[jon.partsch]

Okay, I know there are a ton of threads on the topic of comparing these two lenses, but I just entered the 24MP APS-C club with the K-70, and I have a very specific question that I don't see answered anywhere. I would like to query the community on your opinions about which can offer the maximum level of detail for a distant subject, forgetting entirely about the tele-converter option. In other words, which of these three [er... four] scenarios, given theoretical perfect conditions, can offer the greatest level of detail on the pixel-level.

Imagine all other considerations like carry weight, autofocus speed and accuracy, etc. don't matter at all. Consider a situation like shooting a full moon in the center of the frame from a stable tripod. Imagine you are using the sharpest possible aperture for each lens.

Or, if you prefer, imagine a incredibly cooperative and completely motionless bird of which you want to capture the maximum amount of feather detail.

• Scenario 1: D-FA 150-450mm at maximum zoom (450mm) on a 24MP APS-C sensor
• Scenario 2: DA* 300mm shot on that same sensor, cropped and enlarged so that the subject matches the size in scenario 1
• Scenario 3: D-FA 150-450mm at 300mm, same sensor again, also cropped and enlarged to match scenario 1
• Scenario 4: Too close to call - probably up to sample variation between lenses

Which of these three approaches is likely to achieve the greatest amount of detail in the subject.

I am not interested in how these lenses may or may not perform with a TC (which seems to always be part of the discussion), only the maximum possible resolution of each lens on it's own. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and comments!

~ Jon

[noelpolar]

Scenario 1 without a doubt. Both lenses are close at 300mm.... but DFA is great at 450.

[gatorguy]

Scenario 1 without a doubt. Both lenses are close at 300mm.... but DFA is great at 450.

That was simple.

[noelpolar]

To make it a bit more complicated.... if ones 150-450 doesn't deliver the no 1 result.... then either you have a poor 150-450 copy or your focus isn't 100% or you struggle at 450mm for some reason.

The only issue in this sort of comparison is that the 150-450 has about a one "T" stop disadvantage.... at 300mm'ish.

[jon.partsch]

Scenario 1 without a doubt. Both lenses are close at 300mm.... but DFA is great at 450.

Yeah, I keep reading this, and I've had the lens for about a year or so now, but images at 450mm, focused in live view, just don't seem as "crisp" as ones I shoot at 300mm with it, no matter what I do. This is my experience on the K-1ii, which has roughly 16MP in the "aps-c area" in the middle of the sensor. I haven't had the 150-450 on my K-70 yet, but I am doubtful of the real ability to perform at 450mm like people keep saying. It may totally be my lack of technique and skill with the lens, or a rare "bad" copy of the lens ‐ time will tell when I get more experience with it.

- Jon

[Lowell Goudge]

I put scenario 4 because without knowing the detail level of the subject it is really hard to discuss focusing on distant subjects., but I would generally put a prime over a zoom all else being equal

[jon.partsch]

I put scenario 4 because without knowing the detail level of the subject it is really hard to discuss focusing on distant subjects., but I would generally put a prime over a zoom all else being equal

One of the specific problems I had last summer was in photographing a bull moose that was resting in a sunny meadow. The meadow was below the roadway I was shooting from. I had my tripod at full extension with the column raised so that I could clearly photograph down into the meadow over the low shrubs that were lining the roadway. This is a lot of weight for a tripod that is fully extended that way, so that may be part of the problem, but I focused extra carefully in live view and took my shots using the 12 second timer. I still couldn't get this moose and the grass surrounding him to look crisp. I had actually just come from another location where I was shooting an elk, also with the tripod fully extended, but at generally shorter FL, I think. I really struggled to get a satisfactory photo of that moose, but the elk photos came out very nice.

[ramseybuckeye]

I wish I could answer, meaning I would have both, but I don't. I'm very happy with the DA*300 and DA TC.

[DonV]

Try focusing through the view finder, then the screen at the same subject. Compare the results on a "big" screen.
Two different focus "types", you may find one better than the other.

I really struggle to get a clean focus on the screen, but maybe it is my eyes or my glasses , or the camera, or lens, or all 4.

[Pentaxians]

Scenario 1 from me too. DFA @ 450mm is sharp and the focusing speed is relatively faster than DA300 F.4, on K70 and Kp.

[AstroDave]

Scenario 1. The image from a 450mm lens will be 1.5 times wider on the sensor than the image from a 300mm lens. The area of the image will be 1.5 squared (1.5 in each direction) or 2.25 times as many pixels for the same object imaged with the 450 compared to the 300. That ought to be sharper!

