Looking for a Lens that may not exist, Light and Long

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-23-2016, 02:48 PM

Get an M300/4 at 825 grams and add an F1.7x AF converter. You get 500mm at about 1 kilo.

I se the k300/4 with the AF adaptor it is about 00 grams heavier. With that you get MF plus selective range af

Nicolas06 · 04-23-2016, 02:56 PM

Well so basically you ask for the graal.

All the possiiblities for something significantly better than the 55-300 are going to cost at least 600$ and many happily cross the thousand mark. They also tend to be on the heavy side. Even more so if they are fast. And for a tele, being fast is very important. That being said, if you like long lenses, you could keep the K5 longer, get a decent lens and wait 1-2 years for the K3-II, you'll be able to get one for 350$ by that time that would allow to finance a good work horse like a 150-500, maybe used and to get some practice with it. That would make sense if you are serious about it. And the lens would still be expensive by that time. That money saved.

To me you should really consider if shooting birds is so important for you and you should ask yourself why you can't manage it with a 55-300. It is easy to think you always need more and better, but good birders photographers will manage to get some great pictures out of a 55-300... The key is to be more near to the bird and that's how you are going to get better pictures of birds. Getting to the right post, prepare the shoots hide, hunt. Get some technique to manage to get more near to them...

But really think of why you want to do that? Many do it there and that's nice but most of the picture look quite uninterresting. Dove, squirels, sparrows, ducks, all kind of things were a 55-300 can do a great job or even a 18-55 at times ! There also some bad looking birds in the shadow cropped 5 time... A few picture are really great, not necessariliy taken with the best gear, but that require lot of practice, dedication and technique.

To me if you don't accept that it will be heavy and expensive and you don't accept what the 55-300 bring to you, you have to give up something. Either you spend more, either you stick with the 55-300 that is truely great lens that can make great results already. Either you give up birding. After all you don't have to do it, in particular if you are not even willing to do it with the gear you already have or invest in something really better. If the new camera take the priority, instead of the better lens you need, it may be an indication you are not really serious about it.

**csa** · 04-23-2016, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Can you get AF with the TC on it?

Absolutely! That's how all my shots are done, with this combo; is with AF.

chibae · 04-23-2016, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Well so basically you ask for the graal.

All the possiiblities for something significantly better than the 55-300 are going to cost at least 600$ and many happily cross the thousand mark.

I did not ask for significantly better, just a way to extend the reach. I am taking bird photos for basically my own enjoyment and for further study for ID if needed.

They also tend to be on the heavy side. Even more so if they are fast. And for a tele, being fast is very important. That being said, if you like long lenses, you could keep the K5 longer, get a decent lens and wait 1-2 years for the K3-II, you'll be able to get one for 350$ by that time that would allow to finance a good work horse like a 150-500, maybe used and to get some practice with it. That would make sense if you are serious about it. And the lens would still be expensive by that time. That money saved.

That would make sense but I said I am a birder, verb to actively seek out species as opposed to some who passively birdwatches.

To me you should really consider if shooting birds is so important for you and you should ask yourself why you can't manage it with a 55-300. It is easy to think you always need more and better, but good birders photographers will manage to get some great pictures out of a 55-300... The key is to be more near to the bird and that's how you are going to get better pictures of birds. Getting to the right post, prepare the shoots hide, hunt. Get some technique to manage to get more near to them...

Again, please see both my answer to you above and my OP. I am not seeking to become a bird photographer. I am seeking to extend beyond the reach of my 55-300 but is light enough to carry on long hikes and be hand held. Seeing the birds, not photographing is most important to me.

If the new cameraTo me if you don't accept that it will be heavy and expensive and you don't accept what the 55-300 bring to you, you have to give up something. Either you spend more, either you stick with the 55-300 that is truely great lens that can make great results already. Either you give up birding. After all you don't have to do it, in particular if you are not even willing to do it with the gear you already have or invest in something really take the priority, instead of the better lens you need, it may be an indication you are not really serious about it

I am serious about the work that I do for others with my camera. I am serious about my birding. But I am not serious about bird photography at this time. Right now, as I said, it is for a personal record, nothing more, but I did find the 55-300 limiting today.
.

