[GaryM]

I have both lenses. The 70-210 is quite a bit heavier than the PLM, but the internal zoom and focus is really nice. The PLM is a trombone in comparison. Both lenses have really good optics, but the 70-210 is a bit better (at least with my copies). I don't have the TC so I don't know how much that will degrade the IQ of the 70-210. As has been said already, f6.3 is only 1/3 of a stop slower than f5.6, so it really comes down to weight and handling. Although I prefer the 70-210 overall for a variety of reasons, on an APS-C sensor I would stick with the PLM if I needed reach.

[skolkmeier]

First shot with the plm and second with the 70-210 plus 1.4 tc. Both were shot on identical KP's with the same settings, and processed in RawTherapee with a custom profile called "sunny". (It's a very bright and warm day here). Both shots were cropped in FastStone at 800x600.
This is just for fun. I'm not trying to prove anything either way, but you can make your own conclusions. Even though the shots were taken seconds apart, the sun is reflecting differntly.

[Des]

With the TC it'll be f5.6 throughout - it's worth that extra stop over the f6.3 of the PLM for me...

There are times when that one-third of a stop (f5.6 v f6.3) can matter a bit - like when you already have a very slow shutter or very high ISO, or you are struggling to focus with an off-centre AF point.

But don't give that too much weight. The PLM is f5.6 until about 260mm, so if you need f5.6 you can just back off a bit without losing much magnification. The PLM is very good wide open too, so you can use it with confidence at its maximum aperture, whether it's f5.6 (230mm) ...


... or f6.3 (300mm)


It's not just a wildlife lens either. If you look in the 55-300 "show us what it can do" thread, you will see lots of excellent landscapes too. I've been happy with it there too.


For me the compact size and light weight are huge pluses. I can get a carry kit of KP, DA 15 Limited, DA 20-40 Limited and 55-300 PLM, plus a flash and trigger into a smallish bag. At a pinch I could travel the world with that kit. The PLM also pairs well with the DA 18-135 or DA 16-85. Or sometimes the DA 12-24 and a 35 or 43mm prime.

To my mind, compactness and light weight are big advantages of APS-C, and the KP in particular. You are losing a lot of those advantages if you confine yourself to FF lenses, where there is a lighter more compact APS-C alternative. The fact that you have a KP as well as a K-1 suggests that you don't always want the extra weight and bulk, and that you like the crop sensor for some things. Just go with that!

[UncleVanya]

First shot with the plm and second with the 70-210 plus 1.4 tc. Both were shot on identical KP's with the same settings, and processed in RawTherapee with a custom profile called "sunny". (It's a very bright and warm day here). Both shots were cropped in FastStone at 800x600.
This is just for fun. I'm not trying to prove anything either way, but you can make your own conclusions. Even though the shots were taken seconds apart, the sun is reflecting differntly.

With those shots / method of comparison the PLM 55-300 clearly is the winner. I admit a little surprise.

[Jeff]

Really lovely photographs Des. And I think you've convinced me that the PLM on the KP is the way to go.

---------- Post added 02-12-22 at 12:15 PM ----------

As Uncle Vanya said below, the PLM looks to be the clear winner - thanks for posting the comparisons - it's given me what I need to make my choice...and it will be the PLM.

---------- Post added 02-12-22 at 12:17 PM ----------

With those shots / method of comparison the PLM 55-300 clearly is the winner. I admit a little surprise.

Me too! I was under the impression that the IQ of the 70-210 would be better - even with a TC fitted - but I was wrong. Happily so..!

[normhead]

Really lovely photographs Des. And I think you've convinced me that the PLM on the KP is the way to go.

---------- Post added 02-12-22 at 12:15 PM ----------

As Uncle Vanya said below, the PLM looks to be the clear winner - thanks for posting the comparisons - it's given me what I need to make my choice...and it will be the PLM.

---------- Post added 02-12-22 at 12:17 PM ----------



Me too! I was under the impression that the IQ of the 70-210 would be better - even with a TC fitted - but I was wrong. Happily so..!

It's not often you find a bad modern lens. The issue with the DA 55-300 is build quality. It won't survive a drop. My DA* 60-250 has survived quite a few. I'm on my second copy of the DA 55-300. But in terms of IQ, it's a myth that variable aperture lenses aren't as good as fixed. The extra cost of materials is what makes fixed focus wide zoom range lenses expensive. Every stop doubles the amount of glass and probably the weight.

IF cost is the issue, the DA 55-300 is a no brainer. If IQ is the issue, you're not going to find it lower in the DA 55-300 PLM. That's just people suckered into buying more expensive gear than they'll ever use talking.

Many of the best here use ƒ6.3 glass.

