Which zoom lens?

**UncleVanya** · 10-31-2015, 05:25 PM

I really enjoy my DA* 60-250 f4 and I sold my FA* 80-200 f2.8 and kept my DA* 50-135 f2.8 - actually my dad has that on permanent loan in trade for his DA* 200 f2.8.

condor27596 · 10-31-2015, 05:26 PM

Just one last thought I have a standard test pic. The end of a Thomas the train bed, with stickers on the face. The HD ( keep in mind I am old and can't tell double things anymore) is vastly superior to the non HD.

---------- Post added 10-31-15 at 08:29 PM ----------

The HD 55-300 is 1/4 the cost. Just saying. I can't tell I have 2 of the amigos and the fa50. The HD 40. It's all apples and bananas

**UncleVanya** · 10-31-2015, 05:40 PM

I have the regular DA 55-300 and I like it but it isn't quite the same as the da* 60-250. Differences in good light are not as noticeable as the differences in poor light but they are there if you look. The fact is the 55-300 peforms way above expectations.

mee · 10-31-2015, 05:50 PM

Not sure how well the 55-300 would perform indoors.. seems like the dim light would hinder it. If I was in that situation, and had the means, I'd opt for the 60-250 f/4 -- little less reach but a constant f/4 aperture plus it has its own motor.. so not as loud. the 55-300 with the inbody screwdrive is a rather loud lens.

condor27596 · 10-31-2015, 05:59 PM

$900 vs 270. The constant f4 is very promising. I'll wait and see if I have a windfall. The 270 is doable today.

mee · 10-31-2015, 06:01 PM

Buy me one too if you don't mind. haha (kidding)

I have the 55-300 WR. It is a nice lens.. but like you can imagine.. it really needs fairly bright light unless you don't mind playing with high ISO.

**Scorpio71GR** · 10-31-2015, 06:02 PM

I have the HD 55-300, I never had the SMC version. Before I had an old Tamaron 70-300. Both the HD and SMC versions are optically identical, the HDR version has better flare resistance. I really do not worry too much about apeture anymore with the newer bodies. As far as a 300mm zoom I think the best you could do is a Sigma 100-300 f4. Extremely hard to find, expensive and heavier than anything I would want carry around. This was shot at ISO1600 on my K3 with my HD 55-300. With the newer camera bodies ISO is no longer the limiting factor.

condor27596 · 10-31-2015, 06:03 PM

I should have posed my question differently. I'm pretty sure I am transitioning from baby shots and portrait shots to longer range action shots.

I find the normal 55-300 to be lacking.

The 18-135 works great if there is enough light.

What is my next move ?

All the above advice is taken to heart.

**UncleVanya** · 10-31-2015, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by condor27596

I should have posed my question differently. I'm pretty sure I am transitioning from baby shots and portrait shots to longer range action shots.

I find the normal 55-300 to be lacking.

The 18-135 works great if there is enough light.

What is my next move ?

All the above advice is taken to heart.

Given this...

FA* 80-200 2.8
DFA 70-200 2.8

mee · 10-31-2015, 06:20 PM

55-300 will hunt too much for action shots. It is potentially do-able but wouldn't be fun.

**BigMackCam** · 10-31-2015, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by condor27596

I find the normal 55-300 to be lacking.

In what way, if I may ask - is it just the speed? Or maybe edge sharpness? I can't fault my HD 55-300, but my expectations / needs may be quite different. That said, I am *very* critical on IQ, so I'm interested to know what it is about the 55-300 that doesn't quite do it for you...

condor27596 · 10-31-2015, 06:38 PM

It needs so much light and is frankly slow. The slow might be subjective. I don't know. 90 percent of my shots the past 3 years have been with very fast and good primes.

Are my expectations unrealistic. ?

mee · 10-31-2015, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by condor27596

It needs so much light and is frankly slow. The slow might be subjective. I don't know. 90 percent of my shots the past 3 years have been with very fast and good primes.

Are my expectations unrealistic. ?

No. But your expectations are not for a general purpose walkaround zoom lens (55-300). What you want is a higher performance telephoto zoom lens. You'll pay in price, size, and weight.

**BigMackCam** · 10-31-2015, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by condor27596

It needs so much light and is frankly slow. The slow might be subjective. I don't know. 90 percent of my shots the past 3 years have been with very fast and good primes.

Are my expectations unrealistic. ?

Ok, understood. Well, I've been impressed with the 55-300 wide open, for centre sharpness at least. At 300mm it manages f/5.8, which is more or less just one stop slower than something like the DA* 300 f/4. So, you might have to shoot at ISO 800 instead of 400 - or 1600 instead of 800. Yes, it's a limiting factor, but not *that* much, given the sensor performance of recent Pentax bodies. Of course, I appreciate the DA* 300 can produce overall better IQ, but my point is, with few compromises, you can get pretty close with the 55-300...

What is the longest focal length you need, out of interest?

condor27596 · 10-31-2015, 07:02 PM

300 seems to be the longest I need now but sure in 3 years I will have a new post saying I can't get what I want across a soccer field lol.

---------- Post added 10-31-15 at 10:04 PM ----------

Maybe the answer I need to better master the smc 55-300 I have.

As a cruel side note it is worth mentioning one of my best lenses is the takumar 28-80. I'm astounded every time I have the chance to use it. It shouldn't be with a $50 lens but it is.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which tele zoom as an adapted q lens?	Diggoar	Pentax Q	19	04-08-2014 06:11 AM
Which El Cheapo Long Zoom Lens would you pick?	Driline	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	03-03-2014 11:40 AM
Which lens as best general walk around zoom lens	woodywesty	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	09-23-2013 08:02 AM
Which zoom lens?	geekette	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	30	04-30-2012 09:46 PM
Which telephoto zoom lens?	madisonphotogrl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	04-18-2008 11:17 AM

10-31-2015, 05:25 PM	#16
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	I really enjoy my DA* 60-250 f4 and I sold my FA* 80-200 f2.8 and kept my DA* 50-135 f2.8 - actually my dad has that on permanent loan in trade for his DA* 200 f2.8.

