[normhead]

But the weight is approaching my Sigma 70-200 f/2,8 that I try to get a lightweight daylight replacement for.

You are kidding right. 825 grams is "approaching" 1430 grams? Is that your logic. Well OK then, no sense in me offering advice. I'll find something else to do.

[Simen1]

Ok, I did stretch it a bit. My point is being that I'm primarily looking for a larger weight difference. If the weight difference becomes small (825 gram lens in stead of 500g), I become picky, like not having to sacrifice zoom. Another thing is that I don't mind smaller aperture for such a lightweight alternative to the Sigma 70-200. I feel that f/2,8 is more then I need, and make it more expensive then what I had in mind.

[normhead]

Ok, I did stretch it a bit. My point is being that I'm primarily looking for a larger weight difference. If the weight difference becomes small (825 gram lens in stead of 500g), I become picky, like not having to sacrifice zoom. Another thing is that I don't mind smaller aperture for such a lightweight alternative to the Sigma 70-200. I feel that f/2,8 is more then I need, and make it more expensive then what I had in mind.

The 200 with TC gives you all of that. With the 1.4 and 1.7 stacked you have 476 mm, ƒ6.3, but you also have the option of the 1,7 for 340mm at ƒ4.5 or the 1.4 at 280mm and ƒ4. You can have you small aperture long lens and wide aperture in one lightweight portable package probably less than you Sigma 70-200. With the 200 you can go more twice as long as the 70-200 with less weight, but the composition is pricey.

The thing about the 200 is it has large from element, but not a lot of weight behind it. You aren't going to find a more efficient use of a large front element.

This is the tipping point for effective long glass. Anything cheaper isn't wide enough to take stacked TCs, any thing longer is much heavier (6 pounds of my Tammy 300 2.8.)

My F 70-210 is 555 grams compared to 825, but you can't put a TC on it, and it's ƒ5.6 at 210mm wide open.

There is nothing for Pentax like my 28-105 (or 18-135) and the 200 plus TCs for weight to versatility ratio.. No long zoom package even comes close.
The 200 improbably the most efficient use of large front element with not a lot of weight behind it.

So are you serious about the weight, or aren't you?

The DA 55-300 PLM is 442 grams and ƒ6.3. IN terms of IQ, that's your next choice, but at ƒ6.3 even a 1.4 TC is going to seriously degrade AF. So 300mm is where it ends. But if you're happy with that, that's your choice. I'm thinking of picking one up for bright sunny days when I don't want to carry even the 200.

[bwDraco]

From an optical standpoint, the new DA 55-300mm PLM lens performs similarly to the old DA 55-300mm. It's 1/3 stop slower but that's rarely an issue for this sort of lens, and a small price to pay for the more compact design and silent, lightning-fast stepper motor.

Sadly, I'm not aware of any modern compact telezoom options à la Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for Pentax full frame. I can't find much in the way of a modern lens of this sort from Sigma or Tamron. The best I could find is the Sigma 70-300, but that's an old design that will not hold up on a 36MP sensor.

Draco

---

Last edited by bwDraco; 02-12-2017 at 02:30 PM.

[normhead]

The best I could find is the Sigma 70-300, but that's an old design that will not hold up on a 36MP sensor.

It didn't hold up very well on a 16 MP sensor at 200-300mm, 90-180 mm was it's sweet spot. I really liked it on my 6 MP *ist however.

[Simen1]

The DA 55-300 PLM is 442 grams and ƒ6.3. IN terms of IQ, that's your next choice, but at ƒ6.3 even a 1.4 TC is going to seriously degrade AF. So 300mm is where it ends. But if you're happy with that, that's your choice. I'm thinking of picking one up for bright sunny days when I don't want to carry even the 200.

I think that might be my choice too. Both because of the weight and the wide end that DA200 lacks. I think 300mm should be sufficient for hiking, at least in 1,5x crop mode.

the new DA 55-300mm PLM lens performs similarly to the old DA 55-300mm

Its suppose to have moved the zooming (?) lens group from the front to the back (if I remember correctly). That must mean a large redesign of the whole optical formula. I haven't seen FF images from that side by side with FF images from earlier DA 55-300, but I hope it covers more so I can crop to 1,2x-1,4x in parts of the focal range.