If the image from the 450 is not this much sharper, then either the lens, camera support, or photographer is not up to snuff.

Please don't take offense - Shooting at 450 mm takes a lot of practice. For example, just using the 2 or 12 second delay is not sufficient - the shutter itself can bang things around when it goes off. You need a REALLY solid tripod/support. I have learned all this the hard way - in real life. I am not very happy with most of my DA* 300mm shots - all my fault for far from optimum operation.

Higher ISOs help, so the fastest possible shutter speed can be used. I have not tried electronic shutter much - that might be helpful too, at least for mostly stationary subjects.

[Philtandir]

Yeah, I keep reading this, and I've had the lens for about a year or so now, but images at 450mm, focused in live view, just don't seem as "crisp" as ones I shoot at 300mm with it, no matter what I do. This is my experience on the K-1ii, which has roughly 16MP in the "aps-c area" in the middle of the sensor. I haven't had the 150-450 on my K-70 yet, but I am doubtful of the real ability to perform at 450mm like people keep saying. It may totally be my lack of technique and skill with the lens, or a rare "bad" copy of the lens ‐ time will tell when I get more experience with it.

I have had a 150-450mm for a couple of years now, and have recently acquired the DA* 300mm. My answer to your poll is definitely number 1, even though my experience with the 150-450mm on a K3 at 450 has at times been a lot like what you describe: even on a good tripod with a static subject, the sharpness is sometimes not as "crisp" as I'd like, especially at f5.6. This does happen more often at the long end of the zoom. Yet, since my lens has also produced very sharp images at 450 (especially between f9-f11, but also at f5.6), I've always discarded these experiences as being a problems with my long lens technique. I believe the weight of the 150-450mm makes it harder to get tack sharp images. I find the 300mm much easier to use and my results with it are more consistent, even with the HD TC (I know you don't want to talk about the TC, but here goes...). I also prefer the bokeh from the 300. On the other hand, it is not focusing as fast (especially with the limiter on the zoom) and will hunt more, particularly in low light. At first, I was planning on keeping only one of the lenses, but in the end I'm going to keep both: the 150-450mm for when I'm working from a tripod/monopod or I need the zoom and the 300mm for photography on the move and pseudo macro shots from a distance.

[zapp]

Two completely different lenses. Both very well made. Zoom is better at native 450 mm. If you only compare by „sharpness“ you are missing out a lot.
Zoom is long and heavy, has slower f-stop. Zooming is more versatile. 300 is small for its class, slow AF, very nice package, f/4.
You can all the info above in reviews here.

[mikeSF]

Definitely #1. I've done plenty of these tests myself with my own kit and reach by optics is almost always better than enlarging/cropping.

Do not underestimate the long end of the 150-450. It delivers.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

One of the specific problems I had last summer was in photographing a bull moose that was resting in a sunny meadow. The meadow was below the roadway I was shooting from. I had my tripod at full extension with the column raised so that I could clearly photograph down into the meadow over the low shrubs that were lining the roadway. This is a lot of weight for a tripod that is fully extended that way, so that may be part of the problem, but I focused extra carefully in live view and took my shots using the 12 second timer. I still couldn't get this moose and the grass surrounding him to look crisp. I had actually just come from another location where I was shooting an elk, also with the tripod fully extended, but at generally shorter FL, I think. I really struggled to get a satisfactory photo of that moose, but the elk photos came out very nice.

Key words are summer and sunny. I think that you might have had trouble with the phenomenon that in summer on a sunny day the atmosphere is kind of hot and the air seems to have a haze, which is probably the hot air ascending. With your own eyes you might not see it, but as your lens at 450mm is enlarging the scene this movement of that atmosphere becomes visible. I had this many times when trying to make pictures of just born lambs in the meadow. It is a phenomenon you sometimes see in films or in news flashes of a sunny patch of sand and which in films if often used to give you the idea that it is hot. You can even get that trouble with a 135mm. Sometimes a polarizer helps, but not always. Also the angle in which you took the picture might add to the fact that hot air becomes more visible and therefor you will never get a crisp image. In my film era pictures there were many that suffered from this, I lived near the sea and made many pictures of the dunes and its inhabitants and later on I lived in a farming area and met often with this phenomenon. Also note that sun on a grassy meadow means that the humidity of the ground will cause damp. There is so much more between heaven and earth and a lot of it consists of water in solid, fluid or gas form.