[shardulm]

I am still undecided but any thoughts that will help me get off of the fence and go either ways will be helpful.

[Venom3300]

Need a little more info. What do you usually shoot? Do you find that 90% of your shots are at the 250 end of you zoom? Do you have anything else to cover the 60-299 range? Is it even important to you to cover the 50-299 range?

[UncleVanya]

I have the da* 60-250 and the fa* 300. I rarely use the FA * unless shooting the moon or shooting birds. They are both stellar. The largest issue with the zoom is that it behaves like a much shorter lens when shooting at short distances (under 10m).

The biggest issue with the 300 is that it is well... 450mm effective focal length compared to what we used to shoot on film - that's a really narrow field of view and very specialized.

[Parallax]

This is neither news nor rumor.



To the lens discussion forum.

[shardulm]

Need a little more info. What do you usually shoot? Do you find that 90% of your shots are at the 250 end of you zoom? Do you have anything else to cover the 60-299 range? Is it even important to you to cover the 50-299 range?

I need mostly beyond 250mm. I am covered 16-135. Dont need much betwen 135 and 250.

---------- Post added 03-15-16 at 08:23 PM ----------

fa* 300

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.

[normhead]

The HD DA 1.4 TC would also be an option then, either way you decide.

[Venom3300]

I need mostly beyond 250mm. I am covered 16-135. Dont need much betwen 135 and 250.

---------- Post added 03-15-16 at 08:23 PM ----------

In that case I could go for the DA* 300 or D-FA150-450 if you can afford it. Adding a 1.4 TC will not yield as good of results as either of those two lenses, and you lose a stop of light.

[Sandy Hancock]

I faced a similar decision a few years ago. I decided I preferred the smaller size, internal zoom and faster aperture of the DA*50-135 at closer quarters, and the closer focussing and greater magnification of the DA*300, so I sold my DA*60-250.

If I was making the same decision now, I would probably get the DFA150-450, but the size of the lens still has me in two minds.

[bxf]

...still has me in two minds

That's two more than some people I know...

[bdery]

I need mostly beyond 250mm. I am covered 16-135. Dont need much betwen 135 and 250.

Then you answered your own question

[normhead]

In that case I could go for the DA* 300 or D-FA150-450 if you can afford it. Adding a 1.4 TC will not yield as good of results as either of those two lenses, and you lose a stop of light.

Since I use the TC on a DA*60-250 much of the time. I'm going to challenge this. I have to look at the EXIF to tell which images were taken with and without the TC. There is no visible difference in the images.

What's your reference for saying adding the TC doesn't yield as good results?

[JimD]

Since I use the TC on a DA*60-250 much of the time. I'm going to challenge this. I have to look at the EXIF to tell which images were taken with and without the TC. There is no visible difference in the images.

What's your reference for saying adding the TC doesn't yield as good results?

I have to agree with Norm. It's very difficult to tell if shots have been taken with or without the TC on my DA* 300. It's well worth the consideration

[audiobomber]

The problem with adding the HD TC is not with IQ. Auto-focus takes a hit, and so does aperture. A 60-250 with 1.4X TC is definitely compromised vs. a DA*300.

[UncleVanya]

The problem with adding the HD TC is not with IQ. Auto-focus takes a hit, and so does aperture. A 60-250 with 1.4X TC is definitely compromised vs. a DA*300.

I think the point is that the quality of the shots is still very good - it is a matter of degrees.

[normhead]

The problem with adding the HD TC is not with IQ. Auto-focus takes a hit, and so does aperture. A 60-250 with 1.4X TC is definitely compromised vs. a DA*300.

I'll just avoid the big long explanation and stick to the talking point.s

Check your library, so what percentage of your images are taken at less than 250mm... do you really want to give those up?
Personally of the 1900 60-250 images in my library and 600 of them are taken at 250mm, and many of those are uncropped. Will I give up 4/5s of the images I take with this lens to get better performance on maybe 20% of the images?

Despite what is said above, the 5.6 of the 60-250 with the TC is not a big compromise. I often just leave the TC on the camera when I shoot wildlife. It has to be pretty dark before AF becomes a problem and i want to take it off. And darkness presents all kinds of other problems.

You can't really look at replacing the 60-250 with a prime. You're going to need other lenses. SO, to keep equivalent IQ, you're going to need a 50-135, a 200 and the 300 as a minimum. Maybe your lens selection is such that you have every thing covered. But there isn't a lot available for Pentax that covers what a 60-250 covers with excellent IQ. You need to consider what else you'd need to buy if you go this route.

Either lens is great at what it does. The 60-250 just does a lot more.

There used to three forlenses 200 and over, the 60-250, the 200 the 300. Now there's the 150-450 and the 70-200. The 300's niche in the pentax world has gotten a lot smaller.

But if you need 500, the 300 with the 1.4 is still the best way to get close without robbing a bank. But if you're me, what you really want is the 150-450, which also plays nice with the TC. With 450mm ƒ5.6 and it's ring motor, it's just a different class of lens.

You can probably tell, I've sat and had this conversation with myself probably 100 times.

Right now if I had a 60-250 and 300, I'd sell them both for a 150-450.
But, I'm saved by having my relatively inexpensive A-400. I can't get much for it it terms of selling to get a 150-450, but it gets me long when I really need it, and unlike the 300, is pretty a much perfect companion of the 60-250. 300 is too close to 250 to be much of an upgrade. Especially since I have an F 70-210 when I want close focus.