[normhead]

To me the 55-300 is more a 55-200mm lens with a TC to go up to 300mm in term of quality. .

You have both plus the HD DA 1.4?

Or are you guessing?

[mee]

This lens is a 300mm f/8 or f/9 with the 1.4x HD teleconvertor ? How well is the focusing with the teleconverter ?

[jgnfld]

The issue there would be we are already stretching the limits of low light performance.

Which the K-70 does to some degree.

[Nicolas06]

You have both plus the HD DA 1.4? Or are you guessing?

If you notice there no 55-200 lens. It is more a guess from the use. Unti 190mm the lens is sharp, even wide open. Not extremely sharp, but sharp. At 250-260mm already this is not as good and a 300mm you can see the crop posted there from me and from others, that also include the RE version.

To me starting 190-200mm, there no much more detail added but user longer focal length, but mostly an enlargement of the details already present. This match my sample and match the 100% crop I have seen from other. Oh it doesn't mean there isn't sample varation, that sure. Some surely are better or worse than others.

Basically in attachment you'll find in order 190mm f/4.5, the full picture and 300mm f/8. Theses are center crops. f/8 300mm never match 190mm f/4.5...

Sure theses are K3 crops, so very small crops as it's 1/6 of the picture in both direction as the full picture show but don't expect too much from the lens.

For the 300mm crop to look good, you have to be a 50%... There more like 5-6MP worth of detail than 24MP, meaning a 300mm shoot will look very nice uncroped and that already quite an achievement for the price and I think it is still ok if you crop to 400mm or something like that so basically 600mm FF equivalent. You'll still get something great.

But if you try to push more than that, it is going to show a lack of sharpness.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.

[normhead]

It is more a guess from the use

As I suspected.

[Cambo]

bigger than I thought, in both directions. Does not fold up all that small, really, you save about an inch and a half. Nicely made, feel very solid. Quite good performance, although I could only take a few shots inside a big box retail outlet, so it wasn't the greatest opportunity. Will post some when I get a chance.

All in all, will make a good travelling companion with the 16-85.

Cheers,
Cameron

[jgnfld]

bigger than I thought, in both directions. Does not fold up all that small, really, you save about an inch and a half. Nicely made, feel very solid. Quite good performance, although I could only take a few shots inside a big box retail outlet, so it wasn't the greatest opportunity. Will post some when I get a chance.

All in all, will make a good travelling companion with the 16-85.

Cheers,
Cameron

You really only save the maximum with the lens totally shut down and locked. But in a bag, that's still a good thing.

[FantasticMrFox]

The hands-on review published today is quite interesting. The following bits in particular should refute the often cited argument that Pentax' AF.C is lacking behind due to the lack of fast lenses - this lens is fast, and it doesn't seem to make a difference in AF.C:

Now, the bad news: Fast and accurate as it is, the new PLM focusing module can’t do anything overcome Pentax’s other longstanding autofocusing woes, especially when it comes to action photography. To put the new lens to the test, we strapped it to a K-3 II (equipped with the latest v1.10 firmware) and tried to shoot a particularly speedy dog (Illa, who you might recognize from the K-70 gallery) at the local park. Unfortunately, I have to report that even in the bright New Mexico daylight, the pair struggled to produce the kind of results my Nikon D700 and Sigma 100-300mm f/4 consistently pump out.

[...]

I know what you’re going to say: Comparing an mid-range APS-C DSLR to a professional full-frame model isn’t exactly fair, and a lens like the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 has a big advantage over a smaller, lighter, cheaper design like the DA 55-300mm f/4.5-6.3. That’s all fair, but consider this: The D700 was released in 2008, and the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 dates back to 2005. It’s at least a touch disappointing that a newly released camera and lens can’t keep up with a pair that’s roughly a decade old, regardless of category.

Feel free to burn me at the stake now for bringing up the AF.C debate again, but I found this review quite interesting in this regard, because I was really hoping that the new generation of PLM lenses would bring palpable improvements

[UncleVanya]

The hands-on review published today is quite interesting. The following bits in particular should refute the often cited argument that Pentax' AF.C is lacking behind due to the lack of fast lenses - this lens is fast, and it doesn't seem to make a difference in AF.C:



Feel free to burn me at the stake now for bringing up the AF.C debate again, but I found this review quite interesting in this regard, because I was really hoping that the new generation of PLM lenses would bring palpable improvements

I would love to see the comparison made with a 24mp apsc Nikon and low end consumer lens.

[surfar]

K1 has a crop mode, I wonder how this compares to that Nikon?

[UncleVanya]

K1 has a crop mode, I wonder how this compares to that Nikon?

The Nikon is a 12mp full frame. As such much easier to focus than a 24mp apsc. At least as I understand focus.

[surfar]

K1 is 16mp in crop mode

[FantasticMrFox]

I would love to see the comparison made with a 24mp apsc Nikon and low end consumer lens.

I'd bet it would do much better. Because, as my post was supposed to point out, the 'low end consumer' characteristics of the lens don't seem to be responsible. The HD DA 55-300 PLM WR seems to have very, very quick AF.

But I'm digressing. This looks like a really interesting lens, now I want an HD DA 12-24 f/4 PLM WR and an HD DA 16-55 f/2.8 PLM WR.

[UncleVanya]

I'd bet it would do much better. Because, as my post was supposed to point out, the 'low end consumer' characteristics of the lens don't seem to be responsible. The HD DA 55-300 PLM WR seems to have very, very quick AF.

But I'm digressing. This looks like a really interesting lens, now I want an HD DA 12-24 f/4 PLM WR and an HD DA 16-55 f/2.8 PLM WR.

I'm sorry but that seems to be unclear at this point. Just because AF-S is quick doesn't mean the same lens is good at AF-C. Furthermore comparing a past high end full frame with low pixel count doesn't seem at all comparable.

[FantasticMrFox]

I'm sorry but that seems to be unclear at this point. Just because AF-S is quick doesn't mean the same lens is good at AF-C. Furthermore comparing a past high end full frame with low pixel count doesn't seem at all comparable.

a) I find that unlikely. AF.C is just rapidly cycling AF.S. Focusing, re-estimating, focusing again, ideally actually predicting the movement of the subject ... But that's the camera's AF system's job, not the lens'. The lens just needs to focus as the camera tells it. The only effect the lens has is that it needs to be able to focus in small enough increments and smoothly enough for AF.C to work, and apparently screw-drive isn't well suited to that. But this is a PLM lens, so why would it be worse in AF.C than AF.S? Add to that the fact that Pentax has specifically claimed the PLM to be a major improvement for AF.C in movie mode, and I don't see how the PLM would be responsible for poor AF.C performance.

b) Not only is that high-end full frame 8 years old, and you would expect a current flagship APS-C DSLR to be able to do better than that, 12 MP should be more than good enough to be able to judge sharpness. 24 MP may bring to light some very minor inaccuracies that aren't visible on 12 MP, but really, if he says his D700 can keep track of a running dog whereas the K3 II "consistently [focused] behind the desired point and resulting in blurry images", then that's not due to the minor difference between 12 and 24 MP.