[Craigbob]

I feel like a broken record... for hikes... DA 55-300 PLM.

Tess, yesterday with the DA 55-300 PLM


Me with the DA*200 and 1.4 TC


You can carry a lot heavier lens and not get a better image.

55-300 is not FF compatible unless I want to use it in Crop mode on my K-1, which IMO is throwing away a good portion of the image the camera is capable of.

[normhead]

55-300 is not FF compatible unless I want to use it in Crop mode on my K-1, which IMO is throwing away a good portion of the image the camera is capable of.

Not necessarily so,

The amount of resolution increase from a K-5 will be rather acute even with APS-c lenses. My DA 55-300 gave me cropped 24 MP field that would have been 11 MP on a K-5.

DA 55-300 on K-1

Still a 26 MP file, even better than I could do with a k-3.Twice the resolution of a K-5 file, even using a crop lens.

If you shoot in FF mode and do the cropping yourself, many APS-c lenses will still give you much better than APs-c performance.

In this case, using the same crop I would have used anyway, twice as much.

I did a 19 day canoe trip with nothing but the DFA 28-105, and DA 55-300 PLM... the 28-105 covers most of the focal lengths where the DA 55-300 PLM vignettes badly.

[repaap]

I feel like a broken record... for hikes... DA 55-300 PLM.

Tess, yesterday with the DA 55-300 PLM


Me with the DA*200 and 1.4 TC


You can carry a lot heavier lens and not get a better image.

That is one of the reasons why there should be that 70-300 prosumer zoom for FF. That said. These higher standard lenses have quite obvious higher sharpness and something more that cheaper zooms. So it is not only about the weight.

[normhead]

The new Pentax higher standard can waste a lot of money for you if you're not careful. It's quite possible some will be like me. I looked at the DFA* 50 1.4 and compared to the DA*55 1.4. Considering price with and IQ, I went with the DA* 55 1.4.

As far as I'm concerned the DA 55-300 is the prosumer zoom for FF. I've had the Sigma 70-300. It was an absolute dog compared to the DA 55-300 PLM. Having used both I find it astounding that they'd even be mentioned in the same breath.

From yesterday afternoon. K-1 and DA 55-300 PLM final image 24 MP, the crop was not affected by the small amount of vignetting. But with perfect placement my crop would have been 30 MP. After all one of the tings I paid for in a K-1 was crop room.


My best with the Sigma 70-300


Really, there's just no contest.
Be careful what you wish for.

I would look at a modern high IQ 100-300, but I'd also want it to be over $1000 and be as good as the 70-200, 70-210 and 150-450. The 55-300 is already rated best in class... why try and improve on that?

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-03-2020 at 11:21 AM.

[WorksAsIntended]

The new Pentax higher standard can waste a lot of money for you if you're not careful. It's quite possible some will be like me. I looked at the DFA* 50 1.4 and compared to the DA*55 1.4. Considering price with and IQ, I went with the DA* 55 1.4.

As far as I'm concerned the DA 55-300 is the prosumer zoom for FF. I've had the Sigma 70-300. It was an absolute dog compared to the DA 55-300 PLM. Having used both I find it astounding that they'd even be mentioned in the same breath.

From yesterday afternoon.


My best with the Sigma 70-300


Really, there's just no contest.
Be careful what you wish for.

That Sigma looks defective to me. I did own a copy of the Tamron which was said to be at the same optical level and it was way way better. Your example looks like one those cheap super tele mirror lenses, while there is not issue with the technique of taking the photo. Unfortunate to loose a shot to a lens...

[normhead]

That Sigma looks defective to me. I did own a copy of the Tamron which was said to be at the same optical level and it was way way better. Your example looks like one those cheap super tele mirror lenses.

I'd be interested in seeing "way way better".
The issue being , I also have the DA*60-250, DA*200 and my Tamron SP AF 300 2.8, and I find the 55-300 is just as good, just not with a TC, and not a very wide aperture in the long end. IQ wise, if you want to say you can beat the quality with somebody's 70-300 all I can say is "bring it on."