[skolkmeier]

It's not often you find a bad modern lens. The issue with the DA 55-300 is build quality. It won't survive a drop. My DA* 60-250 has survived quite a few. I'm on my second copy of the DA 55-300. But in terms of IQ, it's a myth that variable aperture lenses aren't as good as fixed. The extra cost of materials is what makes fixed focus wide zoom range lenses expensive. Every stop doubles the amount of glass and probably the weight.

IF cost is the issue, the DA 55-300 is a no brainer. If IQ is the issue, you're not going to find it lower in the DA 55-300 PLM. That's just people suckered into buying more expensive gear than they'll ever use talking.

Many of the best here use ƒ6.3 glass.

I'm a bit shocked at the conclusions being made, but I can see why. The fact is, I never purchased the 70-210 to use on the KP, I purchased to use on the K1 II. I think it is an outstanding match with the K1 and is the perfect companion to the 28-105 kit lens. I only tried this combo out as a test. I actually don't find much use for the 1.4 tc. As far the the PLM is concerned, I would rather use the DA* 300 on the KP, paired with the DA 18-135. Just my preferences.

[normhead]

I'm a bit shocked at the conclusions being made, but I can see why. The fact is, I never purchased the 70-210 to use on the KP, I purchased to use on the K1 II. I think it is an outstanding match with the K1 and is the perfect companion to the 28-105 kit lens. I only tried this combo out as a test. I actually don't find much use for the 1.4 tc. As far the the PLM is concerned, I would rather use the DA* 300 on the KP, paired with the DA 18-135. Just my preferences.

On FF, the DA 55-300 requires pretty good knowledge of the lens, but you can see the vignetting in the viewfinder so it's not hard to manage.

You might find Understanding folks saying a TC doesn't ad more detail. - PentaxForums.com interesting. The images are gone but the conclusions remain.

So many use the 1.4 with the 300, it's a hard combo to knock. You really just said, you don't have much use for long glass. That isn't lens dependant. it's not about the 1.4 on the 300 ƒ/4, it' about you not needing the longer focal length. I've never met anyone looking for the best way to get to 400mm being anything les than very happy with the 1.4 300 combo, but those are all people who probably need longer than 400mm and we settling for what was affordable.

[Des]

As far the the PLM is concerned, I would rather use the DA* 300 on the KP, paired with the DA 18-135. Just my preferences.

I go with the FA*300 and 18-135 sometimes (usually mounted on different bodies), when I'm really looking for wildlife. As you would expect, the 300mm prime is better than the 55-300 and it's a stop faster, which makes a TC more viable. But comparing at 300mm f6.3, the difference in image quality doesn't really show unless the subject is at a fair distance. And the 55-300 has the advantages of much faster and quieter AF, lighter weight (although as 300mm primes go the FA*300 is pretty light), more compact and more versatile.

The DFA 150-450 would overcome the versatility limitation (assuming 55-150 is covered with another lens), but it's significantly heavier and bulkier again. And, of course, considerably more expensive.

As Norm suggests, everything is a compromise in K-mount telephoto. Having a long prime (I have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 as well) at least gives you more options for a particular situation. But for the casual wildlife shooter who doesn't want to drop a lot of money on a lens to be used rarely, the 55-300 will often be all they need.

The issue with the DA 55-300 is build quality. It won't survive a drop.

Amen. I broke one too: What to avoid with your 55-300 PLM lens! - PentaxForums.com

And always retract it when you aren't using it - otherwise the barrel will become wobbly over time.

[Jeff]

On FF, the DA 55-300 requires pretty good knowledge of the lens, but you can see the vignetting in the viewfinder so it's not hard to manage.

You might find Understanding folks saying a TC doesn't ad more detail. - PentaxForums.com interesting. The images are gone but the conclusions remain.

So many use the 1.4 with the 300, it's a hard combo to knock. You really just said, you don't have much use for long glass. That isn't lens dependant. it's not about the 1.4 on the 300 ƒ/4, it' about you not needing the longer focal length. I've never met anyone looking for the best way to get to 400mm being anything les than very happy with the 1.4 300 combo, but those are all people who probably need longer than 400mm and we settling for what was affordable.

So in essence, the 70-210 + TC combination on a KP would not be an issue, and the images would not be degraded because of the TC... If many people use the 300 with a TC, there doesn't seem to be a reason NOT to use the 70-210 on my KP - I have the lens already, so my vacillation is because I am unsure about spending more on a new lens - the PLM.

Really comes down to personal choice doesn't it - the images from either setup will not differ markedly. It's not like I'm comparing a Sigma/Tamron 70-300 with the 70-210 as they are not in the same league optically and yet here I am vacillating because the 70-210 MAY not be QUITE as good as the PLM! As you said Norm, there really isn't a bad modern Pentax lens these days.

