Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-21-2017, 10:29 AM   #1
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 793
FA*300/f2.8 vs DA*300/f4

I was waiting to score the FA*300/f2.8 for along time but could not save enough to get hold of one yet. Ran out of patience and got a DA*300/f4 (for the time being). I am not too worried about a stop lost. Besides that DA* is WR and silent AF and much lighter and is already producing some serious images on K-1. I am trying to figure if it is worth the sweat to own FA*300/2.8

Does anyone have both of these lenses and can share comparison images of the same subject at f4 and at f5.6 to keep things simple?.

07-22-2017, 06:27 AM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,378
The extra stop costs you around 2 kg of extra weight and quite some funds. Do you need f/2.8 that is the question here. In real life situations image quality will make no difference at f/5.6.

The Sigma 2.8/300 for Pentax can still be had new for an alternative.
07-22-2017, 02:49 PM - 2 Likes   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
Personally I think 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses are relics from a time we shot with film at 100ISO...
07-23-2017, 12:20 PM   #4
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,664
QuoteOriginally posted by shardulm Quote
I was waiting to score the FA*300/f2.8 for along time but could not save enough to get hold of one yet.
I question whether the F*300 f4.5 is perhaps a better lens than the FA*300 f2.8 for less than half the price?

07-23-2017, 12:28 PM   #5
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
The big thing for me with 2.8 lenses i their use with TCs.I use my Tamron 300 with the F 1.7x to give me 510 and 4.5. And I stack TCs on my DA*200 to give me 467 ƒ6.3 is I want the light weight package. In either case, it's the ƒ2.8 starting point that makes these numbers possible. However, 300 2.8 is a lot heavier than 200 2.8, like 4 times as heavy. The 300 ƒ4 with the 1.7x would still be 510 6.3 and a lot lighter than my 300 2.8. I have a blind in my back yard and a lot of ability to use a 300 2.8 lens without a lot of walking around carrying a heavy lens. I also put it in the back seat of the car for the 40 mile drive through Algonquin Park. But you really need a place to use it. By far the best lightest long lens combo is the 330 ƒ4 and the HD DA 1.4 for 420 5.6.

If you are one of those folks who sticks up their nose whenever the word "teleconverter" is used, disregard this post. ƒ4 is fine for you.
07-23-2017, 01:42 PM   #6
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,664
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Tamron 300 with the F 1.7x to give me 510 and 4.5
Your Tamron F2.8 is spectacular. I do wish however that you also owned an F*300 so you could compare. I ended up selling my F*300 for a mere $650, but it was the finest Pentax lens I ever owned.
07-23-2017, 04:34 PM   #7
Pentaxian
cmohr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,822
I have the Sigma 300/2.8 , its excellent, and with matched 1.4x and 2x TC's, its versitile and useable always.

07-23-2017, 06:37 PM   #8
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
Your Tamron F2.8 is spectacular. I do wish however that you also owned an F*300 so you could compare. I ended up selling my F*300 for a mere $650, but it was the finest Pentax lens I ever owned.
I tried long and hard to find a copy of that lens at a reasonable price. The Tamron just fell into my lap.

QuoteOriginally posted by cmohr Quote
I have the Sigma 300/2.8 , its excellent, and with matched 1.4x and 2x TC's, its versitile and useable always.
There is a matched 2x TC for my Tamron but they are as rare as hen's teeth. Apparently only 100 of those Tamron 300s were ever made in Pentax mount. I'm willing to bet there aren't more than about 10 of the matched TCs. I keep hoping Pentax will release a 2x I can use.
07-24-2017, 10:47 AM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,378
With an f/2.8 lens you coudl still expect more precise AF due to DOF as well as more light hitting the sensor. In extreme conditions (dusk, dawn, indoor) f/2.8 gives the edge over f/4 lenses. In everyday life f/4 keep you happy. And there is no recent f/2.8 300 availabel from Pentax. The DA* is weather sealed, lightweight, ... it's fine.
The f-stop game becomes more trouble looking at 400, 500, 600 mm. f/5.6 makes AF slow down, so you need to look into very serious sized glass.
07-24-2017, 12:32 PM   #10
bxf
Veteran Member
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,660
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Personally I think 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses are relics from a time we shot with film at 100ISO...
Or Kodachrome 25.
07-24-2017, 01:54 PM - 1 Like   #11
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I'm not even going to try and explain the difference between a 2.8 lens and an ƒ4 in failing light. You've either been there or you haven't.
07-24-2017, 02:53 PM   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 793
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
I question whether the F*300 f4.5 is perhaps a better lens than the FA*300 f2.8 for less than half the price?
No doubt I am thinking on the similar lines. But did not find a copy for $500. So ended up getting this DA*300 @ f4 which is stellar on K-1.

