[cali92rs]

Hola...
I am looking for a travel zoom, to be used in good light, outdoors, so I thought the Tamron 70-300mm may be a good option (hint hint Pentax, DC motor, and WR, $300 and you have a customer).
Anyone have any experience with one on the K-1?

It can be had for $160 new, so I may just buy one and check it out...however, it isn't free, so I would like a little feedback before hand if possible.

Or should I just get the new HD WR 55-300mm and use it in crop mode and take the resolution hit?

[biz-engineer]

Good question , I'd like to know as well.

[gaweidert]

The 55-300 mm is actually pretty good on the K1. It does vignette at bit at the long end but is okay throughout most of it's range. Below are two shots. One at 300mm (Milkweed flowers) and the other at 190mm A new version is due out soon and it may be better. Mine is mostly used on my K3 but i do put it on my K1 once in awhile.

[D1N0]

I have one but no K-1 The 55-300 is virtually FF compatible. You'll get some heavy vignetting at some focal lengths though. There is also the sigma 70-300.

[TwoUptons]

I have the Tamron and a K1, but no 55-300...

I've been fairly satisfied with the Tamron. It purple fringes like mad wide open, but it's fairly sharp otherwise. And stopped down a notch the fringing isn't bad.

Every once in a while it is spectacular, with results better than its price suggests, and the macro is handy.

I actually prefer it on the K1 to the K01, where it is insanely slow to focus.

I can't think of anything I would currently swap it for that isn't vastly more expensive.

-Eric

[cali92rs]

I have one but no K-1 The 55-300 is virtually FF compatible. You'll get some heavy vignetting at some focal lengths though. There is also the sigma 70-300.

How is the 55-300 virtually FF compatible if you get heavy vignetting?
Im not at all trying to be snarky, but in my opinion being a FF lens means getting low vignetting at all focal lengths.

[D1N0]

did you see the word virtually?

[cali92rs]

did you see the word virtually?

I did...
So how is it VIRTUALLY a FF lens lens when there is heavy vignetting?

[D1N0]

Because it can be used as such

[cali92rs]

Because it can be used as such

Like I said, I really do not want to be snarky...but you can also use any DA lens on the K-1 and crop out the black corners, but that does not mean they are virtually FF lenses.
Otherwise, why not just use DA 15mm, 16-85, etc?

[D1N0]

Because wide angle DA lenses have a much smaller image circle

[Nicolas06]

Because wide angle DA lenses have a much smaller image circle

but what about the resolution of the lenses on borders? What does that 55-300 does?

heavy vigneting is an indication that the lens was not designed for it. We see all the time people that die over 5% more sharpness on border at f/0.95... but suddenly if a lens is used outside it specs, vignette badly, and likely has washed out borders, it now just fine

[D1N0]

Well want a lens without heavy vignetting in that range There is plenty of choice on the used market for very few $$ Like the Tamron or Sigma 70-300 (get the APO version with the red ring) or FA Glass. I wouldn't get a 55-300 for the K-1 when there are plenty alternatives, but it still can be used.

[D1N0]

still no samples?

[TwoUptons]

So here are a couple of examples I did this morning while working in the yard. All straight OOC with only crops and whatever resizing happens between me and the PF uploader...

The first is a Beetle my daughter found, happily munching on some Lantana.
It does a good job of showing how the lens does when playing macro. This one was manually focused, which is a trick hand-held at 300mm. ISO was 1600 to avoid camera shake. The original was cropped square, about 9Mp



100% closeup:



And some bricks across the street. Plenty of resolution... there's also lots of resolution in the shingles in the original...



And some fringing at 100%... particularly on the metal strap. Not as bad as it could be since it was stopped down a bit



I hope that's helpful...

-Eric