[Chris_K]

My DA* 300mm and 1.4 rear converter basically lives on my K-3. I don’t honestly remember when I last used my 55-300mm. It is an expensive combination but it does allow me to get some wonderful images.

Thank you. Still under consideration but probably much postponed. Maybe I'll find the opportunity to try it out first, before buying.

[mikesbike]

I have my HD DA 55-300mm WR lens, which serves most of my tele zoom needs well, and with very good image quality. It is wonder fun for its versatile zoom range with very compact, lightweight carrying, which for me is often important.

I've also had my FA*300mm f/4.5 for many more years. I don't use it often, but when I need its extra high quality and wider aperture, it really delivers great imaging. Its screw-driven AF is fast and accurate, especially on my KP! I also have the Tamron AF 1.4 TC which seems to work quite well with it. When I know I'll be needing its extra reach along with still fine imaging, it provides this without adding significant weight.

I also agree with the DA* 200mm f/2.8 which can provide very fine imaging and more shutter speed at that FL range. It is relatively compact for a fast aperture tele lens. AF is not the fastest, however. I am glad to have it when I need higher shutter speeds. I have the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 along with a Sigma 17-50mm f//2.8 EX DC HSM and these three lenses make for a fine 3- fast lens combo with my KP. If having a 1.4 TC along, I could then also get reasonably close to 300mm with still more aperture than a 55-300mm lens, while remaining compact for what it is. This combo is excellent for addressing situations of low light and for moving subjects, and with extra-fine image quality.

Depends on what the needs will be.

[Chris_K]

I've also had my FA*300mm f/4.5 for many more years.

The F / FA 300 seems to be a usual suggestion after the DA 300. I might redirect my attention there but I think I'll give another (long-lasting) chance to my 55-300 PLM. Maybe I don't really need a 300 prime and all this is just searching for an excuse for my LBA

[mikesbike]

The F / FA 300 seems to be a usual suggestion after the DA 300. I might redirect my attention there but I think I'll give another (long-lasting) chance to my 55-300 PLM. Maybe I don't really need a 300 prime and all this is just searching for an excuse for my LBA

If you do not face situations where you need higher shutter speeds than your DA 55-300mm PLM can provide, and/or you do not need the extra reach a fine 300mm prime with TC can deliver, then why bother? Not a thing wrong with just shooting with the DA 55-300mm PLM if it is giving you what you need. It is a very capable lens when operating in good lighting conditions.

I have both setups, the DA 55-300mm WR for more compact carrying in good light, and my faster aperture FA 300 mm f/4.5 plus a TC for times when I will need their advantages and will carry the extra weight and size to get these advantages. As to the "F" and "FA" versions, while the optics are identical, each has its own advantages. The "F" comes with a tripod mount, the "FA" does not. The FA version's AF/MF switch will control this function without having to also switch functions on the body, and will instantly enable or disable the MF focus collar so the whole lens can be held during AF, while the "F" version requires its AF/MF and the camera body's switch to both be employed.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 07-03-2022 at 07:48 PM.

[Chris_K]

It is a very capable lens when operating in good lighting conditions.

That's exactly my opinion, too. My concerns come from (quite rare) occasions when I need the extra one or two stops of light (and going higher with the ISO starts to be a problem - although the KP does a great job here). But, as I mentioned (and actually, I realized this as this thread was building up), these occasions are indeed rare, so I drop this idea, at least to the point when I'll be able to test one of the 300s and compare.
Thanks for the details on the F/FA versions. Switching AF/MF on both the lens and the camera is pretty annoying. I have it on my Tamron 90 macro and it's the only thing I don't like about this lens

[mikesbike]

Well, I can tell you the screw driven AF on my FA* 300mm f/4.5 on my KP is definitely faster than the SDM AF of my DA* 200mm f/2.8- and I believe the DA* 300mm SDM is of the same vintage. Without needing to test, the FA* 300mm f/4.5 can proved 2x faster shutter speed over the DA 55-300mm PLM lens, in addition to even better image quality. I've seen this difference in usage first hand, and it is a mathematical fact. Adding a TC would also bring more tele range with the obvious advantages that can bring, and true of the DA* as well. Adding a TC with the DA 55-300mm I have not tried, but some have reported this as doable. But you'd lose so much aperture, there'd be no comparison to either of those two fine 300mm prime lenses.

