[crewl1]

If you already have a 60-250 going to a 300 wont get you significant more reach if that is the goal.
The DA*300 is a lovely lens and I love mine but you can get the same field of view by cropping your shots from the 60-250.
If you want reach then add the HD 1.4TC or look into the 150-450 or one of the Sigma 500mm zooms.

[Timd]

I went from a 55-300, bought a 60-250 to improve my IQ, but as many of my subjects are closer than 10m, realised that the 60-250 was really no better in reach than my 18-135. Got the 1.4x tele, but not that much extra. Just bought the DA*300 and love the reach and IQ. Not sure how often I'll use the 60-250....

[normhead]

I went from a 55-300, bought a 60-250 to improve my IQ, but as many of my subjects are closer than 10m, realised that the 60-250 was really no better in reach than my 18-135.

True if you're shooting all wildlife that's close to you. Shooting landscape 60-180mm the 60-250 will wipe the floor with the lenses you mentioned. And as for the 18-135 comment, not even close. I've shot both. With the 18-135 I have to be standing two feet away from the bird to get an image I like. The 60-250 and TC will take as good an image from my blind 6 feet away.

DA 60-250 and TC from the blind...


DA 18-135, standing in front of the blind, at least 3 feet closer.


Look at the size difference of the feeder.

And for subjects like this with the subject 150 feet away, your 60-250 is really 250.


And on images like this...

[Parallax]

Check your library, so what percentage of your images are taken at less than 250mm...

In case anyone isn't familiar with it; Exposure Plot is a great tool for that.

[audiobomber]

I need mostly beyond 250mm. I am covered 16-135. Dont need much betwen 135 and 250.
hmmm. I could totally use it. I need the long end so much more that I am ok to part with the beautiful 60-250.

People have lost track of the OP's priorities.

[normhead]

If I'm not mistaken, the TC gets him beyond 250, so maybe maybe not. Or do I need to add this up... the 60-250 with the TC is 350 < 250.

[Scorpio71GR]

I have had this dilemma for awhile to. The 60-250 and DA*300 are both fantastic lenses. Since I own a Sigma 50-500 I opted in the end for the verasitity of the 60-250. I have not been disappointed. The 60-250 is sharp right at f4 at all focal lengths. At f5.6 and beyond it is just amazing. If you shooting nothing but wildlife and you can not get close then the 300 may be the best choice. I do not like to change lenses and only have one K3 so I prefer the versatility of a zoom. I have no issues using my Tamaron 1.4TC on my 60-250. When the light gets really dim then autofocus does tend to struggle. Maybe the Pentax HD TC performs better. As far as IQ I can not tell any difference between images with the TC and without. Honestly to me it sounds like you need to 150-450. With the HD TC you get the equivalent FOV of 630mm.

250mm with the Tamron 1.4TC equivalent to 350mm f8

---

Last edited by Scorpio71GR; 03-19-2016 at 05:15 AM.

[shardulm]

All great suggestions.. ANd after reading through all of them here are a few thoughts I am now mulling over
1. Buy an 1.4xHD TC (Is this FF compatible?)
2. Get the DA*300 and sell DA*60-250. DA*300 is lighter than DA*60-250 (1070g vs. 1120g)
3. Getting 150-450 would be a no brainer but this is a very heavy lens, much heavier than the DA*300. (2000g vs 1070g).
4. And believe it or not I love the looks of the DA*300+hood and the fact that it has less openings due to IF and no zoom barrels.

[bertwert]

@shardulm
Do number 1 and 2...

[bdery]

DA*300 is lighter than DA*60-250 (1070g vs. 1120g)

Just to mess with you : if you remove the tripod foot of the 6--250 (which I almost always do) then it has the same weight as the 300, roughly speaking.

[audiobomber]

If I'm not mistaken, the TC gets him beyond 250, so maybe maybe not. Or do I need to add this up... the 60-250 with the TC is 350 < 250.

The difference will often be significant because the 60-250mm suffers much heavier focus breathing than the DA*300.

If I don't have to crop, the 55-300mm does a fine job. The DA*300 can manage 100% crops, even with a TC. Note that the 60-250mm benefits less from a TC:
250mm x 1.5 crop x 1.4 TC = 525mm
300mm x 1.5 crop x 1.4 TC = 630mm

A big difference for me was about 40% better magnification using the prime, 1:4.2 vs. 1:6.7 for the zoom. I shoot a lot of wildflowers, butterflies, etc. on my walks in the woods.

[normhead]

The difference will often be significant because the 60-250mm suffers much heavier focus breathing than the DA*300.

If I don't have to crop, the 55-300mm does a fine job. The DA*300 can manage 100% crops, even with a TC. Note that the 60-250mm benefits less from a TC:
250mm x 1.5 crop x 1.4 TC = 525mm
300mm x 1.5 crop x 1.4 TC = 630mm

A big difference for me was about 40% better magnification using the prime, 1:4.2 vs. 1:6.7 for the zoom. I shoot a lot of wildflowers, butterflies, etc. on my walks in the woods.

No one can argue the 300 has better magnification.
But in my library there are about 2000 60-250 images...
Only 600 are taken at 250mm.
Of those about 25% are cropped in their final form, so about 150.
So of about 2000 images I took with the 60-205 15% could have been taken at all with the 300.

Biggest thing for me is I have an A-400 and the 60-250 and A-400 is a real nice combo. 300mm is way too close to 250mm to be of much use to me.

[bdery]

But in my library there are about 2000 60-250 images...
Only 600 are taken at 250mm.
Of those about 25% are cropped in their final form, so about 150.
So of about 2000 images I took with the 60-205 15% could have been taken at all with the 300.

Biggest thing for me is I have an A-400 and the 60-250 and A-400 is a real nice combo. 300mm is way too close to 250mm to be of much use to me.

That's an interesting analysis, and it does indicate that for you the 60-250 is an excellent choice. However, it doesn't apply to everyone. For instance, even though I don't have the stats on hand, and even though I wouldn't exchange the 60-250 for anything else myself, I can confirm that a LOT of my images are shot at 250mm.

Side note : how are your "really good" images distributed according to focal length? That would be a more interesting data set.

[normhead]

Are you saying all buy images aren't "really good".
I mean, what are you saying here? What exactly is your point?

But more seriously, I did give this some consideration, and the problem is defining "really good".

I put together a book on the park, and in the book, only 4% of the images were taken with the 60-250 at less than 250mm and 7% with the 60-250 at 250 or over with the TC. But at 11% it ws the second most used lens after the DA 18-135. The most used lens was the 18-135 with about 33% of the images, 10 percent for the 21 ltd, and 10% for the UWA, 10-17 fisheye and Sigma 8-18, and 10% for the Sigma 70 macro and Tamron 90 macro. Other lenses used were that A-400 , DA 35, and FA 50 and even two taken with my Sigma Merril DP2. Amazing since I probably didn't take more than 150 images with it altogether.

The images were taken over 5 years and probably were culled from over 100,000 exposures.

[bdery]

But more seriously, I did give this some consideration, and the problem is defining "really good".

I rate pictures by "stars" when reviewing them in lightroom. Duds are discarded, most photos are tagged with keywords only, and good to great photos get 3-5 stars.