[gatorguy]

I'm partial to the 55-300 PLM outdoors. Like today while I was single-handing my 27' sailboat in 25 knot gusty, swirling winds inside an arm heeling all over the place even while double reefed fore-and-aft and a little minke decided to come up literally within touching distance with a boathook and then to follow me for a few breaths (scared me half to death as I hadn't heard him earlier due to all the wind and sailing noise like you normally do!). Missed the best opportunity when he kindof spy-hopped like a seal on the initial surfacing. But here he is following me. Didn't have time to change settings from landscape which is what I was photographing earlier so this is f8, 1/200 sec (way too slow, sadly--especially in these very gusty conditions with the wind coming straight off that bluff to the west), ISO 200, 63mm(!!!).


KP here, but my K-70 would have delivered an identical pic in these conditions with these settings.

After this past weekend I've also become a big fan of the Pentax 55-300 PLM. There are times I'll choose to carry it now instead of the far more expensive and longer-range Pentax 150-450. The OP's park visit would be one of those times. I think he would be very happy with the performance of it, and appreciate the light weight and compact size, very packable. His K70 has enough resolution and dynamic range to allow for cropping in close and adjusting the shadows in post too if the light is slightly inadequate.

That lens would be my #1 suggestion.

[rvandenbrink]

Or if you need something cheaper and manual focus is OK, any of the A series are older but still pure gold! Still use the 35-135 for macro fairly regularly, and the 70-210 A still gets used occasionally. Paid under 100 (CAD) for each

I miss my split prism focus so much every time I use these!

[jslifoaw]

Strongly agree that the 55-300 PLM is excellent in terms of performance but also performance for the money. Its only real downside is the relatively slow F4.5-6.3 maximum aperture but that compromise doesn't really extend to its overall optical quality all things considered. It does need a lot of light and good technique (to avoid ruined shots from mechanical shutter shock that high shutter speeds or SR don't always mitigate).

It is one of the best Pentax-mount telephoto zooms you can get for the money - it's compact, WR, silent/fast AF, good optical quality, and not too expensive. As a KAF4 lens, it is also immune to any aperture block failures on some of the susceptible bodies.

I would also say that the 150-450 is underrated - perhaps the variable aperture makes people jump to conclusions, but it is far closer to having mechanical and optical qualities of a DFA*70-200 with twice the focal length (at similar / wider apertures) than being a Bigma. Of course it comes at a literal cost, and it's 2+kg.

[Sterby]

Bigma goes up to 600mm, how is 450mm double than 600mm?

[bogwalker]

Wow! Thank you so much for all the input, opinions and sharing your experiences! I would like to respond to some of your arguments and discuss them more in detail:

:
:

Also I want to thank you for your hints regarding the national parks, I really appreciate it. And Sterby, thank you for clarifying my "pro lens on regular body" dilemma, I am relieved that it is not a problem at all.

This is an interesting thread for me, as I also have a K70 and just recently bought a 55-300, so I'm glad to see people in general view it favorably. I haven't had a chance to try it out a lot yet.

I'm not a camera expert (compared to the people here), but here are some things to keep in mind about the national parks:
1) hopefully you already have the reservations, because camping space or hotels are generally reserved many months in advance. Some places like Zion have daily limits on cars.
2) If you haven't driven in the U.S. make sure you give enough time for driving - this isn't the auto-bahn, and distances are in miles, not kilometers. It can take all day to get from one national park to the next.
3) If you see a bunch of people pulled off to the side of the road in some random spot, they're probably looking at some wildlife. I hate being the tourist and joining them, but that is the easiest way to find some of the rarer wildlife.
4) most of your pictures, unless you're a serious naturalist, will be of the mega-fauna. It should go without saying, but you never know, so: use your lens to get close, not your feet. It doesn't matter if it's a herbivore or not, they can all be dangerous and they all run faster than you.
5) more on that point - if you aren't familiar with the major animals, maybe spend some time identifying them in pictures. Last year I was in the Big Horns (national forest in Wyoming). I was taking pictures of a big field of flowers when a guy driving my way pulled over and told us that there some moose around the corner. This kind of surprised me since this was not moose habitat, but we thanked him and he went on. So we drove around the corner and kept an eye for moose. DIdn't see any, but there was a big herd of domestic cattle down the slope a ways. I guess he was thinking they were "mooo's"?
5) Good news: pretty much nothing is venomous. Snakes are over-rated, rattlers are fairly rare and generally calm. If you do actually see a snake it's probably not a rattler. There's only a few dangerous spiders and those like to stay in quiet places. Ticks can be a problem in the spring if hiking in tall grass, but shouldn't be a problem while you're there.

