[pentax360]

Thanks for the input everyone.

I can remove it pretty well with GIMP and RawTherapee, but it all takes time and effort.
And if it's bad enough it can't be fixed or needs manual correction.

I’d definitely go with a prime but I’m on a limited budget.
Would image quality from cropping an image from a good 200mm beat a consumer 300mm zoom?

[normhead]

I've never seen an image with the PF or Aberations removed that looked as good a similar image that never had aberrations. Sometimes a few degrees shift of camera angle will get rid of them for you.

[clickclick]

Would image quality from cropping an image from a good 200mm beat a consumer 300mm zoom?

Yes! Maybe. At least yes from the right lens. Some of the price point is going to get down to what you need e.g. auto focus, aperture control, etc. I recently picked up an A* 200/2.8 for less than a new consumer zoom, and I'm finding it surprisingly sharp, but manual focus. But this is just one of many different lenses out there that might do very well for you.

[normhead]

Yes! At least yes from the right lens. Some of the price point is going to get down to what you need e.g. auto focus, aperture control, etc. I recently picked up an A* 200/2.8 for less than a new consumer zoom, and I'm finding it surprisingly sharp, but manual focus. But this is just one of many different lenses out there that might do very well for you.

This chart from optical limits puts the old Tamron 70-300 at 300mm at 1939 lw/ph on a 10 MP camera._
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Di macro (Pentax K) - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis

The DA*200 is rated at 2074.
I'd be shocked if the a blown up DA* would be better.

A Sigma 70-300 image ( I replace my "lifer collection" image whenever I get a better one. This one has lasted, though, this was the last time I got a close up of this bird.) Goes without saying, it would be sharper with my current equipment. This one taken in 2013, and that was the last time a Red Poll was at my feeder close enough for a shot like this.


A DA* 60-250 with 1.4 TC attached.


DA*200 with 1.4 TC


DA*200


The test chart says they are close, but the DA* images sure look to be a lot crisper to me.

But also, if you pull that type of lens back from full reach, you can get excellent results.

Sigma 18-250 at 133mm, getting closer and shooting with a shorter focal length, makes a cheaper telephoto much better. At 90mm my Sigma 70-300 was only a little bit inferior to my DA*60-250 and Tamron 90mm. You had to look hard..


The trick there is i got close, even a not so good lens will do well if you are close enough. I have different reason for wanting DA*s

Tamron SP AF 300mm ƒ2.8 LD [IF] with Pentax Hd DA 1.4 TC. You can come close to matching the resolution and get decent resolution, but for the smooth creamy out of focus areas, a faster lens is better. As far as I can tell, there's just no substitute for reach. And cheap reach is better than a shorter lens and enlarging.


That being said, I was just completely unhappy with the Sigma 70-300 on both the K-1 and K-3. The above was taken on a K-5, and I would toss that image if taken today. And the K-3 or K-1 are more demanding than my K-5 was.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-15-2018 at 07:52 AM.

[clickclick]

The DA*200 is rated at 2074.I'd be shocked if the a blown up DA* would be better.

I guess I've had some pretty lousy consumer zooms. I've been surprised at how well this 200 has done. This is a nothing photo unto itself, but it's a shot I take frequently as a test for long lenses. The cap on the pilings are purple fringe monsters for some lenses. The numbers on the dock boxes start showing off some resolving power. Detail on the electric meters up the hill and so on. I'm not finding a shot with my DA 55-300, but I really don't think it's in the ballpark. The resized one here in the post is lousy, but you can see the original in the below link:



https://www.flickr.com/gp/148580750@N05/Pae55Q

[clickclick]

And here's a shot with my original DA 300 ED WR - really don't think it's as good as the A* 200/2.8, and I went through a whole series of shots, and they are consistent. This did have in camera corrections on for chromatic aberration etc., so it was cleaned up a bit in that regard. Nothing was done to my sample shot with the 200 in my prior post.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/148580750@N05/k67sZ4

[clickclick]

And to wrap this up, here's a crop out of the 55-300 followed by a crop from the 200 and then the same crop from the 200 enlarged 150% with Lanczos2. These were all out of camera jpegs with nothing done. The 55-300 did have in camera corrections turned on. The 200 had none of that since there is no profile for it. Wish the exposure was closer between the two, but it's what I have readily at hand. I think they are really close, but I give the nudge to the 200 cropped.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by clickclick; 11-15-2018 at 06:59 AM.

[normhead]

You've some pretty dramatic exposure and size differences there, it's hard to compare. The top image is losing detail, because the highlights are blown out.

[clickclick]

You've some pretty dramatic exposure and size differences difference there, it's hard to compare. The top image is losing detail, because the highlights are blown out.

Yes, it is. I agree. They are really hard to compare due to the differences. The inconsistency on exposure is really messing with a good evaluation.

I think I'd say at this point get a nice quality 300mm over trying to luck out on a 200mm that would work as well cropped. I also don't think there's any significant cost difference if you start digging and are patient, especially in the used market with all the choices out there. I think we also get into relying on high sensor resolution and everything being "right" to maximize the results. Too many variables. Get a nice 300mm.

I chalk all of this off to a good fun learning experience. Go take lots of pictures, play around with different combinations of what you have and see what works.

[normhead]

Yes, it is. I agree. They are really hard to compare due to the differences. The inconsistency on exposure is really messing with a good evaluation.

I think I'd say at this point get a nice quality 300mm over trying to luck out on a 200mm that would work as well cropped. I also don't think there's any significant cost difference if you start digging and are patient, especially in the used market with all the choices out there. I think we also get into relying on high sensor resolution and everything being "right" to maximize the results. Too many variables. Get a nice 300mm.

I chalk all of this off to a good fun learning experience. Go take lots of pictures, play around with different combinations of what you have and see what works.

IMHO, the person who does the testing usually learns a lot more practically, than he/she can share in a report.

[clickclick]

IMHO, the person who does the testing usually learns a lot more practically, than he/she can share in a report.

Yes! And it's hard trying to relate all/any of it in a meaningful way. I've been amazed at the differences I've had with different combinations of lens and body, but more so by the differences on any one day versus another and the same equipment. That pier is 3/4 of a mile from my house and is a view out one of my windows, and I have to be very careful with things like atmospheric interference and even heat waves coming off my house. I've had the same equipment produce lousy results and great results due to environmental issues. More learning.

[D1N0]

The Tamron 70-300 is at it's worst at 300mm. You could try shooting around 200mm for better results

[normhead]

The Tamron 70-300 is at it's worst at 300mm. You could try shooting around 200mm for better results

The Sigma 70-300 is the same, up to about 180mm it's quite sharp.