 1.4 tcs, DA*60-250, and Tamron 90, longer focal length always means higher resolution. Perhaps not as much as you'd think, but that's another issue. If you're going to have to crop your shorter lens to get the same subject size... a longer lens is always going to give you better.

That being said, I'm thinking of ditching a pile of lenses and getting the 55-300 for portability. With a KS-2, an 18-50 WR and a 55-300WR you have a chance to put a do everything kit into a relatively small pelican case or pack, or camera bag. But I'm not dreaming it will be like having my A-400 along.

[Oakland Rob]

Thanks for all the replies. I just don't see a compelling reason for the 400mm (unless I win the lottery and can go very high end). For critters, I've found that being able to capture the shot is often more important than the long reach. Handholding a 400mm and finding something with it can be a pain. OTOH I have speedy autofocus with the 300 zoom and can always have it hanging off my shoulder. If I knew I was gonna use it a lot for stationary objects, sitting in a blind, etc maybe I'll reconsider. Or maybe go up to 500mm instead if that's what I'm gonna do.

[normhead]

Thanks for all the replies. I just don't see a compelling reason for the 400mm (unless I win the lottery and can go very high end). For critters, I've found that being able to capture the shot is often more important than the long reach. Handholding a 400mm and finding something with it can be a pain. OTOH I have speedy autofocus with the 300 zoom and can always have it hanging off my shoulder. If I knew I was gonna use it a lot for stationary objects, sitting in a blind, etc maybe I'll reconsider. Or maybe go up to 500mm instead if that's what I'm gonna do.

A-400 and 1.4 TC for 520mm ƒ8, just to let you know what the upper limit of a relatively in-expensive 400 mm lens might be... it's actually pretty good.

[Oakland Rob]

Nice...I think I've even got the same birdfeeder. That is a nice lens, and from samples I've seen the TC isn't shabby either. Thanks