Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-07-2016, 12:18 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I would be quicker to get the 18-135 and combine it with the HD 55-300. It feels like the sort of situation where weather sealing could come in handy, but I guess if you think you will need f2.8 than the Tamron is the cheapest way to go (and has excellent IQ). I just wonder about dust/rain getting into the lens/camera, that's all.

You've probably seen my photos with the 55-300 already. I own the non-sealed version. The only thing is that I feel on the long end you have to be stopped down to f7.1 get good results and that often means either slow shutter speeds, high iso, or both. Lenses like the DA *60-250 or 200/300 will be faster and therefore you won't tend to go quite so high iso.

Good luck and have fun!
it will be dusty but the huge issue will be changing lenses more so than WR I guess but my father has the 55-300 and the 18-135 for himself. Build quality of both look quite good.

03-07-2016, 12:26 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
The trouble is that there is such a long distance between stations on the AF telephoto lens line, and the fare increases dramatically.
- Next stop after the xx-300 consumer zooms (in terms of weight and bulk) is a 300mm f4 or f4.5 prime (possibly with teleconverter). The lightest of them is the F*300 f4.5 at about 880g. This is an attractive option (stellar image quality, from what I have seen), but they are not easy to find, and cost upwards of $US750. FA*300 weighs 935g; Sigma 300mm f4 tele macro 1190g; Pentax DA* 1100g. Add some grams and $$ for a decent teleconverter.
- The Tokina 80-400 ATX is about 930g. Cheap, but reviews are mixed.
- Then there is the DA*60-250 + TC - 1120g + TC. Roughly the same price bracket as the DA*300.
- Then the Tokina/Sigma/Pentax 400mm f5.6 primes, all upwards of 1100g.
- Sigma 100-300 f4 (possibly with TC) - 1440g
- Then there are the Sigma xx-400 or xx-500 zooms, starting at about 1200g (Sigma 135-400) and going up to the Bigma at about 2kg
- And the Pentax 150-450, also about 2kg.
And there are some behemoths after that, including the DA 560.

For international travel, there is a world of difference between carrying and using a 440g lens like the 55-300, and a lens that weighs 2x, 3x or 4x as much. Not to mention the cost.
Yeah I would have been ready to pay X2 for something not much bigger but say sharp at f/5.8 300mm for more cropping capabilities. But this doesn't exist... It is already much more expensive...

I was thinking 70-200 of tamron + TC but that expensive for f/4... More than I'd wish to spend and I'am not even sure the Pentax TC would work well with it. I'am not 100% confident of the quality of the tamron at 200mm f/2.8 cropped to 300mm. Theoretically, cropped to 280mm it should give equivalent of f/4 apperture so nice for dawn/dusk. But is it significantly better than a 55-300 picture? Maybe it is too soft to really be work it except if you close it down to f/4 ?

There also the issue that this is much bigger... If I was to be sure the 70-200 cropped would be much better... maybe... the 70-200 from tamron the only one that not that expensive, and faster.

I was evaluating the 60-250 but this one is crazy expensive, has less good AF than even the 55-300 from Pentax Forum review and limit to 250mm f/4... The max apperture is really better only after 190mm and the 250mm limit that valid only at infinite mean a bit more cropping necessary still...

Primes I feel are the wrong idea for this kind of outing as I understand the wildlife can be really any distance. Maybe I got it wrong, but I expect I'll not bee always at 300mm? Otherwise yes I'd think of a DA*300...

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-07-2016 at 12:35 AM.
03-07-2016, 12:45 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
I have to partly disagree on this. a) Animals are most active at dawn and dusk and getting up early gets you the best shots, so a faster lens would definitely be a bonus, b) in Namibia this summer I often found myself longing for more than 300 mm, and a large portion of my images are cropped, sometimes heavily.

This said, the HD 55-300 WR gave me great results, and I couldn't have afforded anything longer or faster, so the points above were moot for me
I have been to your flickr, It look to me you go few great shots ! That's reassuring !

