[clickclick]

HHHmmmmm. Time to sell a couple of those older bodies and find a used K3 etc.

[tljensen]

Sorry if this is a straightforward question, but I have been out of the serious hobby photography world for the last few years due to my two munchkins. My oldest is now getting into sports, I am finding my DA 55-200 lacking.

I am looking for a budget 300mm lens to mostly use at my son's baseball/soccer games. It doesn't need to be fancy or weather sealed...just good enough to take sharp enough close-ups to please the wife. Pentax or 3rd party makes no difference, so long as it has a reasonably competent auto-focus.

Thanks.

I have a KP and have been pondering my options for a long lens. My main lens is a 16-85 DA which I love and would like to supplement it with an equal quality long lens that is "sharp", has to be sharp. Most of the reviews for the 55-300 reveal that it is not sharp at 300mm, but may be at other ranges. The older 55-300 is rated 8.4 here on the Pentax forum, and I already have a old Sigma 100-300 DL and a 'Quantaray Tech-10 PF AF (Sigma, yes it is a Sigma) 70-300 f/4-5.6 LDO'. They are rated 8.2 and 8.1 respectively. They both work fine on the KP but I cant decide which one is sharper or better, both are sharpest at F/8, both have taken nice pictures (not excellent but my wife likes them), and both are soft at 300mm. If you want to try a "budget" lens for cheap try one of these to get an idea if you want to spend a lot more for a 55-300 PLM which may be only slightly sharper. Pentax AF performance for sports is not good but the 55-300 PLM would probably the best choice for sports. I think you will find that even if you get a focused image it will not be sharp at 300mm and especially if it is low-light conditions where you need a fast lens. The choices I am considering are the Pentax 60-250 f/4 and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. If you are not concerned about low-light then you might also consider the Pentax 18-300 rated 9.0.
My other camera is a Nikon D750 with Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens so I don't really need a long lens for Pentax, except I like shooting with Pentax better. I am keeping Nikon because I do not see Pentax AF catching up any time soon.

[UncleVanya]

I would be careful with the ratings. The 18-300 is unlikely to be as good as the 55-300 particularly at 300. The older version of the 55-300 is not bad but it's much slower to focus. A body upgrade (k70, kp) might be better. But it probably would be a wash, since the 50-200 is soft.

[pleo]

I compared the 55-300 with Sigma 70-300 APO and the Pentax was obviously sharper at 300 mm!
The Sigma DL is worse than both.
The Tamron 70-300 Di is very sharp but loud and slow focussing.

A bit different is the Sigma 70-300 OS:
Better build Quality.
The AF faster than the lenses mentioned above - quieter focussing too.
The OS in the lens is quite good too and stabilzing the viewfinder.

But all these lenses are not fast lenses.
Therefore I'd recommend the Tamron 2.8/70-200 (if you cannot afford the Pentax 2.8)
It is much sharper so you may crop the additional difference to the 300 mm.
At 2.8 it is sharper than the Sigma 2.8/70-200 (whatever version).
Focussing fast (but not as quietly).
It is bigger and heavier.
It has a very good tripod/monopod-clutch-ring.
I'd recommend to use one....

In my comparisons the best 300 mm results came out of the old manual focus Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro.
The 'modern' AF telezooms reached it's sharpness wide opened only when stopping down 2 f-stops.
For sports photos I'd prefer AF though...

[Ronald Oakes]

Budget in my mind would be the F 100-300 or the FA 100-300 4.7-5.8 lenses.
Both are under $100 bucks and will perform fine albeit a bit noisy.
Image quality is quite good.

[UncleVanya]

Budget in my mind would be the F 100-300 or the FA 100-300 4.7-5.8 lenses.
Both are under $100 bucks and will perform fine albeit a bit noisy.
Image quality is quite good.

I did a shoot out with my old fa 80-320 and my DA 55-300. Even that old clunker wasn't too far off the 55-300 except in purple fringing where the old lens was awful.

[Ronald Oakes]

I did a shoot out with my old fa 80-320 and my DA 55-300. Even that old clunker wasn't too far off the 55-300 except in purple fringing where the old lens was awful.

I noticed that You got the very best images that lens could produce ! I grabbed one for that reason alone......Thanks.
As long as I shoot in the best light hours it does just fine.The FA 80-320 is largely overlooked although it performs very well.

[SSGGeezer]

I have a KP and have been pondering my options for a long lens. My main lens is a 16-85 DA which I love and would like to supplement it with an equal quality long lens that is "sharp", has to be sharp. Most of the reviews for the 55-300 reveal that it is not sharp at 300mm, but may be at other ranges. The older 55-300 is rated 8.4 here on the Pentax forum, and I already have a old Sigma 100-300 DL and a 'Quantaray Tech-10 PF AF (Sigma, yes it is a Sigma) 70-300 f/4-5.6 LDO'. They are rated 8.2 and 8.1 respectively. They both work fine on the KP but I cant decide which one is sharper or better, both are sharpest at F/8, both have taken nice pictures (not excellent but my wife likes them), and both are soft at 300mm. If you want to try a "budget" lens for cheap try one of these to get an idea if you want to spend a lot more for a 55-300 PLM which may be only slightly sharper. Pentax AF performance for sports is not good but the 55-300 PLM would probably the best choice for sports. I think you will find that even if you get a focused image it will not be sharp at 300mm and especially if it is low-light conditions where you need a fast lens. The choices I am considering are the Pentax 60-250 f/4 and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. If you are not concerned about low-light then you might also consider the Pentax 18-300 rated 9.0.
My other camera is a Nikon D750 with Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens so I don't really need a long lens for Pentax, except I like shooting with Pentax better. I am keeping Nikon because I do not see Pentax AF catching up any time soon.

You say things about the Pentax AF without using the PLM on your KP? You might change your tune, but all cameras have limits based on contrast levels when performing AF. The PLM speedy focusing means an overall improvement in how well your camera AF performs since it doesn't hunt nearly as much as the DA AND dal versions of the 55-300. Even the 18-250 Pentax or Tamron are decent choices and work well with TC's if needed for more reach.

[klh]

Sorry if this is a straightforward question, but I have been out of the serious hobby photography world for the last few years due to my two munchkins. My oldest is now getting into sports, I am finding my DA 55-200 lacking.

I am looking for a budget 300mm lens to mostly use at my son's baseball/soccer games. It doesn't need to be fancy or weather sealed...just good enough to take sharp enough close-ups to please the wife. Pentax or 3rd party makes no difference, so long as it has a reasonably competent auto-focus.

Thanks.

I upgraded to the PLM, and am selling my HD 55-300 on the marketplace, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

With the release of the new SDM model, the drop in prices for the HD 55-300 makes it a great value. I have used it for soccer and marching band, and find the reach and image quality more than good enough for a consumer zoom. It's also wide enough to get most shots when the action is close. The focus is slower than the new PLM, but with a little practice, it's not a big problem. The weather-sealing is great for some peace of mind. I used it when I didn't want to carry my heavy Sigma 150-500.

[normhead]

He did say budget - the PLM is anything but a "budget" lens at nearly 50% more than the old version.

Compared to my DA*60-250, the 55-300 PLM is definitely a budget lens, in every regard. Build, resolution, aperture, and price..

But, it's also a great walk around lens. Especially with the feature that allows you to collapse the lens for transport.

The fast AF for keeping up with kids will be to die for, as will the light weight, easy to carry aspect.