I hope I have been able to explain myself more clearly to you. If I were to desire to become a serious bird photographer, your suggestions make a lot of sense to me.

**csa** · 04-23-2016, 03:31 PM

Asking about AF with the Tamron 1.4 TC, here's another that is AF with the 55-300, and 1.4 TC

**Des** · 04-23-2016, 03:34 PM

@chibae, you are not the only one who wants a lens that is long (>300mm), relatively lightweight, fast-ish, and cheap, that produces very good image quality. They don't exist. You have to compromise on at least one criterion.

The 55-300 with TC means giving up on speed. With a 1.4x TC the widest aperture is f8. And since the lens wants stopping down, you would generally be aiming for f10-f11. That requires good light and/or slow shutter speeds and/or high ISOs. But as @csa's images show, it's better than the numbers suggest.

The various 300mm primes + TC will generally give better IQ and more speed (f5.6-f6.3, and several will work well wide open). The pick of them, in my view, would be the F*300 f4.5, FA*300 f4.5 or DA*300 f4, and maybe the Sigma 300mm f4 Tele Macro. These are all auto-exposure and auto-aperture. The lightest of them is the F*300 at about 850g. It's relatively expensive (about $US700) and hard to find but a really stellar lens.

Even the manual focus, manual aperture lenses like those @LowellGoudge suggests are still fairly hefty and they aren't dirt cheap (e.g. about $250 for the K 300 or about $400 for the M 300 f4), especially when you add the fairly-expensive and hard-to-find 1.7x TC (which adds a measure of AF). They have longer minimum focus distances (4m) and more purple fringing and CA than the later versions. But if you can live with those limitations and manual everything, the M 300 in particular is renowned for its sharpness.

If you look at 400mm primes, they are mostly heavier (1200g+) and more expensive than the 300mm equivalents. The Tokina ATX is a bit lighter, although reviews are a little mixed. I have the Sigma 400 f5.6 tele macro (77mm filter size) and it's a fine lens, but it is very hard to find and not cheap (in Pentax mount). It weighs about 1.3kg, which I find I can use handheld.

Next up are the various xx-400 zooms, like the Sigma 135-400 and 120-400, and the Tokina 80-400. They weigh upwards of 1.3kg. The Sigma 120-400 might be the pick of those.

Then there are the various xx-500 zooms like the Sigma 170-500, 150-500 and 50-500. The 170-500 is much lighter than the others at about 1.3kg v about 2kg, but I had one and it isn't as good or as reliable as the 400mm prime. I think a 300mm + TC would be a better option.

Here's another thought: consider using a flash, with a flash extender, for at least fill flash. That will let you use a slower lens and lower ISO. A cheap, lightweight option is the Rogue Safari: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/256288...-extender.html I'm using mine with the 55-300 and have been getting good results up to about 10-12m. The main catch is that your shutter speed is limited to 1/180th second, which is OK if the subject is stationary but not so good if it is moving. The only way around that would be to use an external flash with HSS and a flash extender (Bettter Beamer or similar).

---------- Post added 04-24-16 at 08:50 AM ----------

Originally posted by chibae

My primary photographic focus is livestock portraits. Mostly horses but I have also done cows, swine, etc. For this I use a K5 with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 lens.

A 300mm prime would be great for this too. If you bite the bullet and get the F/FA*300 f4.5 you would have one of the best lenses Pentax ever made. Sharp, minimal CA, light enough to use handheld, full-frame capable, and without the reliabilty concerns of the SDM motor in the DA*300. And wonderful whenever you point at a bird instead (with or without TC).

BTW, I hope you'll share some of your farm animal photos in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/29...m-animals.html

chibae · 04-23-2016, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Des

@chibae, you are not the only one who wants a lens that is long (>300mm), relatively lightweight, fast-ish, and cheap, that produces very good image quality. They don't exist. You have to compromise on at least one criterion.

