[boriscleto]

Gal though it is used, you could consider the sigma 100-300/4 BUT it is in the 1.5 kilo range.

And good luck finding one...

[normhead]

And good luck finding one...

No kidding, everyone wants one of those...

[Painter]

I have to say I am of the opinion that the HD version of the DA 55-300 is a really good deal with the ability to use higher ISO's the f5.8 of the long end isn't such an issue as it once was. So as Normhead said there is really no need for something in-between the already available options. I have a whack of samples from this lens here HD PENTAX-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Follow up | Wallace Koopmans Artlog

[bladerunner6]

There ins't anything... and it's not necessary to have anything. The problem is, better than the 55-300. If you look at the 55-300 images on the forum, you understand that it is the premium less than DA* lens. None of the 70-300, 100-300 type lenses match it, especially in the long end. Hate to keep dragging this out.. second time in two days



So here you have two lenses one much sharper than the other, but for which it's really hard to see any practical difference in the images, and you're saying that Pentax needs to squeeze another lens, at maybe 1900w/ph between the two when you already can't tell the difference in a lot of images. I think that's why people are a little negative about your post.

You are asking for something that is totally un-necessary. The advantage to the 60-250 is you can put the HD DA 1.4 TC on it and get a very good 350mm lens that shoots @ ƒ5.6, more than what you want.

The idea that there could be an intermediate lens between that and the 55-300 which is better quality than my Sigma 18-250, just doesn't make a lot of sense. Long glass is expensive... really good long glass is even more expensive. That's just reality. It's a hard reality, and many of us have spent hours wringing our hands and gnashing our teeth over it, but, there is not easy solution, either for shooters, or manufacturers. Part of the problem is you aren't appreciating how good the 55-300 is. The second part is if 250 won't do and you have to have 300, there's just not that much different. You probably need longer and are just trying to make do. The lenses you need are there. The DA* 60-250 and DA* 300 coupled with the 1.4 TC. I think you're just going through what all of us go through when we realize we want to shoot longer glass, and start grappling with the prices good long glass goes for.

If you aren't planning to use a TC the big difference between the 55-300 and the DA* s is the constant ƒ4 of the DA*s. The 55-300 is ƒ5.8. AN intermediate lens would have to be between ƒ4 and ƒ 5.8, say ƒ5. You need to be selling a lot of lenses before you start breaking up your lens offerings into half stops to fill every price point.

So in one sentence: you think the 55-300 is good enough for almost any application?

[boriscleto]

So in one sentence: you think the 55-300 is good enough for almost any application?

It's better at the long end than the wide end, but combined with the 16-85 or 18-135, yes.

[mohb]

So in one sentence: you think the 55-300 is good enough for almost any application?

The 55 300 does what it's made to do, go up to 300 at good IQ and a reasonable price,

[Rondec]

So in one sentence: you think the 55-300 is good enough for almost any application?

The problem with the 55-300 is not lack of image quality, it is that it only goes to 300mm and that it is f5.6 on the long end. To "beat it" requires a lens that is either longer or, faster (f4 minimum on the long end). Any lens like that is going to be pricey. There just aren't many examples of high quality, long, and fast lenses on the market right now.

But it is quite capable if you know how to use it...

[bladerunner6]

The problem with the 55-300 is not lack of image quality, it is that it only goes to 300mm and that it is f5.6 on the long end. To "beat it" requires a lens that is either longer or, faster (f4 minimum on the long end). Any lens like that is going to be pricey. There just aren't many examples of high quality, long, and fast lenses on the market right now.

But it is quite capable if you know how to use it...

Thanks, that was a thoughtful response with some nice examples.

[normhead]

That's better than could have said it, I don't own the lens, but I've seen examples at web size on the forum that are indistinguishable from what I could have done with my 60-250. But as Rondec alluded to, every stop faster at the long end, at least doubles the price. Think of it, one stop faster has to let in twice as much light, so, double the glass in the front element. There's just no way around that.

[tibbitts]

So in one sentence: you think the 55-300 is good enough for almost any application?

I think a good copy of the 55-300 would be good enough for the vast majority of applications that don't require fast or low-light AF, or a faster aperture. I'd rather have Pentax eliminate its sample variation issues with the products they already have, than come out with an additional product. That's not to say that engineering tweaks aren't appreciated, like adding WR and the newer coating, but none of that matters if the results aren't consistent across the frame.

[Cannikin]

Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 ($769) + 1.4x teleconverter = 98-280mm f/4.0 for around $900-1000 with a 3rd party TC ($1266 with the DA 1.4x TC)