10-31-2015, 05:26 PM	#17
condor27596 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Raleigh, NC, USA Posts: 870 Original Poster	Just one last thought I have a standard test pic. The end of a Thomas the train bed, with stickers on the face. The HD ( keep in mind I am old and can't tell double things anymore) is vastly superior to the non HD. ---------- Post added 10-31-15 at 08:29 PM ---------- The HD 55-300 is 1/4 the cost. Just saying. I can't tell I have 2 of the amigos and the fa50. The HD 40. It's all apples and bananas

10-31-2015, 05:40 PM	#18
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	I have the regular DA 55-300 and I like it but it isn't quite the same as the da* 60-250. Differences in good light are not as noticeable as the differences in poor light but they are there if you look. The fact is the 55-300 peforms way above expectations.

10-31-2015, 05:50 PM	#19
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Not sure how well the 55-300 would perform indoors.. seems like the dim light would hinder it. If I was in that situation, and had the means, I'd opt for the 60-250 f/4 -- little less reach but a constant f/4 aperture plus it has its own motor.. so not as loud. the 55-300 with the inbody screwdrive is a rather loud lens.

10-31-2015, 05:59 PM	#20
condor27596 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Raleigh, NC, USA Posts: 870 Original Poster	$900 vs 270. The constant f4 is very promising. I'll wait and see if I have a windfall. The 270 is doable today.

10-31-2015, 06:01 PM	#21
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Buy me one too if you don't mind. haha (kidding) I have the 55-300 WR. It is a nice lens.. but like you can imagine.. it really needs fairly bright light unless you don't mind playing with high ISO.

10-31-2015, 06:02 PM	#22
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,014	I have the HD 55-300, I never had the SMC version. Before I had an old Tamaron 70-300. Both the HD and SMC versions are optically identical, the HDR version has better flare resistance. I really do not worry too much about apeture anymore with the newer bodies. As far as a 300mm zoom I think the best you could do is a Sigma 100-300 f4. Extremely hard to find, expensive and heavier than anything I would want carry around. This was shot at ISO1600 on my K3 with my HD 55-300. With the newer camera bodies ISO is no longer the limiting factor.

10-31-2015, 06:03 PM	#23
condor27596 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Raleigh, NC, USA Posts: 870 Original Poster	I should have posed my question differently. I'm pretty sure I am transitioning from baby shots and portrait shots to longer range action shots. I find the normal 55-300 to be lacking. The 18-135 works great if there is enough light. What is my next move ? All the above advice is taken to heart.

10-31-2015, 06:15 PM	#24
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by condor27596 I should have posed my question differently. I'm pretty sure I am transitioning from baby shots and portrait shots to longer range action shots. I find the normal 55-300 to be lacking. The 18-135 works great if there is enough light. What is my next move ? All the above advice is taken to heart. Given this... FA* 80-200 2.8 DFA 70-200 2.8

10-31-2015, 06:20 PM	#25
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	55-300 will hunt too much for action shots. It is potentially do-able but wouldn't be fun.

10-31-2015, 06:36 PM	#26
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,682	Originally posted by condor27596 I find the normal 55-300 to be lacking. In what way, if I may ask - is it just the speed? Or maybe edge sharpness? I can't fault my HD 55-300, but my expectations / needs may be quite different. That said, I am very critical on IQ, so I'm interested to know what it is about the 55-300 that doesn't quite do it for you...

10-31-2015, 06:38 PM	#27
condor27596 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Raleigh, NC, USA Posts: 870 Original Poster	It needs so much light and is frankly slow. The slow might be subjective. I don't know. 90 percent of my shots the past 3 years have been with very fast and good primes. Are my expectations unrealistic. ?

10-31-2015, 06:42 PM	#28
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by condor27596 It needs so much light and is frankly slow. The slow might be subjective. I don't know. 90 percent of my shots the past 3 years have been with very fast and good primes. Are my expectations unrealistic. ? No. But your expectations are not for a general purpose walkaround zoom lens (55-300). What you want is a higher performance telephoto zoom lens. You'll pay in price, size, and weight.

10-31-2015, 06:48 PM	#29
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,682	Originally posted by condor27596 It needs so much light and is frankly slow. The slow might be subjective. I don't know. 90 percent of my shots the past 3 years have been with very fast and good primes. Are my expectations unrealistic. ? Ok, understood. Well, I've been impressed with the 55-300 wide open, for centre sharpness at least. At 300mm it manages f/5.8, which is more or less just one stop slower than something like the DA* 300 f/4. So, you might have to shoot at ISO 800 instead of 400 - or 1600 instead of 800. Yes, it's a limiting factor, but not that much, given the sensor performance of recent Pentax bodies. Of course, I appreciate the DA* 300 can produce overall better IQ, but my point is, with few compromises, you can get pretty close with the 55-300... What is the longest focal length you need, out of interest?

10-31-2015, 07:02 PM	#30
condor27596 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Raleigh, NC, USA Posts: 870 Original Poster	300 seems to be the longest I need now but sure in 3 years I will have a new post saying I can't get what I want across a soccer field lol. ---------- Post added 10-31-15 at 10:04 PM ---------- Maybe the answer I need to better master the smc 55-300 I have. As a cruel side note it is worth mentioning one of my best lenses is the takumar 28-80. I'm astounded every time I have the chance to use it. It shouldn't be with a $50 lens but it is.