[knightyo]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

So I've been pondering the question of how to extend my "reach" for a few years now. I currently have a Pentax K-50 with the 55-300. I'd really like to reach out farther, around 500mm at minimum. With a budget under $200, what is the general consensus of how to best get there? Purchase of a refurbished PowerShot zoom, mirrored lens, 3rd party 500mm manual lens, etc? I keep thinking that I'll have the budget to afford a "legitimate" lens, but that hasn't happened yet, and I'm willing to experiment.

(Reason: I wish to capture more images of birds, and my stealth abilities are terrible)

Alan

[sergysergy]

Hi Alan,
For under $200 it is difficult to get a *good* 500mm lens. You could try a mirror lens or a teleconverter to pair with your 55-300 and use it in manual focus.

[Wasp]

Look out for a (used if need be) mirror lens. They can be found for small change. Here is a Rokinon 500mm f/8:

Rokinon 500MM Mirror lens For Pentax SLR DSLR Camera *GOOD* | eBay

Not legit enough? How about this Sigma 600mm f/8?

Sigma 8/600 Pentax K-MF 600mm F8 Macro 1:3 | eBay

There are some cheap 500mm lenses from the Orient, available new, but I don't know how good they are. Personally, I wouldn't touch them.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Opteka-500mm-1000mm-Telephoto-Lens-For-Pentax-K-5-K...3/372750515956

If you want more legit still, I am afraid that you are looking at serious money.

[ThorSanchez]

Look out for a used 500 f/8 mirror lens. They can be found for small change. Here is a Rokinon 500mm f/8:


Rokinon 500MM Mirror lens For Pentax SLR DSLR Camera *GOOD* | eBay

Not legit enough? How about this Sigma 600mm f/8?

Sigma 8/600 Pentax K-MF 600mm F8 Macro 1:3 | eBay

I have a Rokinon 500mm f/8 mirror lens I bought on KEH for $30. I haven't used it a lot, but so far I can't get results on par with a combination of 55-300 and heavily cropping. It's manual focus, so the odds are you're going to nail focus on that distant bird much more easily with a 55-300 PLM.

I could be wrong, but for birds on Pentax I don't think you're going to even approach anything as high quality and inexpensive as a 55-300PLM. The next steps up in quality are going to be vastly more expensive.

[pschlute]

Reason: I wish to capture more images of birds, and my stealth abilities are terrible

If you really want to take more serious images of birds you will have to take a second job. You are not going to succeed with a budget of $200.

My suggestions in order are :

1.4 TC
New camera 24MP aps-c
a 500mm lens.

You will need to look second hand as you cannot get these new in your budget.

[biz-engineer]

Usually, super tele lenses for under $200 are sharp such that cropping the DA55-300 at 300 will be as good as or better than using a cheap supertele lens. Spending $200 on a 500mm is $200 wasted. You'll get much better results by staying away from the camera and DA 55-300 @ 300, triggered with a $10 IR remote.

[UncleVanya]

Can you stretch slightly and get a k-3 or similar 24mp body. The ability to crop more will yield significant benefits for this type of photography. Effectively the reach with the same resolution you get today is multiplied by about 1.5x, making the 300mm closer to 450mm in terms of what you can capture in the same detail.

If you were to sell the k-50 a used k-3 might be a realistic goal for you.

The other options all have their own compromises. Mirror lenses are (for k mount) all manual focus and have strange doughnut shaped highlights.

The large manual focus 500mm f4.5 is sometimes around 1.5x that price, but brings the associated problems and costs like a very beefy tripod and head.

Sigma's super zooms including the 170-500 are sometimes in the $300's but the cheaper models lack some clarity - but that could be due to technique and gear like tripods being less refined in the examples I've seen.

A fast 300mm f2.8 plus the f 1.7x rear converter (semi autofocus) is a good option but well outside your price range.

You could try a 1.4x converter but the f stop increase is going to be brutal on the already slow (optically) 55-300.

[derekkite]

Don't spend the $200, save it until you can get something decent.

You can run across a sigma 170-500 for pentax, and they aren't very expensive. Stopped down it isn't bad. Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 zooms are quite good, but you will pay $750-1000 for them. Worth buying. I got a Tamron Adaptall 400 f4 manual focus that was quite nice, and you might be able to find a 300mm f2.8 and 1.5 or 2x teleconverters for them, The quality is quite good, and you will learn the art of manual focus. The KPA adapters aren't cheap, get a k-adaptall manual one, and learn the art of manual aperture control.

The older 500 mm pentax lenses that are about are ok, but the chromatic aberrations are pretty bad wide open. Stopped down I think they are reasonable. You will learn the art of post processing cleaning up the flaws.

There is a reason why people spend unbelievable amounts of money for long lenses.

[luftfluss]

I agree with UncleVanya that a K-3 would certainly be beneficial. I noticed a dramatic increase in cropability moving from my K-5 II to K-3 II. Increased megapickels + no AA filter = significantly more detail captured.

A good 500mm mirror lens - Tamron and MTO - have decent sharpness and color, are not huge and can be fun to use.

Did someone say PowerShot?

[reh321]

Can you stretch slightly and get a k-3 or similar 24mp body. The ability to crop more will yield significant benefits for this type of photography. Effectively the reach with the same resolution you get today is multiplied by about 1.5x, making the 300mm closer to 450mm in terms of what you can capture in the same detail.

If you were to sell the k-50 a used k-3 might be a realistic goal for you.