---------- Post added 07-24-17 at 06:05 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The big thing for me with 2.8 lenses i their use with TCs.I use my Tamron 300 with the F 1.7x to give me 510 and 4.5. And I stack TCs on my DA*200 to give me 467 ƒ6.3 is I want the light weight package. In either case, it's the ƒ2.8 starting point that makes these numbers possible. However, 300 2.8 is a lot heavier than 200 2.8, like 4 times as heavy. The 300 ƒ4 with the 1.7x would still be 510 6.3 and a lot lighter than my 300 2.8. I have a blind in my back yard and a lot of ability to use a 300 2.8 lens without a lot of walking around carrying a heavy lens. I also put it in the back seat of the car for the 40 mile drive through Algonquin Park. But you really need a place to use it. By far the best lightest long lens combo is the 330 ƒ4 and the HD DA 1.4 for 420 5.6.

If you are one of those folks who sticks up their nose whenever the word "teleconverter" is used, disregard this post. ƒ4 is fine for you.
Don't quiet stick up my nose with TeleCs but I don't like them in general. The DA converter is worth a shot though as it has been raved about for not degrading the image quality like most others do.
Also I think a sealed or WR lens is more preferred from durability perspective. The fungus thing kicks in in non-sealed lenses if not stored properly with desiccants (FA* I am thinking). So although I have a longing for the FA*300/2.8 most things/features that the DA*300 is offering are actually making me feel less longing for the FA*.
However the review of this FA*300 by one of the forum members @dsport still bothers me (in a good way). The images he ( @dsport ) posted in his review from this lens are jaw dropping despite TC use. So yes it is evident that 2.8 matters with TC use.

Last edited by shardulm; 07-24-2017 at 03:08 PM.
07-24-2017, 03:24 PM   #13
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,392
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Personally I think 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses are relics from a time we shot with film at 100ISO...
Although you have been around the Forums for a while, posts like this make me wonder if you've used these relics before.

To the OP, there are advantages and disadvantages of each 300. Get the one that meets your needs the most and you'll be fine.
07-24-2017, 04:42 PM - 1 Like   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'm not even going to try and explain the difference between a 2.8 lens and an ƒ4 in failing light. You've either been there or you haven't.
I can explain it. It is one stop.

---------- Post added 07-25-17 at 01:44 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
Although you have been around the Forums for a while, posts like this make me wonder if you've used these relics before..
I have owned two 300/2.8 lenses. Both Pentax. And currently own the Pentax FA* 600/4.
All of them bought when I still shot film. In fact, you can get just as good quality with a Pentax Q and a 100mm lens as with 100ISO film in a 35mm body and a 600mm lens. This is how far we have progressed.

Next years camera models will be even better at higher ISO's reducing further the need for that extra stop (that costs thousands of dollars - up to $5000 and up to 3.6kg in weight). A 300/2.8 (or a 600/4) lens is also useless wide open for a frame filling shot of a bird eg. as the DOF is too thin to keep the whole subject in focus. You need to stop down anyway. The speed helps to see through the viewfinder but at an extreme cost and inconvenience. Needless to say I recommend the 300/4....

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 07-24-2017 at 04:57 PM.
07-30-2017, 10:30 AM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,378
Big teles have an advantage for faster AF, you can add a TC and still work with AF and you should get better image quality compared to most zooms.
A 4/500 mm is handholdable these days will outperform any standard zoom ending at 450 or 600 mm - at the cost of weight, size, funds.
Coming back to the orginal question. 2.8/300 vs 4/300 at f/5.6 - I see no real advantage for the old FA* lens.
Anyways: Pentax is lacking TCs as well as any modren design super telephoto lens.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da, da*300, da*300/f4, fa*, images, k-mount, lens, lot, pentax, pentax lens, review, slr lens, tc, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Build Quality & AF - DFA* 70-200mm f2.8 (vs FA* 80-200mm f2.8 & DA* 60-250mm f4) Joshua A Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 06-28-2016 06:58 AM
Telephoto Indecision - DA*200 f2.8, DA*300 f4, DA*60-250 f4? Alpiner Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 51 04-01-2014 10:32 AM
For Sale - Sold: Rarities: A* 200 F4 Macro; FA* 24mm F2; FA* 300 F4.5 motosacto Sold Items 20 09-27-2011 07:26 PM
A*300 f4 vs DA 55-300 F4-5.8 stormtech Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 06-30-2011 10:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top