[Sandy Hancock]

Sounds like you have some gear lying around that needs to head onto the market place to recoup the costs of the DFA 85

Ain't that the truth!

[BruceBanner]

I thought anyone could do that search.
Search: pentax 55-300 PLM 1.4x tc | Flickr

You will notice I use it more for getting close to small things than at infinity. I note they were all handheld and some have been cropped. Look for the mosquito on the opossum just below the belly by the rear leg. Of course that is at the sweet spot of the PLM at 10 meters, but needed flash and the AF worked great in the dark at f/9.5.

I think you will find that if you only get it to extend your reach past 300 it is an expensive tool. But to also get up close to snakes, it is the tool, To find focus through branches it is the tool. use with other lenses adds value also.

Thanks for that, I did actually find it on my own earlier, I was just missing your flickr (maybe add it here in yer url?) and so had to hunt for it from my account. Good to have the link here though for future readers.

Well... here's where I'm at;

PLM is underrated, really nice lens, 55-300mm, unique quick and silent AF, WR and had for a absolute bargain price. But after 300mm it becomes a whole new lens, whether it be a Sigma or 150-450 and huge price leaps and the PLM would become surplus to requirement. I really wondered if anyone has done some good side by side comparisons with a DFA 150-450 on a KP, set to f9 and say 420mm, just to see how it would compare with the other combo. How big a difference is the IQ and all that stuff. Would be interesting to know.

[SSGGeezer]

Is the 1.7 perceived to being better or worse for IQ than the 1.4?

I don't know really, ask Norm, he uses them stacked at times. My soon to be ex has mine right now.

[Sandy Hancock]

450mm @ f/9.0 on the KP. Apologies for not carrying the 55-300 and TC on a spare camera



150mm @ f/8.0 on the KP. I seriously doubt the 55-300 would have done so well - but I'm sure it would have been OK

[Sandy Hancock]

Taken today with 55-300PLM on the KP with the 1.4xTC. Sorry they aren't NatGeo standard - just quick snaps on our morning bush walk. Light wasn't great so they're a bit noisy....

Click on the images to go to Flickr for EXIF and a full size pixel peep.





I didn't quite nail eye focus here, but the detail in the body fur is OK

[BruceBanner]

450mm @ f/9.0 on the KP. Apologies for not carrying the 55-300 and TC on a spare camera



150mm @ f/8.0 on the KP. I seriously doubt the 55-300 would have done so well - but I'm sure it would have been OK

Yeah thanks for that. I'm pretty much Mr Compromise around these parts

[termy]

Well a 300 prime gets me really no more reach than a PLM 300, right? So the issue then is if the Sigma's are even available? The only Sigmas I see new for sale are the wider angle stuff and primes... so it's a case of availability and the whether comfortable buying used Sigmas I guess...

errrr, Hulk [cuz you are "Bruce Banner ) ]

A 300mm prime, yes, same reach as 300mm zoom.

BUT, if intending to use with a teleconverter, the image quality of the 300 prime (with attached teleconverter), will very likely surpass (probably by quite a margin) that of the 55-300 PLM.

(But naturally, this "surpass in image quality, comes with attendant factors such as price difference, size and weight difference, and "flexibility" of zoom vs prime).

Sigma zooms are definitely still available, such as the 150-500, the 50-500, the 120-400 etc.
(Really wouldnt suggest looking at the 170-500 or the 135-400).

The 150-500 and the 120-400 are, for their price, surprisingly good stuff.
(As shared by member marcusBMG, the 150-500 is pretty good stuff).

But, naturally, "good" or "so-so" etc, it is all "relative", "relative" to the price/s of the lenses, for one.

The DFA 150-450 is very very good, no doubt about that.

But some users who have used both the DFA 150-450 and the Sigma 150-500 before, couldnt rationalise (to themselves) the difference in price of the two lenses and the resulting image quality.

and naturally, they also took into consideration of other factors such as size and weight and heft of the lenses.
(Do not discount factors such as size & weight & heft. Walking around for even just 45-60mins with a 150-450 vs with a 55-300 PLM, you will definitely feel and know the difference).

Ultimately, you will have to internally rationalise all these and go with what you think is better (i don't use "best", cuz it is always about a "perfect compromise", not a "perfect solution").