I'm willing to compromise on the "very good" image quality and settle for good. I'm also willing to compromise on the fast-ish as there is no way, right now, that I am looking to have even a half-way decent BIF rig. I know it's not possible with my criteria.

The 55-300 with TC means giving up on speed. With a 1.4x TC the widest aperture is f8. And since the lens wants stopping down, you would generally be aiming for f10-f11. That requires good light and/or slow shutter speeds and/or high ISOs. But as @csa's images show, it's better than the numbers suggest.

@csa's images are much better than I was hoping I could accomplish looking for more reach on a budget. The fact that they were done using equipment I already own means all I need to do is PRACTICE, make sure of my light, PRACTICE, wear my left wrist brace, oh and did I say PRACTICE.

Here's another thought: consider using a flash, with a flash extender, for at least fill flash. That will let you use a slower lens and lower ISO. A cheap, lightweight option is the Rogue Safari: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/256288...-extender.html I'm use mine with the 55-300 and have been getting good results. The main catch is that your shutter speed is limited to 1/180th second, which is OK if the subject is stationary but not so good if it is moving. The only way around that would be to use an external flash with HSS and a flash extender (Bettter Beamer or similar).

Thank you, I will look into that.

Thank you for a very detailed reply.

paramanic · 04-23-2016, 04:34 PM - **2 Likes**

These were shot handheld with a SMC Tak 1:5.6/400 on a K20D. I picked up the lens for $168. It's not very fast, but it's fine outdoors and it's fairly light.

**Des** · 04-23-2016, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by chibae

I'm also willing to compromise on the fast-ish as there is no way, right now, that I am looking to have even a half-way decent BIF rig. I know it's not possible with my criteria.

By "fast" I was referring to the maximum width of the aperture not the focusing speed. (Confusing that we use "fast" in three different senses: aperture width, focus speed and shutter speed.

) The maximum aperture is a limitation in lower light.

The 55-300 is noisy but it does focus fairly quickly (even faster on the K-3). There's no reason you could not take BIF shots with the K-5+55-300 (with or without TC) in good light, where you can use a fast shutter speed.

Originally posted by chibae

@csa's images are much better than I was hoping I could accomplish looking for more reach on a budget. The fact that they were done using equipment I already own means all I need to do is PRACTICE, make sure of my light, PRACTICE, wear my left wrist brace, oh and did I say PRACTICE.

f8 or greater, 1/400th second or faster, ISO 3200 or less, and a steady technique, and you're good to go. Or use flash + extender, dial to M, ISO 100, f8-11, 1/180th, SR on, steady technique, and you'll be pleasantly surprised.
For technique: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/long-exposure-handhelds/introduction.html

Incidentally, when you get your K-3ii you might find that the extra megapixels and greater scope for cropping mean that you won't crave longer than 300mm quite as much. (That's my experience comparing the 16mp K-30 with the 24mp K-3.)

As people have said or implied above, the 55-300 is quite sufficient for most people for birds and wildlife, whether alone or with TC. It's a great value lens, and the light weight means it's ideal for hikes, and very usable hendheld. The fact that people have said above that the results are as good as you can get with all but the best of the 400mm primes is testament to that.

55-300, handheld:

chibae · 04-23-2016, 05:24 PM - **1 Like**

I did understand what you meant, aperture.

I really feel that my question has been answered. I have the tools right now, 55-300 plus the 1.4 TC. I just didn't realize it. I feel kind of foolish for not thinking to use the two together. I also received some good advice if the time comes that I want to do more serious bird photography.
Again..thank you everyone.

derekkite · 04-23-2016, 06:04 PM

I used a 170-500 sigma for a while. It was surprisingly light and nice to handle. Stopped down it was ok. I wanted sharper and faster, and now pack around a heavy long lens, but if you can find one it may work for you.

**mgvh** · 04-23-2016, 06:15 PM

My long lenses include the SMC PENTAX DA L 55-300mm 1:4 – 5.8 ED, TELE TAKUMAR 200mm f5.6 M42, M200 f4, Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 400mm F5.6, the generic 500mm f8 long tube lens, a good Kenko Pz-AF 1.5x Teleplus SHQ (= the Tamron 1.4x), and a cheap 2x teleconverter.

