DA*300mm/1.4x Converter vs. New 150-450mm

VoiceOfReason · 10-07-2015, 05:27 AM

I really want to see shots taken with the 150-450 paired with the 1.4.

**UncleVanya** · 10-07-2015, 02:44 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Squawk

Thank you Tomo I would appreciate that greatly if you have time and don't mind.

Shane

LOL - Tomo was me trying to type Tomorrow. I'm not Tomo. LOL. I will have to defer this to tomorrow but I will try to get to it then.

Transit · 10-07-2015, 02:56 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by noelpolar

I've been shooting with the 150-450 for about two weeks now....... before that mostly F*300/4.5 occasionally with a 1.4 Kenko TC. I really love my F*300/4.5............

very pertinent post for me thanks, also have the F*, death by wife etc

derekkite · 10-07-2015, 09:04 PM - **1 Like**

Something else to consider is how much light you have outside of the bright summer light. The 300 f4 is sharp wide open, meaning that it is workable for wildlife in the wintertime. I live in a dark valley and that allows me to shoot most of the time. The 150-450 goes to f4 around 300mm if I remember correctly, so the question is whether it is sharp wide open at that zoom. If it is sharp at 300mm f4, then there is no reason to get the prime.

The 1.4 tc needs lots of light, and a good shutter speed. Some have had good results but some have not.

noelpolar · 10-07-2015, 09:50 PM - **1 Like**

Some DFA 150-450 shots with a Kenko 1.4 TC on it..... This TC is basically dumb with this lens..... so all manual focus...with monopod no SR.... all at 450mm plust TC = 630mm on a K3.

**UncleVanya** · 10-08-2015, 04:59 AM - **1 Like**

These are shots quickly snapped yesterday afternoon. They were transferred via eye fi to my phone at 2mp. Handheld with fading light these are not great in IQ but the show the image sizes from the 60-250 with a 1.4x-s rear converter A and a simple DA 55-300 without converter.

The rose shot is at 6 feet or so, the mailbox and light are about 100 feet away. The two lowest numbered files came from the 60-250.

Squawk · 10-09-2015, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

These are shots quickly snapped yesterday afternoon. They were transferred via eye fi to my phone at 2mp. Handheld with fading light these are not great in IQ but the show the image sizes from the 60-250 with a 1.4x-s rear converter A and a simple DA 55-300 without converter.

The rose shot is at 6 feet or so, the mailbox and light are about 100 feet away. The two lowest numbered files came from the 60-250.

Wow...thank you UncleVaya! I can't see the file numbers but I am assuming the first one of each set is with the 60-250 the ones with the better light and bokeh. If that is correct I would say the 60-250 w/TC wins.

Last edited by Squawk; 10-09-2015 at 01:10 AM.

**UncleVanya** · 10-09-2015, 05:17 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Squawk

Wow...thank you UncleVaya! I can't see the file numbers but I am assuming the first one of each set is with the 60-250 the ones with the better light and bokeh. If that is correct I would say the 60-250 w/TC wins.

Actually, no. I had exposure compensation different when using the 1.4x it tends to over expose, but I overdid it. The darker ones are the 60-250. Also note that the rose at 6' is larger when shot with the 55-300, but the long shot appears to show about the same magnification. (I expected the 60-250 to show more magnification here). Remember these were handheld in poor light, and the 60-250 is longer and heavier. I imagine I could get better images with a tripod and a little attention to detail.

Look again at the pictures of the light. The darker picture is clearly more detailed and refined. The 55-300 did a great job, but not quite as good as the 60-250.

Rupert · 10-09-2015, 05:34 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Rupert

think I am going to get me the Pentax 300mm f4 and see if the extra speed I can get will make a difference.

Mrs Rupert has told me I need to stop thinking so much.

Regards!

Azergoth · 09-08-2019, 05:42 AM - **1 Like**

I had the chance to borrow the 150-450 and the TC1.4 and compare it to my 300mm.

Here is a screenshot at 1:1 of both, wide open:

With regard to sharpness, the DA* 300 mm + TC 1.4 seems to be a winner. But without the ability to zoom, of course.
I'd also like to compare the DA* 300 mm cropped at 1.4 vs the with TC1.4

Hope it helps!
Cheers

zapp · 09-14-2019, 01:33 AM

The 150-450 performs well even at the long end. 300 is smaller, lighter and has f/4 - af feels slow, but works. That’s about it. If you need to go longer than 300 mm, go for the zoom. 450mm on aus-c is quite serious and often you jus5 need to practice more to get closer it’s the smaller lens.
The 300 you can carry along, the 150-450 you only carry for a purpose.

Had both on K1, the 300 with tc on K3. Unless you have lots of light, the tc is not helpful. tried Pentax 1.4 and Tamron 1.4.

The 150-450 draws attention to you quite a bit. The 300 looks compact. And that’s it in Pentax land.

