[fwcetus]

You could use that same argument comparing the DA 55-300 to the El-Cheapo $60 dollar Pentax FA 100-300 F4.7 to 5.8 lens. So why spend all that money on a DA 55-300 when you can get almost the same great shots with a $60 lens?
All I know is my F*300 rivals my FA 31. It's just a superb lens all the way around.

Interesting comment. And, I think, excessive extrapolation.

You ~could~ use that logic ~IF~ the el cheapo could also show that particular detail. However, in my experience, I don't think it could. [YMMV ?]

As for the merits of the F* 300/4.5, I am saying ~nothing~ against it -- it is an outstanding lens.

[fwcetus]

I personally chose the Tokina AT-X SD 100-300 as a less expensive alternative to both the DA 55-300 & F*300 at the time. Tokina AT-X SD 100-300 f/4 Lens Reviews - Tokina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database Although manual, I believe it's a sharper lens overall and was even less expensive than the DA 55-300 at the time. It's the only lens I regret selling, but since I purchased the F*300 there was no real need to keep it.

I also have the AT-X 100-300/4 SD (as well as the F* 300/4.5), and the big MF AT-X 100-300 is an unusually sharp zoom (and one of the few long zooms that does not get soft at the long end). However, it is a monster lens compared to the 55-300 in both size and weight (as well as being an MF lens). I would routinely pack the 55-300, but the big Tokina is a more "specialized" lens (and one that compares more favorably with the F* 300 at its long end than does the 55-300).

Your pic of the Canada goose is a typical specimen of just how good the AT-X 100-300 is. The big Tokina zoom is a non-compromise lens in all respects. But, while YMMV, I would find myself getting some pretty good pix (and, given enough light, some very good pix) with the 55-300, while the big Tokina would be still sitting at home - I simply won't lug it everywhere.

I think a more interesting (and more fair) MF Tokina comparison to the 55-300 would be the diminutive RMC Tokina 100-300/5.6. It's an MF lens, with a one-touch focus/zoom action exactly like the AT-X 100-300, and it's got a nice tripod mount like the big Tokina (except that it's even removable), and it's a constant aperture lens (but a stop slower, of course). At 300mm (where I personally end up using these something-to-300 zooms most often) it has a max aperture similar to that of the 55-300. Compared to the 55-300, it's a lot closer in size and weight (and, therefore, in portability), although it might be a bit heavier (since it's built just as solidly as is the AT-X 100-300). In short, the little Tokina 100-300 is basically just about as easy to take along as the 55-300. [Of course, neither Tokina has the same zoom range as the 55-300.]

However, overall, I would say that the 55-300 is a sharper lens than is the RMC (probably benefiting from its two ED elements -- the RMC lens is not a Tokina SD lens). Plus, of course, the 55-300 is MF or AF, which could not be said of either of these Tokinas.

[UncleVanya]

One of the things I love about the 55-300 is how it renders close up shots of flowers and similar objects. The pseudo macro ability is a nice bonus.

[csa]

UncleVanya; I agree that the 55-300 makes a good pseudo macro! I first tried this yesterday with the bee photos on the previous page. I was most surprised with how nicely it worked. I have a dedicated macro lens, and another lens that has a macro feature; but it's handy to be able to do close-ups with the 55-300.

[robtcorl]

A couple more.
Nut recovery, my wife was not happy that this rascal was digging in her flowers.
300mm through a window.


also at 300mm

[UncleVanya]

All taken with the DA 55-300.

[csa]

Bob & Uncle; more great photos showing the capabilities of the 55-300!

Thanks for posting them.

[csa]

I've been checking on the Vivitar Series 1 1.4 TC, and it must not be available new for Pentax.

[Cambo]

I personally chose the Tokina AT-X SD 100-300 as a less expensive alternative to both the DA 55-300 & F*300 at the time. Tokina AT-X SD 100-300 f/4 Lens Reviews - Tokina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database Although manual, I believe it's a sharper lens overall and was even less expensive than the DA 55-300 at the time. It's the only lens I regret selling, but since I purchased the F*300 there was no real need to keep it.

Picture with Tokina 100-300. So sharp you can see the water droplets on the Geese's wings.

ses...z's...zzzzz....

I'M JUST RAZZIN' YIOU, MAN!

Cheers,
Cameron

[boriscleto]

I've been checking on the Vivitar Series 1 1.4 TC, and it must not be available new for Pentax.

It is not. It seems to have been discontinued sometime last year...It used to sell for about $100...

Though it is still listed on the Vivitar web page...

1.4X-P :: 1.4x Auto Focus Tele Converter for Pentax :: Vivitar

There is one on evilBay, but the seller wants $140...this one seems to have the SDM contacts, so it is different than the one I have...it's a Tamron-F 1.4x Pz-AF MC4 branded as a Vivitar.

[csa]

Thanks! I'm hoping one shows up here, as I've never purchased from EBay.

[BrianR]

A few years back I borrowed a da55-300mm for about 5 minutes and did the obligatory boring hand held comparison with my dfa100mm macro. The macro was at iso800, f/5.6, 1/250s vs the da55-300mm at iso800, f/5.8, 1/250s (both on a k100d).

Prime two stops down vs. the zoom wide open, I'd say it held up pretty well!

[csa]

Brian, that's impressive!

[JimS_256]

I've heard that the results are not very satisfactory with this lens, using a 1.4x or 1.7 TC; is this correct?

I'd think any TC would make the slow AF shut down completely, but I have not tried it.

Here are some shots from today with the 55-300 and the Pentax 1.4 TC. There wasn't any difference in autofocus with the TC that I could notice.

[csa]

Jim, thanks so much for posting those results! Great quality with the TC.