If I simply want the sharpest picture of a distant bird, and if there is plenty of light, then the generic 500mm f8 does best, and it is perhaps the lightest of the batch as well. (It beats out a crop from any of the other lenses.) Definitely needs a tripod. If I want autofocus, then the 55-300 is the (only) choice. If I don't want to carry the long tube 500mm, then I get mixed results from the any of the rest, sometimes better with one of the teleconverters.

Austro-Diesel · 04-24-2016, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Get an M300/4 at 825 grams and add an F1.7x AF converter.

This would be my recommendation, too. The only problem may be the aged lens coatings, which can cause trouble at harsh light situations. The old AF 1,7x Teleconverter shows quick autofocus with every lens, manual or with AF. The AF range ist smaller, so you have to pre-focus manually at the lens, it works just like a lens with built-in focus limiter.

The DA* 300 with the DA 1,4x Teleconverter performs well, but with the TC the bokeh isn't perfect an der AF get's a bit erratic.

Focal lengths from 400+ mm claim for a tripod or other support.

A zoom lens is quite more useful, when you can't change your place of location! I think a modern longer telezoom would be the better buy in practice.

Sandy Hancock · 04-24-2016, 12:13 AM - **1 Like**

Get a Q series body and a K-mount adaptor, and use your excellent Tamron 70-200/2.8 on it. There is a learning curve, but good results are there to be had.

Nicolas06 · 04-24-2016, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by csa

Absolutely! That's how all my shots are done, with this combo; is with AF.

Interresting ! Is the AF responsive or is there any limitation? To my knowledge without TC the only issue I have with the 55-300 is that at time it lose focus and try to focus at near distance, then I have to use quick shift to very rougly get the focus and it get it again, quite decesively on the K3.

04-23-2016, 03:34 PM	#21
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	@chibae, you are not the only one who wants a lens that is long (>300mm), relatively lightweight, fast-ish, and cheap, that produces very good image quality. They don't exist. You have to compromise on at least one criterion. The 55-300 with TC means giving up on speed. With a 1.4x TC the widest aperture is f8. And since the lens wants stopping down, you would generally be aiming for f10-f11. That requires good light and/or slow shutter speeds and/or high ISOs. But as @csa's images show, it's better than the numbers suggest. The various 300mm primes + TC will generally give better IQ and more speed (f5.6-f6.3, and several will work well wide open). The pick of them, in my view, would be the F300 f4.5, FA300 f4.5 or DA300 f4, and maybe the Sigma 300mm f4 Tele Macro. These are all auto-exposure and auto-aperture. The lightest of them is the F300 at about 850g. It's relatively expensive (about $US700) and hard to find but a really stellar lens. Even the manual focus, manual aperture lenses like those @LowellGoudge suggests are still fairly hefty and they aren't dirt cheap (e.g. about $250 for the K 300 or about $400 for the M 300 f4), especially when you add the fairly-expensive and hard-to-find 1.7x TC (which adds a measure of AF). They have longer minimum focus distances (4m) and more purple fringing and CA than the later versions. But if you can live with those limitations and manual everything, the M 300 in particular is renowned for its sharpness. If you look at 400mm primes, they are mostly heavier (1200g+) and more expensive than the 300mm equivalents. The Tokina ATX is a bit lighter, although reviews are a little mixed. I have the Sigma 400 f5.6 tele macro (77mm filter size) and it's a fine lens, but it is very hard to find and not cheap (in Pentax mount). It weighs about 1.3kg, which I find I can use handheld. Next up are the various xx-400 zooms, like the Sigma 135-400 and 120-400, and the Tokina 80-400. They weigh upwards of 1.3kg. The Sigma 120-400 might be the pick of those. Then there are the various xx-500 zooms like the Sigma 170-500, 150-500 and 50-500. The 170-500 is much lighter than the others at about 1.3kg v about 2kg, but I had one and it isn't as good or as reliable as the 400mm prime. I think a 300mm + TC would be a better option. Here's another thought: consider using a flash, with a flash extender, for at least fill flash. That will let you use a slower lens and lower ISO. A cheap, lightweight option is the Rogue Safari: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/256288...-extender.html I'm using mine with the 55-300 and have been getting good results up to about 10-12m. The main catch is that your shutter speed is limited to 1/180th second, which is OK if the subject is stationary but not so good if it is moving. The only way around that would be to use an external flash with HSS and a flash extender (Bettter Beamer or similar). ---------- Post added 04-24-16 at 08:50 AM ---------- Originally posted by chibae My primary photographic focus is livestock portraits. Mostly horses but I have also done cows, swine, etc. For this I use a K5 with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 lens. A 300mm prime would be great for this too. If you bite the bullet and get the F/FA300 f4.5 you would have one of the best lenses Pentax ever made. Sharp, minimal CA, light enough to use handheld, full-frame capable, and without the reliabilty concerns of the SDM motor in the DA300. And wonderful whenever you point at a bird instead (with or without TC). BTW, I hope you'll share some of your farm animal photos in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/29...m-animals.html Last edited by Des; 04-23-2016 at 04:05 PM.