09-08-2019, 05:42 AM - 1 Like	#40
Azergoth Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 189	I had the chance to borrow the 150-450 and the TC1.4 and compare it to my 300mm. Here is a screenshot at 1:1 of both, wide open: With regard to sharpness, the DA* 300 mm + TC 1.4 seems to be a winner. But without the ability to zoom, of course. I'd also like to compare the DA* 300 mm cropped at 1.4 vs the with TC1.4 Hope it helps! Cheers Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tokina 400mm 5.6 vs Fa-300 & 1.4X converter?	rwingsfan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	03-23-2014 12:08 PM
PENTAX-DA 1.4X Converter is announced officially	Grokh	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	02-05-2014 04:53 PM
Sigma 1.4x converter vs Sigma APO 1.4x converter	slackercruster	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-03-2012 07:50 AM
Rear Converter-A 1.4x-L and DA* 300mm	Tom S.	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	02-02-2009 06:45 AM

10-07-2015, 05:27 AM	#31
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I really want to see shots taken with the 150-450 paired with the 1.4.

10-07-2015, 02:44 PM - 1 Like	#32
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by Squawk Thank you Tomo I would appreciate that greatly if you have time and don't mind. Shane LOL - Tomo was me trying to type Tomorrow. I'm not Tomo. LOL. I will have to defer this to tomorrow but I will try to get to it then.

10-07-2015, 02:56 PM - 1 Like	#33
Transit Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Whanganui NZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,624	Originally posted by noelpolar I've been shooting with the 150-450 for about two weeks now....... before that mostly F300/4.5 occasionally with a 1.4 Kenko TC. I really love my F300/4.5............ very pertinent post for me thanks, also have the F*, death by wife etc

10-07-2015, 09:04 PM - 1 Like	#34
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Something else to consider is how much light you have outside of the bright summer light. The 300 f4 is sharp wide open, meaning that it is workable for wildlife in the wintertime. I live in a dark valley and that allows me to shoot most of the time. The 150-450 goes to f4 around 300mm if I remember correctly, so the question is whether it is sharp wide open at that zoom. If it is sharp at 300mm f4, then there is no reason to get the prime. The 1.4 tc needs lots of light, and a good shutter speed. Some have had good results but some have not.

10-07-2015, 09:50 PM - 1 Like	#35
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	Some DFA 150-450 shots with a Kenko 1.4 TC on it..... This TC is basically dumb with this lens..... so all manual focus...with monopod no SR.... all at 450mm plust TC = 630mm on a K3.

10-09-2015, 12:52 AM	#37
Squawk Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Bentonville, Ar. Posts: 35 Original Poster	Originally posted by UncleVanya These are shots quickly snapped yesterday afternoon. They were transferred via eye fi to my phone at 2mp. Handheld with fading light these are not great in IQ but the show the image sizes from the 60-250 with a 1.4x-s rear converter A and a simple DA 55-300 without converter. The rose shot is at 6 feet or so, the mailbox and light are about 100 feet away. The two lowest numbered files came from the 60-250. Wow...thank you UncleVaya! I can't see the file numbers but I am assuming the first one of each set is with the 60-250 the ones with the better light and bokeh. If that is correct I would say the 60-250 w/TC wins. Last edited by Squawk; 10-09-2015 at 01:10 AM.

10-09-2015, 05:17 AM - 1 Like	#38
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by Squawk Wow...thank you UncleVaya! I can't see the file numbers but I am assuming the first one of each set is with the 60-250 the ones with the better light and bokeh. If that is correct I would say the 60-250 w/TC wins. Actually, no. I had exposure compensation different when using the 1.4x it tends to over expose, but I overdid it. The darker ones are the 60-250. Also note that the rose at 6' is larger when shot with the 55-300, but the long shot appears to show about the same magnification. (I expected the 60-250 to show more magnification here). Remember these were handheld in poor light, and the 60-250 is longer and heavier. I imagine I could get better images with a tripod and a little attention to detail. Look again at the pictures of the light. The darker picture is clearly more detailed and refined. The 55-300 did a great job, but not quite as good as the 60-250.

10-09-2015, 05:34 AM - 2 Likes	#39
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by Rupert think I am going to get me the Pentax 300mm f4 and see if the extra speed I can get will make a difference. Mrs Rupert has told me I need to stop thinking so much. Regards!

09-14-2019, 01:33 AM	#41
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,385	The 150-450 performs well even at the long end. 300 is smaller, lighter and has f/4 - af feels slow, but works. That’s about it. If you need to go longer than 300 mm, go for the zoom. 450mm on aus-c is quite serious and often you jus5 need to practice more to get closer it’s the smaller lens. The 300 you can carry along, the 150-450 you only carry for a purpose. Had both on K1, the 300 with tc on K3. Unless you have lots of light, the tc is not helpful. tried Pentax 1.4 and Tamron 1.4. The 150-450 draws attention to you quite a bit. The 300 looks compact. And that’s it in Pentax land.