No one option is definitely better than the other.
It all depends on many factors for consideration, including "budget", "willingness to deal with size n weight", how are you intending to use the lens (and for, generally, what purpose) etc.

[BruceBanner]

Taken today with 55-300PLM on the KP with the 1.4xTC. Sorry they aren't NatGeo standard - just quick snaps on our morning bush walk. Light wasn't great so they're a bit noisy....

Click on the images to go to Flickr for EXIF and a full size pixel peep.





I didn't quite nail eye focus here, but the detail in the body fur is OK

Thanks for that Sandy.

I had a look at the EXIF and I don't know if it's passing on the info correctly or not, but none had a focal length above 300mm (ie pushing into 1.4TC necessity territory. Was that the case or is the EXIF weird?

And in terms of usage I take it you found no real issues, AF no different etc?

I just find the PLM such a unique AF mode and I wonder if it suffers the same fate as some other slow glass, it never feels slow regardless of the aperture or low light.

[acoufap]

Thanks for that Sandy.

I had a look at the EXIF and I don't know if it's passing on the info correctly or not, but none had a focal length above 300mm (ie pushing into 1.4TC necessity territory. Was that the case or is the EXIF weird?

And in terms of usage I take it you found no real issues, AF no different etc?

I just find the PLM such a unique AF mode and I wonder if it suffers the same fate as some other slow glass, it never feels slow regardless of the aperture or low light.

Usually tc-info is set correctly and FL is adjusted by factor 1.4x for the Pentax DA TC1.4x in the exif data.

I‘d recommend to check it using exiftools.

[Sandy Hancock]

The locals were unusually timid today, so I was able to get quite close. I actually had to back up to frame the middle shot at the widest focal length (77mm).

[BruceBanner]

The locals were unusually timid today, so I was able to get quite close. I actually had to back up to frame the middle shot at the widest focal length (77mm).

Yeah ok, it's still good to know.

[acoufap]

Usually tc-info is set correctly and FL is adjusted by factor 1.4x for the Pentax DA TC1.4x in the exif data.

I‘d recommend to check it using exiftools.

The combo is not as good as a DFA150-450 concerning AF and IQ but does well under fitting circumstances IMO ... and it‘s simply wonderful lightweight and open aperture 9.5 at the long end often sufficient ans sufficient. Simply don‘t expect it being as good as the DFA150-450.

[BruceBanner]

The combo is not as good as a DFA150-450 concerning AF and IQ but does well under fitting circumstances IMO ... and it‘s simply wonderful lightweight and open aperture 9.5 at the long end often sufficient ans sufficient. Simply don‘t expect it being as good as the DFA150-450.

I guess that would be expected. I wondered if anyone has done a couple of simple tripod tests to compare. For anyone owning a DFA 150-450 it might be confronting result

Tripod up, KP+DFA set to 420mm and f9 vs 55-300PLM+1.4TC set to 300mm (420mm) and f9 also. Just take images of some still life stuff, flowers etc, and compare IQ. I would LOVE to see that. I've no doubt the DFA would win but does it destroy and annihilate or does the combo actually do pretty well!

The thing is it's very hard to judge lens performances from different users and shooting conditions, a single user with this equipment done with a tripod and stationary subject I think would really be useful.

[Sandy Hancock]

I wondered if anyone has done a couple of simple tripod tests to compare. For anyone owning a DFA 150-450 it might be confronting result

For every "might" there is an equal and opposite "might not". I have taken enough images with both lenses that the conclusion is beyond doubt for me.

And don't hold your breath for the scientific comparisons Eddy. It might surprise you, but I have a life, and a pretty full-on day job. When I have that sort of spare time on my hands I can usually think of better things to do

[BruceBanner]

For every "might" there is an equal and opposite "might not". I have taken enough images with both lenses that the conclusion is beyond doubt for me.

And don't hold your breath for the scientific comparisons Eddy. It might surprise you, but I have a life, and a pretty full-on day job. When I have that sort of spare time on my hands I can usually think of better things to do

Oh I realise that, I wasn't meaning you specifically, just in case anyone else around here has those items kicking about and fancied snapping a couple of frames. You've done enough already, thanks