[Jeff]

I have used the 1.4xTC with the 70-210, though on a K3MK3, when taking trackside photos in Spain and very happy with the results - that got me close to the 150-450 but slightly more compact and easier to carry on luggage limits on a plane.

Thanks for the feedback - it may be the route, or, as Pepperberry Farm mentioned above, the issue might have to come down to spending more. I am tempted by the TC route with the 70-210 but am not sure what the autofocus will be like - how did you find it? What it as quick as it usually is when you had the TC mounted to your K3iii?

[UncleVanya]

It's the cost really - I am looking for reach without too high a price. Still curious about the 70-210 with a TC on the KP but I suspect it may be a little too outré for most!

98-294/5.6 seems useful in the right context. The da 60-250 is good paired with the 1.4x also. That yields an 84-350/5.6 with excellent quality. On ff there is a modification needed to reduce black corners.

[skolkmeier]

I have the 55-300 PLM but bought the 70-210 as, at least my copy of, the PLM was disappointing at longer lengths and below f8. Having said that I see plenty of good photos posted here at 300mm, the PLM is light and compact, and the focus is fast and silent. I still like the PLM and use it when weight is an issue.

I have the 70-210 and the plm, and I find the 70-210 to be almost as fast in focusing as the PLM. I think the quality of the 70-210 is very satisfactory as well. I would look very closely at the reviews to see if you actually would get faster focusing with the plm.
As far as weight, the 70-210 plus 1.4 tc is about 2 pounds, where the plm is 1 pound. Not much different in handling in my opinion.
In other words, I like the 70-210 plus 1.4 tc.

Added a photo from earlier this week. Minimal PP.

[ramseybuckeye]

I'm all-in with FF lenses - but have a KP for its lightness and portability. I'd like a longer lens mainly for the odd bird and furry creature, and I have the 70-210 f4....

So, do I bite the bullet and get the 55-300 PLM? Or a 1.4x teleconverter - which I can get as new for a good price, saving about £150 on the apsc lens? I have read the relevant Ricoh info on their site regarding TC + KP and weight etc. etc. but I'm curious if anyone else uses this setup?

I know the previous iteration of the 55-300 is reasonable, but I can't be dealing with its slow AF 'speed' - and I use that term loosely!

Really appreciate your thoughts, as ever.


Jeff

I do not have the 70-210 but I do have the 55-300PLM and a KP. It is an excellent combo. I also have a DA*300, it is also excellent on the KP. I'll use the PLM lens when I need something smaller or lighter, and the light is good. In October of 2020 I bought the DA 1.4 converter and I rarely use either of these lens without it. I would stay away from the older 55-300s because of that slow AF, and I remember mine could only be useful stopped down, whereas the PLM is decent wide open. The DA converter is very good. Some of this information is irrelevant to your choice, but there may be some bits that are helpful.

The DA* 300 has better IQ, but it should have it's much pricier. The 55-300 PLM is fast autofocusing, lightweight, and has a versatile zoom range. I mentioned above about using the PLM when the light is good. That does make a difference, especially when you are using a TC and losing that stop of light. I will more often use it on the water or at the beach, not in the dark woods. I versatility of a zoom can sometime be handy too. I have a kayak for taking photos from. I was out in December and took the PLM, I had a marsh rabbit swim right by me and I was able to get good photos because of the zoom, I would not have got them with the 300 because the rabbit was so close.

Anyway I highly recommend the 55-300PLM, and I highly recommend the DA 1.4 TC, but I won't go as far to say either should be your choice as I have never even seen the 70-210. I'm just throwing out some examples and opinions that maybe can help you with your decision, I think both ways will be good.

[Jeff]

I do not have the 70-210 but I do have the 55-300PLM and a KP. It is an excellent combo. I also have a DA*300, it is also excellent on the KP. I'll use the PLM lens when I need something smaller or lighter, and the light is good. In October of 2020 I bought the DA 1.4 converter and I rarely use either of these lens without it. I would stay away from the older 55-300s because of that slow AF, and I remember mine could only be useful stopped down, whereas the PLM is decent wide open. The DA converter is very good. Some of this information is irrelevant to your choice, but there may be some bits that are helpful.

The DA* 300 has better IQ, but it should have it's much pricier. The 55-300 PLM is fast autofocusing, lightweight, and has a versatile zoom range. I mentioned above about using the PLM when the light is good. That does make a difference, especially when you are using a TC and losing that stop of light. I will more often use it on the water or at the beach, not in the dark woods. I versatility of a zoom can sometime be handy too. I have a kayak for taking photos from. I was out in December and took the PLM, I had a marsh rabbit swim right by me and I was able to get good photos because of the zoom, I would not have got them with the 300 because the rabbit was so close.