The other options all have their own compromises. Mirror lenses are (for k mount) all manual focus and have strange doughnut shaped highlights.

The large manual focus 500mm f4.5 is sometimes around 1.5x that price, but brings the associated problems and costs like a very beefy tripod and head.

Sigma's super zooms including the 170-500 are sometimes in the $300's but the cheaper models lack some clarity - but that could be due to technique and gear like tripods being less refined in the examples I've seen.

A fast 300mm f2.8 plus the f 1.7x rear converter (semi autofocus) is a good option but well outside your price range.

You could try a 1.4x converter but the f stop increase is going to be brutal on the already slow (optically) 55-300.

My KP focuses with the slightly slower PLM lens, but {since I got the TC after I purchased the KP} I’ve never tried my K-30 with the TC + 55-300mm lens. I did use a 500mm mirror lens with my K-30 before I got the KP - the mirror lens typically gave me results worse than cropping did; I was never certain whether it was my manual focusing or not, but in any case I had given up on the mirror lens by the time I got by KP last Black Friday.

[marcusBMG]

+ 1 for prev answers. Your "reach" options, of which there are more in this digital age, are

1. more focal length - lens and/or teleconverter.
2. More pixels.
3. smaller sensor (= sensor pixels concentrated in a smaller area).

Lens options at budget indicated are stricly limited. Something like the takumar 500mm f4.5 might cross your path. I can recommend the sigma 500mm f7.2 apo, MF PKA mount, ticklish focus, good iq, it's a bit of a sleeper in the s/h market, can definitely be acquired for less than $200 and doesn't usually suffer from the haze of an internal cemented group that almost always afflicts the contemporary sigma 400mm f5.6 apo. Mirrors already mentioned. Most of the vintage 400's I have tried don't really do better than the 55-300mm. A 1.4 x tc is certainly workable with the 55-300mm but do you really gain anything in the actual results?


More pixels is a good option but a more recent pentax dslr is unlkely to be had for $200.

Smaller sensor - a Q is well worth considering, married to a high res lens like a 90mm macro gives you pushing 500mm equivalent. And +1 for a superzoom/bridge camera with eg 600mm/800mm equiv as a realistic and very practical, easy lightweight option. Photographically there are slimitations, they won't normally do RAW and the internal processing can be not what you might want (biased towards contrasty postcard sort of look IME...). And these options give enormous depth of field compared to long lenses on apsc/full frame, big advantage with eg pics of flocks of birds.

And then there's digiscoping. Previously my efforts with a HR66 scope by opticron were disappointing, but I recently got a HR80 - an old model - for around your budget and this is better. TBH to get best results with digiscoping then you really need the best scopes eg Swarowski, Leica, so really much depends on what you want to achieve.

Pics: HR80 + K3, opticron 41111 digi adapter (eyepeice projection), 27x HDF eyepiece. RAW, cropped and pp, 1:1 pixel peep. Worth bearing in mind the effective f stop is something like f32, well past normal diffraction limits.
The digiscoping mode I haven't really looked into (mainly bc am one of the diminishing band of luddites w/o a smart phone) is photographing the exit pupil from the scope with a small sensor camera. I did a bit on my HR66 with a panasonic LX5, (has a good optic) but wasn't impressed.

[ramseybuckeye]

For $200 your best bet will to be a hunting blind, and be very patient. There are some places you can go to during certain season and get closer to wildlife, but that doesn't solve you immediate problem. Unless you can find an incredible deal there's just nothing in that range. Probably the quickest way you'll be able to afford an upgrade will be to the 55-300 PLM lens, which has fast and SILENT autofocus, although no longer you won't scare birds with the focus noise. Depending on where you shoot birds can also help, you can usually get closer to birds that are in cities because they are less skittish, migrating birds are usually preoccupied with rest and refueling, birds around feeder are predicable to a degree. The Oystercatcher below was near its nest in a roped off area at a beach, With the number of people coming by, but staying outside of that rope, they are not as skittish. The oystercatcher was more concerned about the noisy skimmers and terns nesting nearby. The Eastern Phoebe below was part of a pair possibly building a nest. It was located in a rural metro park, close to a shelter. So somewhat used to people around, but i also stood there close to where I saw the pair initially, standing quite a while until one came back and landed pretty close. An example of a migrating bird is the ruby-crowned kinglet, it was shot with a K-30 and the old DA 55-300 (non PLM) similar to what you are using. I included these example to show what you can do with a 300mm max length. There are a lot better photographers than me here that can probably give you better methods.

[stevebrot]

If you really want to take more serious images of birds you will have to take a second job. You are not going to succeed with a budget of $200.

Sadly, this is the bitter truth. The entry ticket for bird photography is at 300mm on APS-C and even then, inadequate. Those that do serious bird work, particularly birds in flight do so as an expensive pursuit for which there very few shortcuts, even with vintage manual focus glass.


Steve

[ThorSanchez]

You could always learn to train the birds, or get to know someone who trains birds. Then you can get really close to them and get some incredible detail with a 55-300.

[ThorSanchez]

Here's a quick-and-dirty comparison of the Rokinon 500mm f/8 mirror lens and the 55-300PLM. Both handheld on static subjects. The Rokinon took a lot more tweaking in post, otherwise it was very flat and non-contrasty. The 55-300 photos were taken at 300mm, f/8, processed to taste and cropped to the same approximate field of view.

I think the 55-300PLM images are clearly superior, which shouldn't be too surprising comparing to a lens I bought for $30.