Recent pricing of the DFA 150-450 has got me thinking...
Is it worth it?
I know there are a bunch of threads out there comparing the two (DA*300 vs DFA 150-450), and there is no real consensus on which is "better" since they are different beasts in their own nature.
Weight considerations; flexibility of the zoom; TC or no TC considerations; cost considerations; etc, etc, etc.
I want to know if the APS-C vs FF body plays into this decisions for most people...
I'm currently shooting a K-3ii and my DA*300 + 1.4xTC pair well for wildlife photos.
I definitely need the WR, I like the 420mm reach with the TC, but often find myself cropping still...
The 450mm isn't much more reach than 420mm; but what about 630mm vs 420mm (considering the TC)? On a crop sensor, is the 150-450 much of an upgrade in terms of reach?
Assuming I kept the TC and used on the 150-450, is it worth it vs cropping the DA*300 + TC to an equivalent view?
I don't even know if anyone here owns all of the above (K-3ii, K-1, DA*300, 1.4xTC, DFA150-450)... It would be awesome to see a full comparison between the two lens combos, with and without TC, with posted apertures at each focal length AND compared between the APS-C and FF sensor.
Is there higher resolve out of the 150-450 on FF and is that the same on APS-C?
At the end of the day I'm happy with what I have. Things could be MUCH worse!
I'm tempted to just save my money and wait it out for the K-3ii successor... but the 150-450 constantly draws my attention, and with the price being at near-all-time-low I'm even more intrigued. Hence the thread!
All comments are welcomed; as long as it's somewhat related to the 150-450 topic...
LBA encouragement; FF vs APS-C debate; Pentax is doomed; etc
Last edited by UserAccessDenied; 07-13-2018 at 10:15 AM.