But look like you were almost always a 300mm, maybe for 80% of your wildlife shots in flickr... Do you feel the 55-200mm part of the lens was that usefull?
03-07-2016, 06:08 AM   #19
Veteran Member
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,339
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
- While my father will have K30 + K3, I'll have "only" a K3 so I'll have to change lens carefully... I was thinking 18-300 for that reason but it look like the lens isn't that great on the long end.
I spent three weeks in Namibia's dry season shooting only the K3 and swapping lenses frequently - dust is really overrated. As long as you point the camera down when swapping and don't do it in a dust storm, you should be fine. I had one (!) single grain of dust on my sensor two weeks in, and simply blew it away with a rocket blower. Just make sure your K3's dust removal is set to activate very time you switch the camera on.

18-300 lenses are no good, you sacrifice a lot of quality due to a mostly unfounded fear.

03-07-2016, 07:49 AM   #20
Pentaxian
bassek's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 706
Dust was not a problem for me either, I just sat down when driving to change lenses. Bring spare rear caps just in case you drop one.
If possible get your own car. The vans are crowded with 8 people so there is not much room to change lenses. Or turning room for a big lens.
We had booked a Land Rover for 2 couples but luckily we were alone in our car.

Finally, be sure that you have enough quality drinkable stuff. No I did not mean beer...

Seb
03-07-2016, 08:05 AM   #21
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
I had no problems with dust in Kenya/Tanzania, but I did have a very annoying piece of dust when I was in Jordan. When DOF was big enough, it took the shape of a hair on the image. It might have actually been a hair. It was only visible with a big DOF though (as in using my 12-24 at small apertures).
03-07-2016, 10:32 AM   #22
Forum Member
phillydad's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 86
The 2 times I have been to Kenya, the 55-300 took great shots
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.613993785309003&type=1

If you going with your dad (and his 2 bodies)? - if so, I assume you will be sharing all your shots. Someone may want to have a DA 50/1.8 (or something else with large aperture) for sunrise/sunset shots on one of the 3 bodies. At one place I visited - they had a watering hole near the tents with a light - lots of fun, but needed large apeture to capture images.

The beanbag is important. Also bring binoculars (even if shared). Avoid "zoom" binoculars. - something like this is fine Amazon.com: Bushnell H2O Waterproof/Fogproof Roof Prism Binocular: Sports & Outdoors (I got some nice Warehouse deals on Pentax Binoculars before my first trip). Balance photography with "soaking it all in". Enjoy.

03-07-2016, 01:14 PM - 1 Like   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I have been to your flickr, It look to me you go few great shots ! That's reassuring !

But look like you were almost always a 300mm, maybe for 80% of your wildlife shots in flickr... Do you feel the 55-200mm part of the lens was that usefull?
When I was in Kenya, sometimes (actually fairly often) 300mm was not long enough. We saw a leopard in a tree, for which I would probably need something like double the length. But then I zoomed out, and just saw the tree:



This is one 300mm was long enough for:



And finally, why a wide-angle lens is useful too:


Last edited by starbase218; 03-07-2016 at 02:39 PM.
03-07-2016, 01:48 PM   #24
Des
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Des's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,404
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I was thinking 70-200 of tamron + TC but that expensive for f/4... More than I'd wish to spend and I'am not even sure the Pentax TC would work well with it. I'am not 100% confident of the quality of the tamron at 200mm f/2.8 cropped to 300mm. Theoretically, cropped to 280mm it should give equivalent of f/4 apperture so nice for dawn/dusk. But is it significantly better than a 55-300 picture? Maybe it is too soft to really be work it except if you close it down to f/4 ? There also the issue that this is much bigger... If I was to be sure the 70-200 cropped would be much better... maybe... the 70-200 from tamron the only one that not that expensive, and faster.
I've never had one so can't help. But 1100g + 1.4x TC for equivalent of 280mm f4 doesn't seem an attractive option. And you probably wouldn't get the field of view of 280mm most of the time anyway - in contrast to the 55-300 where 300 means 300.