04-23-2016, 05:11 PM	#24
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by chibae I'm also willing to compromise on the fast-ish as there is no way, right now, that I am looking to have even a half-way decent BIF rig. I know it's not possible with my criteria. By "fast" I was referring to the maximum width of the aperture not the focusing speed. (Confusing that we use "fast" in three different senses: aperture width, focus speed and shutter speed.) The maximum aperture is a limitation in lower light. The 55-300 is noisy but it does focus fairly quickly (even faster on the K-3). There's no reason you could not take BIF shots with the K-5+55-300 (with or without TC) in good light, where you can use a fast shutter speed. Originally posted by chibae @csa's images are much better than I was hoping I could accomplish looking for more reach on a budget. The fact that they were done using equipment I already own means all I need to do is PRACTICE, make sure of my light, PRACTICE, wear my left wrist brace, oh and did I say PRACTICE. f8 or greater, 1/400th second or faster, ISO 3200 or less, and a steady technique, and you're good to go. Or use flash + extender, dial to M, ISO 100, f8-11, 1/180th, SR on, steady technique, and you'll be pleasantly surprised. For technique: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/long-exposure-handhelds/introduction.html Incidentally, when you get your K-3ii you might find that the extra megapixels and greater scope for cropping mean that you won't crave longer than 300mm quite as much. (That's my experience comparing the 16mp K-30 with the 24mp K-3.) As people have said or implied above, the 55-300 is quite sufficient for most people for birds and wildlife, whether alone or with TC. It's a great value lens, and the light weight means it's ideal for hikes, and very usable hendheld. The fact that people have said above that the results are as good as you can get with all but the best of the 400mm primes is testament to that. 55-300, handheld: Last edited by Des; 04-23-2016 at 07:30 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Looking for a cheap hardcase for k-3 and long telephoto lens	Weevil	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	9	05-03-2016 08:43 PM
Looking for a wide angle lens that might not even exist...	athlantar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	05-09-2012 12:13 PM
Why a "long lens" and K-01 may not mix.	m8o	Pentax K-01	68	02-21-2012 08:53 PM
Looking for a long portrait lens.	omega leader	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	46	09-04-2010 07:48 AM
Adorama listing a lens that doesn't exist?	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	51	01-10-2009 10:43 AM

04-23-2016, 02:48 PM	#16
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Get an M300/4 at 825 grams and add an F1.7x AF converter. You get 500mm at about 1 kilo. I se the k300/4 with the AF adaptor it is about 00 grams heavier. With that you get MF plus selective range af

