[honey bo bo]

Telephoto prime or zoom?

I have shot a lot of Wild Life and outdoor sport under extremely varying circumstances and distances. I would be afraid now to limit myself to a Prime of 200 mm and above. What happens if you have a target Moose , Deer, Fox , lynx crosses your path 30' ahead and you have a prime 300mm or 500mm or an Oriole lands next to your picnic table or a race car starts rolling 50' from you. You end up with A Head & Shoulder shot for something that's not a politician or the one smoking tire of a racer. Cropping only works one way . I love my 55-300 mm and I have a Sigma 150- 500 mm and I don't mind giving up a tiny bit of IQ so that I have a better than 51% chance of getting a usuable Photo. And I have even got trouble once in a blue moon down at 55 mm, Just saying.

---

Last edited by honey bo bo; 10-04-2018 at 06:07 AM.

[drumhead]

Thanks for sharing photos folks. Nice! Good points being made for zoom. I'm definitely leaning that way. I agree, a 200mm+ prime does seem kind of limiting.

And yes, I have read a few reviews. The prime lenses generally score better than the zooms in terms of IQ, but it's likely a compromise worth making. After all, I get plenty of joy out of my 18-135 and it's far from perfect.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[airjames]

EDIT: dfa 150-450 is always in my bag next to my bag =O I recommend this over the DA* 300. I almost never use the 300 now but it's also because I like to have more freedom to reach and walk around to get a variety. The sharpness though is breathtaking.

Edit 2: And I mean the 150-450 is sharper than the a da300 with pentax 1.4 wr teleconvertor or pentax 1.7.

[Des]

for me, I find myself shooting almost exclusively at 300mm when I'm out for birds/wildlife and most zooms are not going to give you the best IQ at their longest end...I have a DA L 55-300mm, which is a nice walk-around lens, but if I'm serious about the long-end and I want the shot, I'll take my FA* 300/4.5...

Exactly the same for me.

If the birds are very close (say, 6 metres or less), and you have very good light, and you can shoot at f8, and you are not cropping too heavily or enlarging the images a lot, you won't see a huge difference between a 55-300 and a premium lens like the F*/FA*/DA*300. But in any other circumstances you will.

[Kerrowdown]

Interested in trying for birds and other wildlife

Most folk who make a living for themselves in the wildlife and bird genre, only use high end prime lenses exclusively.

Also normally longer than 300mm, more like 500mm as the norm.

[drumhead]

Most folk who make a living for themselves in the wildlife and bird genre, only use high end prime lenses exclusively.

Also normally longer than 300mm, more like 500mm as the norm.

Thanks for the heads up, but no definately not going to be earning a living at this and not looking to spend thousands of dollars. A versatile zoom would probably meet my needs better than a very high end 500mm. Just looking to get some fun wildlife shots while doing geology field work.

[normhead]

Also normally longer than 300mm, more like 500mm as the norm.

Hey, I can speak for myself.

Start with the Sigma 70-300. Its good close in, does macro, and while not good at resolving the finest detail, but lots of images don't need that.



I went form that to an A-400. This is an awesome lens, but manual focus, not the best for the small birds I often shoot. AF is really critical for small creatures, they move quickly, are very fidgety and quick focus lock is essential.

But stil, I got some great images of stationary birds and wildlife.





Then I got crazy....I finally went for the big bucks and the DA* 60-250. ƒ4.
There are serious insures with this lens for bird , even with the 1.4 on it, focus breathing is among the worst out there. You just don't get the same size image as even most 200mm lenses from close in say 15 feet and under. But its so sharp you can enlarge and still get a better image.



This is a crop to 1/4 frame taken with the DA*60-250 and 1.4 TC shot on a K-1. Pixel peeping, it's better than what is produced by many shooting with a prime and no TC at the same focal length.


As shot more and more from my blind, the focus breathing of the DA* 60-250 , and the fact that I had to wait for 6 months for a repair after dropping it lead me to the DA*200 as a way to back up my 60-250 without buying exactly the same lens. This lens is phenomenal. The fact that you can stack TCs on it, means with a 1.7x and 1.4 TC you can tale it to 476mm, ƒ6.3, and it's still exceptional quality. It's light, easy to carry, and provides four focal lengths. 200mm, 280 with the 1.4 TC, 340 with the 1.7x adapter, and 476 with the two TCs stacked. making it really versatile, despite being a prime, as long as you can afford $700 for a couple of TCs.

DA* 200 with 1.7 x TC for 340. The DA*60-250 would have a much smaller subject even with the 1.4 TC because the DA*200 doesn't focus breath.


With the HD DA 1.4 TC


Next on the acquisitions list was the tamron SP AF 300 2.8 ED [IF]. Don't even look for one, there were only 100 ever made. I did see one for sale a while ago on the forum, I doubt it's still there. It says right in the product info it won't take stacked TCs and my testing suggests they are right, but with the 1.7x adapter on it, but Pentax has a 2x TC in the works that I expect will be just as good as the 1.4. So 600 5.6 with AF is coming.

For now 510mm ƒ4.5 with the 1.7x isn't too shabby.
Tamron 300 2.8 with 1.4 TC. For small birds AF can be more important than reach.



And my latest purchase it eh DA 55-300 PLM. SO almost full circle except that the PLM is much better than my 70-300.

I keep and use most of these lenses. I sold the A-400 and gave away the Sigma 70-300. The Tamron 300, DA*200, 55-300 PLM and DA*60-250 1.4 TC and 1.7x all see regular use and I really wouldn't part with any of them. SO where that leaves you interns of advice I don't know, except to suggest that there really is no one lens solution. With any of them, you get some functionality the other don't have, you lose functionality the others have. Starting out, it's pretty much what do I buy first, more than, I'm going to buy this and live with it. A least that's my opinion. But just one, I'd recommend the DA*60-250 with the 1.4 adapter, tor if you don't have a boatload of money, the DA 55-300. IN the end, you portably want more than one, in any case. I'd plug the 150-450 but 5.6 isn't all that good fo use with TCs, and for me, that's a pretty serious draw back.

[Ronald Oakes]

For what this is worth you might consider the FA 80-320 lens .
I know its not rated at the top in lens reviews , but it still can deliver some pretty good shots.
Lets you get a feel for things without breaking the bank or choosing the wrong lens.
I paid $34 for mine from E-bay and have no intentions on selling it anytime soon.

[mikeSF]

FWIW, I compared the DFA150-450 with my F*300/4.5 and my F* was sharper. I ended up keeping the zoom however for the extra reach and versatility. It is a great zoom as zooms go.

[drumhead]

Thank you, Normhead! Very helpful run-down. Amazing photos, too!



---------- Post added 07-31-18 at 07:48 PM ----------

For what this is worth you might consider the FA 80-320 lens .
I know its not rated at the top in lens reviews , but it still can deliver some pretty good shots.
Lets you get a feel for things without breaking the bank or choosing the wrong lens.
I paid $34 for mine from E-bay and have no intentions on selling it anytime soon.

Good plan.