But again- if you don't face such need except rarely, the expense might not be worth it. Even in my case, I don't take my big guns out near as often as I do my DA HD 55-300mm WR lens. But when I do need the big guns, very nice to have them.

I shot a young friend's college graduation some years ago is one example. His family had secured an exec suite through a friend, which even had a kitchen. It had both inside viewing through large glass windows with bar-type seats, and a large balcony section with several rows of comfortable seats. Fortunately, this unit was located at a very good angle towards the stage, and the end where the graduates would exit after receiving their diplomas, thus facing the right way for photos from our location. But it was at quite a distance. I brought my FA* 300mm, my DA* 200mm, and DA* 50-135mm, so as to handle whatever distances I would be dealing with. As it turned out, the DA* 200mm was just right for getting fairly tight shots of the graduate and the official giving it, with congrats and a hand-shake. Of course, being that there was some motion involved, I had to take that into account as to shutter speed. I had found the DA* 50-135mm useful for other preliminary parts of the ceremony, encompassing more of the stage. The family was ecstatic over the quality of the photos they received.

That being just one example, I often do other low light scenes, some with motion involved, where the DA 55-300mm just would not make it. So in my case, having these "big guns" provides a useful alternative when I need the advantages they are capable of. You might not have, or might rarely have such a requirement- which means a considerable savings for you!.

[UncleVanya]

Well, I can tell you the screw driven AF on my FA* 300mm f/4.5 on my KP is definitely faster than the SDM AF of my DA* 200mm f/2.8- and I believe the DA* 300mm SDM is of the same vintage.

My conversion experiences with not quite failed lenses is that sdm slows down without dying on some lenses. My DA* 200/2.8 isn’t noticeably slower than my FA* 300/4.5 but I don’t typically time them nor shoot the same subjects with them, so my recollection may be flawed (I also use the KP).

[mikesbike]

I would not say the SDM is a lot slower, but in my case, the FA* 300mm f/4.5 seems to be really quick to snap into focus. Also, for some odd reason, the DA* 200mm seems to run down the camera's battery faster than usual with a lot of use. Another reason for using the battery grip with it. My likewise SDM DA* 50-135mm does not seem to do this noticeably. Maybe from the SDM moving larger elements in the larger lens. But this does not appear to be a factor with the screw-driven lenses, that I have noticed. I don't use these larger lenses all that often. But shooting in low light conditions, either indoors or outdoors, is a fairly common circumstance for me, and when I need some shots in the telephoto range, these lenses serve me very well.

[ehrwien]

Two (oh well, make it three) gripes I have with the 55-300 PLM:
1) 6.3 aperture from about 280mm means you lose light and have to compromise with shutter speed and ISO
2) 6.3 aperture from about 280mm means focus will HUNT a lot and slowly which can make you miss shots. There's an easy solution for that one though: turn the focal length back to where it's still at an aperture of 5.6, acquire focus, then zoom in for the rest if necessary.
3) It's not ultimately sharp (but still plenty sharp!) wide open at 300mm. Stopping down helps with that, but that means you'll lose some light again. Perhaps the need to compromise with shutter speed and ISO also contributes to my practical experiences that images could be 5% sharper? But in the end, I don't think that matters.

All of those don't matter because:
1) The zoom range and focus speed make it sooo versatile. I couldn't have gotten a shot like this with the DA* 300:

Common Kestrel + Prey 2
2) It's so small and light. You can take it with you whenever you take your camera, and you won't regret it. The DA* 300 can get heavy after some time... sometimes my hand hurts from holding it up for so long. But if you need every bit of light, f/4 helps, and it's sharp as a razor from f/4. And that aperture also enables you to use a tele converter if you need the reach. You can also use a tele converter with the 55-300 PLM, but you need a lot of light. The only problem I have with using a teleconverter with the DA* 300: there are no correction profiles for the combinations for DxO PhotoLab which I use to convert my images. Which leads me to another point...
3) There are correction profiles for the 55-300 PLM, including lens sharpness which gets you very close to ultimate sharpness.

[vrrattko]

you may also want to consider the F* or FA* 300/4.5 options...

Fantastic lenses, but quite loud at focusing. Had F*300....beautifully constructed lens, but sound scared birds off.

[Chris_K]

Thanks again for the insightful information. I've been kind of rediscovering the 55-300 and despite certain flaws, it is a great lens.
Good point with zooming out a bit to reach f/5.6.