04-23-2016, 02:56 PM	#17
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Well so basically you ask for the graal. All the possiiblities for something significantly better than the 55-300 are going to cost at least 600$ and many happily cross the thousand mark. They also tend to be on the heavy side. Even more so if they are fast. And for a tele, being fast is very important. That being said, if you like long lenses, you could keep the K5 longer, get a decent lens and wait 1-2 years for the K3-II, you'll be able to get one for 350$ by that time that would allow to finance a good work horse like a 150-500, maybe used and to get some practice with it. That would make sense if you are serious about it. And the lens would still be expensive by that time. That money saved. To me you should really consider if shooting birds is so important for you and you should ask yourself why you can't manage it with a 55-300. It is easy to think you always need more and better, but good birders photographers will manage to get some great pictures out of a 55-300... The key is to be more near to the bird and that's how you are going to get better pictures of birds. Getting to the right post, prepare the shoots hide, hunt. Get some technique to manage to get more near to them... But really think of why you want to do that? Many do it there and that's nice but most of the picture look quite uninterresting. Dove, squirels, sparrows, ducks, all kind of things were a 55-300 can do a great job or even a 18-55 at times ! There also some bad looking birds in the shadow cropped 5 time... A few picture are really great, not necessariliy taken with the best gear, but that require lot of practice, dedication and technique. To me if you don't accept that it will be heavy and expensive and you don't accept what the 55-300 bring to you, you have to give up something. Either you spend more, either you stick with the 55-300 that is truely great lens that can make great results already. Either you give up birding. After all you don't have to do it, in particular if you are not even willing to do it with the gear you already have or invest in something really better. If the new camera take the priority, instead of the better lens you need, it may be an indication you are not really serious about it.

04-23-2016, 02:59 PM	#18
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Can you get AF with the TC on it? Absolutely! That's how all my shots are done, with this combo; is with AF.

04-23-2016, 03:11 PM	#19
chibae Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 62 Original Poster	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Well so basically you ask for the graal. All the possiiblities for something significantly better than the 55-300 are going to cost at least 600$ and many happily cross the thousand mark. I did not ask for significantly better, just a way to extend the reach. I am taking bird photos for basically my own enjoyment and for further study for ID if needed. They also tend to be on the heavy side. Even more so if they are fast. And for a tele, being fast is very important. That being said, if you like long lenses, you could keep the K5 longer, get a decent lens and wait 1-2 years for the K3-II, you'll be able to get one for 350$ by that time that would allow to finance a good work horse like a 150-500, maybe used and to get some practice with it. That would make sense if you are serious about it. And the lens would still be expensive by that time. That money saved. That would make sense but I said I am a birder, verb to actively seek out species as opposed to some who passively birdwatches. To me you should really consider if shooting birds is so important for you and you should ask yourself why you can't manage it with a 55-300. It is easy to think you always need more and better, but good birders photographers will manage to get some great pictures out of a 55-300... The key is to be more near to the bird and that's how you are going to get better pictures of birds. Getting to the right post, prepare the shoots hide, hunt. Get some technique to manage to get more near to them... Again, please see both my answer to you above and my OP. I am not seeking to become a bird photographer. I am seeking to extend beyond the reach of my 55-300 but is light enough to carry on long hikes and be hand held. Seeing the birds, not photographing is most important to me. If the new cameraTo me if you don't accept that it will be heavy and expensive and you don't accept what the 55-300 bring to you, you have to give up something. Either you spend more, either you stick with the 55-300 that is truely great lens that can make great results already. Either you give up birding. After all you don't have to do it, in particular if you are not even willing to do it with the gear you already have or invest in something really take the priority, instead of the better lens you need, it may be an indication you are not really serious about it I am serious about the work that I do for others with my camera. I am serious about my birding. But I am not serious about bird photography at this time. Right now, as I said, it is for a personal record, nothing more, but I did find the 55-300 limiting today. . I hope I have been able to explain myself more clearly to you. If I were to desire to become a serious bird photographer, your suggestions make a lot of sense to me.