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/57560-test...-70-300-a.html

I read another review that compared a few more of these zooms from other manufacturers and had the same result. I just can't find it. It may be that my copy was soft, that doesn't change the order of things in real world tests.

[repaap]

What I mean about prosumer lens 70-300 or 60-300 is the one made by Ricoh, that is sitting there to be made and released. If 55-300 plm is so good, theycould do something similar for FF?

[WorksAsIntended]

I'd be interested in seeing "way way better".
The issue being , I also have the DA*60-250, DA*200 and my Tamron SP AF 300 2.8, and I find the 55-300 is just as good, just not with a TC, and not a very wide aperture in the long end. IQ wise, if you want to say you can beat the quality with somebody's 70-300 all I can say is "bring it on."

TESTED: Pentax 55-300 vs. Sigma 70-300 vs. Tamron 70-300 - PentaxForums.com

I read another review that compared a few more of these zooms from other manufacturers and had the same result. I just can't find it. It may be that my copy was soft, that doesn't change the order of things in real world tests.

Well, you gave me a hard time there. Those images are part of my "great dataloss" and I owned the lense only about 9 monthes. All keeper images from 2007 and 2008 I own in low resolution or print only, as the only pictures that survived were downsampled for a digital image frame (it was a thing back in these days).
Optically the Tamron was fine, but the af was a nightmare.

Those images are out of camera jpgs that were snapshots only, I got the lens on the 23rd of November and I cannot remember, why those few pictures survived. They are no keeprs, just "braindead" shooting around with a new lens. Unfortunally not at 300mm.

The bee is a 100% crop. and the bee image was already small enough after cropping to fit on the image frame, so it is "full resolution". The only "keeper" in full resolution...

[normhead]

Well, you gave me a hard time there. Those images are part of my "great dataloss" and I owned the lense only about 9 monthes. All keeper images from 2007 and 2008 I own in low resolution or print only, as the only pictures that survived were downsampled for a digital image frame (it was a thing back in these days).
Optically the Tamron was fine, but the af was a nightmare.

Those images are out of camera jpgs that were snapshots only, I got the lens on the 23rd of November and I cannot remember, why those few pictures survived. They are no keeprs, just "braindead" shooting around with a new lens. Unfortunally not at 300mm.

The bee is a 100% crop. and the bee image was already small enough after cropping to fit on the image frame, so it is "full resolution". The only "keeper" in full resolution...

My images taken with 6MP sensors and my 70-300 were good, but once we hit 16 MP, it was as you see.

[WorksAsIntended]

My images taken with 6MP seniors and my 70-300 were good, but once we hit 16 MP, it was as you see.

Even if you downscale your bird to 10mp there is a significant difference to the pictures I posted in sharpness.

(the white areas of the wing are not supposed to have purple borders)

"(the white areas of the wing are not supposed to have purple borders)". No, but the white areas of the wing should be sharp. It is still an unsharp picture and as such you get a lot of artifarcts. It is not a question of bokeh with purple fringing, it is about a picture that is unsharp and it is not fair to blame it on an expensive lens.

[normhead]

Even if you downscale your bird to 10mp there is a significant difference to the pictures I posted in sharpness.

I've seen the lens charts for both the Sigma and the Tamron. My Sigma was razor sharp from 80-170mm, just like the charts said. You do realize that the mans face is many times the size of the bird. The bird is a much better example.

I don't post stuff like that without doing all my research. You might want to consider that before the next time you try and contradict me. Your example is nonsense, not at all the same thing. That birds head is smaller than the guys eyeglass lenses.

I don't care if you don't believe me, but, that kind of contradiction is meaningless. Different subject, different light, different distances probably different apertures and shutter speeds. How can you even dream that's a meaningful comparison and then tell someone else they're wrong because of it?

It seriously calls into question how much you know about photography.

The Tamron 70-300 is excellent at one centre point, the "lowely" DA 18-135 is excellent at 17 measurement points.

Tamon 70-300 test..

FA 300 test (Excellent centre and edge)


The differences will be even more pronounced on a better sensor (these measured at 10 MP)

Lets not waste anymore time on this.