Anyway I highly recommend the 55-300PLM, and I highly recommend the DA 1.4 TC, but I won't go as far to say either should be your choice as I have never even seen the 70-210. I'm just throwing out some examples and opinions that maybe can help you with your decision, I think both ways will be good.

Thanks for your considered answer. Appreciated.

[skolkmeier]

The 70-210mm f4 would probably be the SMC-A 70-210mm f4, and the lens @skolkmeier mentions would be the SMC-F 70-210mm f/4-5.6, correct?

I'd say even the older SMC 55-300mm f/4-5.8 would work better than the older lenses and a 1.4 teleconverter. The SMC-F would be at f8 and wide open with the teleconverter for 300mm - not ideal. The older SMC-A would be at f5.6 and might be a bit sharper stopped down a step to f8, but still not ideal as these lenses were not at their sharpest at the long end.

I assumed the OP was referring to the DFA 70-210. If not, I stand corrected. The lens I own is the DFA 70-210 with the kaf4 mount. And I love it.

[Jeff]

The 70-210mm f4 would probably be the SMC-A 70-210mm f4, and the lens @skolkmeier mentions would be the SMC-F 70-210mm f/4-5.6, correct?

I'd say even the older SMC 55-300mm f/4-5.8 would work better than the older lenses and a 1.4 teleconverter. The SMC-F would be at f8 and wide open with the teleconverter for 300mm - not ideal. The older SMC-A would be at f5.6 and might be a bit sharper stopped down a step to f8, but still not ideal as these lenses were not at their sharpest at the long end.

I have the new 70-210 f4, if that is what you are asking? So it would be that and a new 1.4x TC on the KP...

[normhead]

I don't have the DFA 70-210, but I have a DA*60-250, which almost never gets used now that I have the DA 55-300 PLM.

The DA 55-300 PLM plus the 1.4 TC gets you to 420mm. On this image I backed it out a bit to 364mm which improves the IQ. But even in the long end at 420 you can get decent results.


Without the TC full reach works just fine.


It's probable my DA*60-250 is slightly but not significantly better. But despite what's been said, the ease of use is incomparable. How much difference a pound makes depends totally on how long you hold the camera up to your eye, waiting for the perfect pose. I rarely use the DA 55-300 PLM with tripod. With heavier lenses you need the tripod to hold the camera in line with your subject and steady.

If I'd owned the DA 55-300 PLM, I wonder if I would have bought the DA*60-250. It would seem unlikely. ƒ4 is just not that sexy.

Don't get me wrong, the DA*60-250 is no slouch (accept in speed of AF) . DA*60-250 with 1.4 TC at 350mm


The problem for me with the DFA 70-210 would be lack the lack of reach, reach that is necessary in many images.

[jslifoaw]

The 55-300 PLM is an extremely versatile lens. It's really compact and has great IQ, even at 300mm but especially up to 200-250mm. The AF is well suited to videos if you ever get into that (especially on the K-3 III). While I'm sure the 70-210 has IQ at least as good (and is a bit brighter) and has the benefit of internal zooming, I'm really happy with the 55-300 PLM even in comparison to the DFA 70-200/2.8.

I would consider getting the 55-300 PLM and also get the 1.4x since you may find yourself needing more reach than even 300mm (but you'll need good light and technique). The 1.4x can be coupled to all sorts of lenses based on your needs.

I try to get FF when I can, but the 55-300 PLM is really hard to ignore and the FF version if it ever comes is likely going to be bigger and more expensive. You can get away with a partial crop on FF and don't need to go all the way to 1.5x.

Then later, see if you're light or reach constrained, and that can help you decide on if you need something like a 300mm F4 (for reach), or something shorter at f2.8. Or you may discover the IQ is good enough from the 55-300!

[clickclick]

I don't have any experience with the 70-210, but I agree with the others that the PLM is a great lens. I find the IQ is excellent, the handling and speed is excellent, and it collapses into a small package that makes carrying it or fitting it into a (small) bag very nice. I'm able to bundle up my K-3 II, 20-40, 15 ltd, and PLM in a holster type bag I throw over my shoulder without a second thought. That's a fantastic kit that goes anywhere that I couldn't pull off with the larger 70-210 with or without a TC in the mix.