[skolkmeier]

So in essence, the 70-210 + TC combination on a KP would not be an issue, and the images would not be degraded because of the TC... If many people use the 300 with a TC, there doesn't seem to be a reason NOT to use the 70-210 on my KP - I have the lens already, so my vacillation is because I am unsure about spending more on a new lens - the PLM.

Really comes down to personal choice doesn't it - the images from either setup will not differ markedly. It's not like I'm comparing a Sigma/Tamron 70-300 with the 70-210 as they are not in the same league optically and yet here I am vacillating because the 70-210 MAY not be QUITE as good as the PLM! As you said Norm, there really isn't a bad modern Pentax lens these days.

Yes, I think you are correct. Just to be clear, I didn't post the two pictures to compare the two setups, I posted them because I was playing around with the two and thought it would be interesting to see them side by side. After giving it some thought, I realize that there is no such thing, as the two different setups are completely different, and it would take a lot more thought and planning to make such a comparison. For one thing, I didn't compensate for the extra stop down on the tc. As I said before, I find the 70-210 to be exactly the lens I wanted, for a particular type of shooting. It's light, sturdy, and a completely modern lens. I like it.
Thanks.

[gatorguy]

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!

I've had good success with a Sigma 170-500 DG APO, cost under $400, and the Pentax 1.4TC as long as the distance to subject is a couple hundred feet or less. Definitely hand-holdable. Get beyond that and it does become more difficult to control, and getting a good and relatively clean image may need a travel through Topaz-land. Multiple shots won't hurt either

But it's certainly doable on a budget well under $1000 for both lens and Pentax TC. Little risk really if you already have the teleconverter.

[CBM]

I go with the FA*300 and 18-135 sometimes (usually mounted on different bodies), when I'm really looking for wildlife. As you would expect, the 300mm prime is better than the 55-300 and it's a stop faster, which makes a TC more viable. But comparing at 300mm f6.3, the difference in image quality doesn't really show unless the subject is at a fair distance. And the 55-300 has the advantages of much faster and quieter AF, lighter weight (although as 300mm primes go the FA*300 is pretty light), more compact and more versatile.

The DFA 150-450 would overcome the versatility limitation (assuming 55-150 is covered with another lens), but it's significantly heavier and bulkier again. And, of course, considerably more expensive.

As Norm suggests, everything is a compromise in K-mount telephoto. Having a long prime (I have a Sigma 400mm f5.6 as well) at least gives you more options for a particular situation. But for the casual wildlife shooter who doesn't want to drop a lot of money on a lens to be used rarely, the 55-300 will often be all they need.

Amen. I broke one too: What to avoid with your 55-300 PLM lens! - PentaxForums.com

And always retract it when you aren't using it - otherwise the barrel will become wobbly over time.

Well now I feel a bit better about breaking my used version of the 55-300 PLM. The price dropped a bit since I bought the used one, so new was a no-brainer. Lots of experience shared in this thread, of which I have only a fraction, but I think it really helps to see that no one regrets buying a 55-300 PLM, sometimes more than once!

[normhead]

So in essence, the 70-210 + TC combination on a KP would not be an issue, and the images would not be degraded because of the TC... If many people use the 300 with a TC, there doesn't seem to be a reason NOT to use the 70-210 on my KP - I have the lens already, so my vacillation is because I am unsure about spending more on a new lens - the PLM.

Really comes down to personal choice doesn't it - the images from either setup will not differ markedly. It's not like I'm comparing a Sigma/Tamron 70-300 with the 70-210 as they are not in the same league optically and yet here I am vacillating because the 70-210 MAY not be QUITE as good as the PLM! As you said Norm, there really isn't a bad modern Pentax lens these days.

The problem with the 70-210 is that the 1.4 only gas it to 300mm. I have my DA*200 but rarely use it with the 1.4 because everything else would be longer. The DA*60-250 is better on the edges and is above average at 250, With the 1.4 that's 350mm. There are a lot of days 300mm just issn't enough. With smaller birds, it's never enough.

[mikesbike]

Really lovely photographs Des. And I think you've convinced me that the PLM on the KP is the way to go.

I think this is a good decision.

People have different approaches to this question, but I tend to relegate my K-1 II usage to short focal lengths (except for the DFA 15-30mm f/2.8 which I have skipped but might go for the DFA 21mm Ltd)-to-moderate tele to keep size and weight to more convenient levels. For a longer tele range I turn to the KP. With this in mind, I can see the DFA 70-200mm f/4 in terms of use on the K-1 to extend the range of a shorter all-around zoom lens without weight becoming too excessive. It would make less sense for its use on the KP. The 55-300mm concept on the KP is far more sensible, since performance and IQ for such a lens has reached the level it has, and the KP can deliver such great results in a truly compact combo.