04-23-2016, 03:31 PM	#20
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	Asking about AF with the Tamron 1.4 TC, here's another that is AF with the 55-300, and 1.4 TC

04-23-2016, 03:51 PM	#22
chibae Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 62 Original Poster	Originally posted by Des @chibae, you are not the only one who wants a lens that is long (>300mm), relatively lightweight, fast-ish, and cheap, that produces very good image quality. They don't exist. You have to compromise on at least one criterion. I'm willing to compromise on the "very good" image quality and settle for good. I'm also willing to compromise on the fast-ish as there is no way, right now, that I am looking to have even a half-way decent BIF rig. I know it's not possible with my criteria. The 55-300 with TC means giving up on speed. With a 1.4x TC the widest aperture is f8. And since the lens wants stopping down, you would generally be aiming for f10-f11. That requires good light and/or slow shutter speeds and/or high ISOs. But as @csa's images show, it's better than the numbers suggest. @csa's images are much better than I was hoping I could accomplish looking for more reach on a budget. The fact that they were done using equipment I already own means all I need to do is PRACTICE, make sure of my light, PRACTICE, wear my left wrist brace, oh and did I say PRACTICE. Here's another thought: consider using a flash, with a flash extender, for at least fill flash. That will let you use a slower lens and lower ISO. A cheap, lightweight option is the Rogue Safari: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/256288...-extender.html I'm use mine with the 55-300 and have been getting good results. The main catch is that your shutter speed is limited to 1/180th second, which is OK if the subject is stationary but not so good if it is moving. The only way around that would be to use an external flash with HSS and a flash extender (Bettter Beamer or similar). Thank you, I will look into that. Thank you for a very detailed reply.

04-23-2016, 05:24 PM - 1 Like	#25
chibae Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 62 Original Poster	I did understand what you meant, aperture. I really feel that my question has been answered. I have the tools right now, 55-300 plus the 1.4 TC. I just didn't realize it. I feel kind of foolish for not thinking to use the two together. I also received some good advice if the time comes that I want to do more serious bird photography. Again..thank you everyone.

04-23-2016, 06:04 PM	#26
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	I used a 170-500 sigma for a while. It was surprisingly light and nice to handle. Stopped down it was ok. I wanted sharper and faster, and now pack around a heavy long lens, but if you can find one it may work for you.

04-23-2016, 06:15 PM	#27
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,030	My long lenses include the SMC PENTAX DA L 55-300mm 1:4 – 5.8 ED, TELE TAKUMAR 200mm f5.6 M42, M200 f4, Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 400mm F5.6, the generic 500mm f8 long tube lens, a good Kenko Pz-AF 1.5x Teleplus SHQ (= the Tamron 1.4x), and a cheap 2x teleconverter. If I simply want the sharpest picture of a distant bird, and if there is plenty of light, then the generic 500mm f8 does best, and it is perhaps the lightest of the batch as well. (It beats out a crop from any of the other lenses.) Definitely needs a tripod. If I want autofocus, then the 55-300 is the (only) choice. If I don't want to carry the long tube 500mm, then I get mixed results from the any of the rest, sometimes better with one of the teleconverters.

04-24-2016, 12:06 AM	#28
Austro-Diesel Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 78	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Get an M300/4 at 825 grams and add an F1.7x AF converter. This would be my recommendation, too. The only problem may be the aged lens coatings, which can cause trouble at harsh light situations. The old AF 1,7x Teleconverter shows quick autofocus with every lens, manual or with AF. The AF range ist smaller, so you have to pre-focus manually at the lens, it works just like a lens with built-in focus limiter. The DA* 300 with the DA 1,4x Teleconverter performs well, but with the TC the bokeh isn't perfect an der AF get's a bit erratic. Focal lengths from 400+ mm claim for a tripod or other support. A zoom lens is quite more useful, when you can't change your place of location! I think a modern longer telezoom would be the better buy in practice.

04-24-2016, 12:13 AM - 1 Like	#29
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Get a Q series body and a K-mount adaptor, and use your excellent Tamron 70-200/2.8 on it. There is a learning curve, but good results are there to be had.

04-24-2016, 12:45 AM	#30
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by csa Absolutely! That's how all my shots are done, with this combo; is with AF. Interresting ! Is the AF responsive or is there any limitation? To my knowledge without TC the only issue I have with the 55-300 is that at time it lose focus and try to focus at near distance, then I have to use quick shift to very rougly get the focus and it get it again, quite decesively on the K3.