[Jeff]

I assumed the OP was referring to the DFA 70-210. If not, I stand corrected. The lens I own is the DFA 70-210 with the kaf4 mount. And I love it.

Indeed I was. Thanks for your response!

---------- Post added 02-11-22 at 05:33 PM ----------

I don't have the DFA 70-210, but I have a DA*60-250, which almost never gets used now that I have the DA 55-300 PLM.

The DA 55-300 PLM plus the 1.4 TC gets you to 420mm. On this image I backed it out a bit to 364mm which improves the IQ. But even in the long end at 420 you can get decent results.


Without the TC full reach works just fine.


It's probable my DA*60-250 is slightly but not significantly better. But despite what's been said, the ease of use is incomparable. How much difference a pound makes depends totally on how long you hold the camera up to your eye, waiting for the perfect pose. I rarely use the DA 55-300 PLM with tripod. With heavier lenses you need the tripod to hold the camera in line with your subject and steady.

If I'd owned the DA 55-300 PLM, I wonder if I would have bought the DA*60-250. It would seem unlikely. ƒ4 is just not that sexy.

Don't get me wrong, the DA*60-250 is no slouch (accept in speed of FA) . DA*60-250 with 1.4 TC at 350mm


The problem for me with the DFA 70-210 would be lack the lack of reach, reach that is necessary in many images.

Thanks Norm, and your final sentence of course has me thinking more now about the PLM...

---------- Post added 02-11-22 at 05:34 PM ----------

The 55-300 PLM is an extremely versatile lens. It's really compact and has great IQ, even at 300mm but especially up to 200-250mm. The AF is well suited to videos if you ever get into that (especially on the K-3 III). While I'm sure the 70-210 has IQ at least as good (and is a bit brighter) and has the benefit of internal zooming, I'm really happy with the 55-300 PLM even in comparison to the DFA 70-200/2.8.

I would consider getting the 55-300 PLM and also get the 1.4x since you may find yourself needing more reach than even 300mm (but you'll need good light and technique). The 1.4x can be coupled to all sorts of lenses based on your needs.

I try to get FF when I can, but the 55-300 PLM is really hard to ignore and the FF version if it ever comes is likely going to be bigger and more expensive. You can get away with a partial crop on FF and don't need to go all the way to 1.5x.

Then later, see if you're light or reach constrained, and that can help you decide on if you need something like a 300mm F4 (for reach), or something shorter at f2.8. Or you may discover the IQ is good enough from the 55-300!

Thanks - if I got the PLM I'd not have the money for the TC at the moment...so it's one or the other!

---------- Post added 02-11-22 at 05:35 PM ----------

I don't have any experience with the 70-210, but I agree with the others that the PLM is a great lens. I find the IQ is excellent, the handling and speed is excellent, and it collapses into a small package that makes carrying it or fitting it into a (small) bag very nice. I'm able to bundle up my K-3 II, 20-40, 15 ltd, and PLM in a holster type bag I throw over my shoulder without a second thought. That's a fantastic kit that goes anywhere that I couldn't pull off with the larger 70-210 with or without a TC in the mix.

Yes - the 55-300 PLM does indeed pack down small compared with the 70-210, so it is something to consider.

[ChristianRock]

I have the new 70-210 f4, if that is what you are asking? So it would be that and a new 1.4x TC on the KP...

Ah yes my bad, I don't know where my mind was... I went and deleted that comment to try to reduce confusion.

[Jeff]

Thanks Stan. I'm veering towards that combination too - I prefer the IF of the 70-210, and with a TC it has a 150-450 range, albeit on the KP.

This is what Sandy said in a different thread and got me thinking about this particular combination:

Has anyone already noticed that 70-210 x 1.4 x 1.53 = 150-450? Like almost exactly?

Coincidence?

---------- Post added 02-11-22 at 09:19 PM ----------

It will also have a stop of light more than the PLM . With the TC it'll be f5.6 throughout - it's worth that extra stop over the f6.3 of the PLM for me...

[Sandy Hancock]

it's worth that extra stop over the f6.3 of the PLM for me...

That's more like a third of a stop, and the PLM is f/4.5 at the wide end, so I'd suggest there's not much in it.

[Jeff]

That's more like a third of a stop, and the PLM is f/4.5 at the wide end, so I'd suggest there's not much in it.

I stand corrected!

However, I am not too fussed about the wide end - it's the long end I'm looking at. There's really not much in as you said so I suspect it comes down to personal preference. Problem is, I am finding it tricky to decide which way to go...