I can see the logic of taking the 55-300 and accepting the compromises in length and speed.
03-07-2016, 02:07 PM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
Regarding the speed of the 55-300: in sunny daylight it's not a problem at all. I had the K-5, and even stopped down to f/9-f/11. That meant I had to increase the ISO a bit, but with the K-5 that's no problem. It got me sharper results because the 55-300 is not that great at >200mm.

As evening sets in (and it sets in FAST - you're close to the equator), though, f/5.8 is not where you want to be. But that's the inevitable downside of a cheaper telezoom.

Last edited by starbase218; 03-07-2016 at 02:35 PM.
03-07-2016, 03:44 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
I spent three weeks in Namibia's dry season shooting only the K3 and swapping lenses frequently - dust is really overrated. As long as you point the camera down when swapping and don't do it in a dust storm, you should be fine. I had one (!) single grain of dust on my sensor two weeks in, and simply blew it away with a rocket blower. Just make sure your K3's dust removal is set to activate very time you switch the camera on.

18-300 lenses are no good, you sacrifice a lot of quality due to a mostly unfounded fear.
QuoteOriginally posted by bassek Quote
Dust was not a problem for me either, I just sat down when driving to change lenses. Bring spare rear caps just in case you drop one.
If possible get your own car. The vans are crowded with 8 people so there is not much room to change lenses. Or turning room for a big lens.
We had booked a Land Rover for 2 couples but luckily we were alone in our car.

Finally, be sure that you have enough quality drinkable stuff. No I did not mean beer...

Seb
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I had no problems with dust in Kenya/Tanzania, but I did have a very annoying piece of dust when I was in Jordan. When DOF was big enough, it took the shape of a hair on the image. It might have actually been a hair. It was only visible with a big DOF though (as in using my 12-24 at small apertures).
Nice to know ! No problem with dust.
03-07-2016, 03:46 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
When I was in Kenya, sometimes (actually fairly often) 300mm was not long enough. We saw a leopard in a tree, for which I would probably need something like double the length. But then I zoomed out, and just saw the tree:



This is one 300mm was long enough for:



And finally, why a wide-angle lens is useful too:
Nice pics !
03-07-2016, 03:50 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by phillydad Quote
The 2 times I have been to Kenya, the 55-300 took great shots
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.613993785309003&type=1

If you going with your dad (and his 2 bodies)? - if so, I assume you will be sharing all your shots. Someone may want to have a DA 50/1.8 (or something else with large aperture) for sunrise/sunset shots on one of the 3 bodies. At one place I visited - they had a watering hole near the tents with a light - lots of fun, but needed large apeture to capture images.

The beanbag is important. Also bring binoculars (even if shared). Avoid "zoom" binoculars. - something like this is fine Amazon.com: Bushnell H2O Waterproof/Fogproof Roof Prism Binocular: Sports & Outdoors (I got some nice Warehouse deals on Pentax Binoculars before my first trip). Balance photography with "soaking it all in". Enjoy.
That's a good remark, the binoculars.
03-08-2016, 02:08 PM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Nice pics !
Thanks.
03-09-2016, 10:43 AM - 1 Like   #30
Veteran Member
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,339
I have actually written a review on my blog which you can check out, and here are a couple more HD DA 55-300 WR samples, many of them at 300 mm According to my tests centre sharpness is best at f/8, which I thus used all the time unless low light required a wider aperture.













And you can even use it for landscapes (stopped down to f/11 gives best border sharpness):



Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f/2.8 hd55-300, gear, k-mount, light, look, occasion, pentax lens, reach, safari, slr lens, tamron, tamron 17-50 f/2.8, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tamron Di2 SP AF 17-50 f/2.8 XR Bonobo Sold Items 3 10-12-2015 05:02 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-5 + 18-135, 40 f/2.8 , 70mm f/2.4, 35 f/2.4, F50 f/1.7, 55-300 ED, Tamron 17-50. rrwilliams64 Sold Items 19 03-08-2013 07:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top