[Sandy Hancock]

I would also recommend the DA55-300. I carried it with me for three weeks around England and Ireland last year, and the results with the K-1 were very pleasing.









It is most definitely a crop lens though, but that is hardly a problem when you are using it for *reach*. Anyone who thinks the vignetting in FF mode is acceptable is suffering from serious case of wishful thinking.

[clackers]

Probably couldn't cover 20-300mm any smaller than with the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5, FA35mm or DA40mm SX f2.8 and the 55-300mm.

Whether you *want* to is another thing.

[Simen1]

It is most definitely a crop lens though, but that is hardly a problem when you are using it for *reach*. Anyone who thinks the vignetting in FF mode is acceptable is suffering from serious case of wishful thinking.

The DA55-300 is different optical construction from the 55-300 PLM, so I had hopes for using a smaller crop factor then 1,5x.

I found some test images:
55mm: Usable to 1,2x crop
97mm: Usable to 1,5x crop
190mm: Usable on FF
300mm: Usable to 1,2x crop

More test images:
55mm: Usable to 1,1x crop
98mm: Usable to 1,5x crop
108mm: Usable to 1,4x crop
300mm: Usable to 1,1x crop

I think I will use 55-60mm 30% of the time, 60-200mm 10% of the time, 200-300 50% of the time, and the last 10% crop in post for more reach. I would like to choose crop factor in post, so I wont be using the auto crop mode. According to my use I think I may use 1,1x crop up to 80% of the time, and crop heavier 20% of the time.

[GeneV]

At 300mm, after post-processing, at f/8.0 you're still getting visible vignetting? :/

I guess it depends on what you're shooting.

As others have reported on this lens, stopping down does not help much, and some have reported it makes things worse. I haven't noticed a difference.

It is amazing how an evenly lit, light colored wall will bring out vignetting you never knew was there. A while back, I was testing all my 35mm focal length options on FF by shooting a white wall. Wide open, the FA 35 showed vignetting about like the wall shot I posted above. It was never noticeable on film.

---------- Post added 02-13-17 at 06:10 AM ----------

I would also recommend the DA55-300. I carried it with me for three weeks around England and Ireland last year, and the results with the K-1 were very pleasing.









It is most definitely a crop lens though, but that is hardly a problem when you are using it for *reach*. Anyone who thinks the vignetting in FF mode is acceptable is suffering from serious case of wishful thinking.

So we're those shots taken in cropped mode?

[beholder3]

I found some test images:
55mm: Usable to 1,2x crop
97mm: Usable to 1,5x crop
190mm: Usable on FF
300mm: Usable to 1,2x crop

Yes, those are mine.

I bought the 55-300 PLM specifically as light travel zoom companion to the DFA 28-105. When Amazon.UK sold it for 314 EUR incl. tax I could not resist.

And my intended use is just for when I need extra tele reach, so cropping a little on the 36 MPx would probably happen anyway as it just increases "Reach" to somewhere bewteen 300 and 450mm.

Lastly I have not a single photo with a 200+mm lens, where I intentionally put any important subject outside the center of the frame.

[Sandy Hancock]

So we're those shots taken in cropped mode?

Yes. It doesn't cover full frame adequately at any focal length, and I only used it for reach. I had high quality full frame lenses covering 15-100mm (DFA15-30, FA31, DA*55, FA77 and DFA100WR), plus the DA10-17.

Anyway, shooting it in crop mode is a much more rewarding experience.

[GeneV]

Yes. It doesn't cover full frame adequately at any focal length, and I only used it for reach. I had high quality full frame lenses covering 15-100mm (DFA15-30, FA31, DA*55, FA77 and DFA100WR), plus the DA10-17.

Anyway, shooting it in crop mode is a much more rewarding experience.

Agreed about using cropped mode. I think cropped mode for this lens could mean the square crop or even a bit more if the reach is sufficient for one's needs, but it is not a true FF lens.