[gatorguy]

Bigma goes up to 600mm, how is 450mm double than 600mm?

The Bigma is a 50-500 lens, and not highly regarded on the longest end. Perhaps you were thinking of the Sigma 60-600, sometimes called a Bigma reborn, but that's a $2000 lens.

The Pentax 150-450 goes against the grain, being as sharp at 450mm as it is at 300mm. The cheaper lenses, the older Tamron and Sigma 150-600's, 150-500's and 170-500's tend to underperform zoomed to the max.

[PilotJohnPE]

I have and use the Sigma (Bigma) 50-500 for wildlife photography. Yes, it is big, it is heavy, but it covers a 50 to 500 range and it focuses quite close for a long telephoto. I frequently use it with the Pentax-DA 1.4X AW rear converter and am pleased with the results. Some samples attached so you can judge for yourself. The hummingbird photo was with the 1.4x rear converter and with a tripod under the lens. The other three are cropped and were handheld on a K-10D, the bears were taken with a Tamron 2x converter and manually focused. The photo of Denali was taken from south of Talkeetna so a telephoto was required.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[angerdan]

The DA 55-300 PLM would be the perfect fit for your K-70.
By weight, size, AF-Performance and budget
>= 50mm <= F4.5 Zoom Lenses with SDM/DC Autofocus | PentaxForums.com

[jslifoaw]

Bigma goes up to 600mm, how is 450mm double than 600mm?

I was pointing out that I view the DFA 150-450 being similar to the DFA70-200 with twice the focal length, similar or better light gathering (150-450mm f4.5-f5.6 vs constant 140-400mm f5.6), and similar optical/mechanical quality.

I can't really comment on any of the Sigma zooms up to 500-600mm but they are certainly capable of more reach from a specifications perspective. I'm not sure how a 1.11-1.33x crop from the 150-450mm would hold up for a 500/600mm equivalent, but I think it has a good chance!

[ramseybuckeye]

As nice as the 55-300 is, the examples you see here are downsized aggressively for viewing on HD or smaller screens. You don't see the aberrations, and these aberrations decrease your cropping power or negating entirely because you will need to downsize to get rid of them. Even a little bit of aberrations will need at least 2x or 3x downsizing.

I never downsize any of my photos on Flickr, even if the photo is not that sharp, downsizing would kill all of the details. Sure my DA *300 will usually show better IQ, but the PLM lens is not the dog you are trying to make it out to be.

[rvandenbrink]

I was pointing out that I view the DFA 150-450 being similar to the DFA70-200 with twice the focal length, similar or better light gathering (150-450mm f4.5-f5.6 vs constant 140-400mm f5.6), and similar optical/mechanical quality.

I can't really comment on any of the Sigma zooms up to 500-600mm but they are certainly capable of more reach from a specifications perspective. I'm not sure how a 1.11-1.33x crop from the 150-450mm would hold up for a 500/600mm equivalent, but I think it has a good chance!

Plus the 60-600 does not have a Pentax mount available, which is a real shame

[Lukasabs]

So after a few days to think about all your input, I have to say that the combination of the FA 70-210mm lens + 1,4 teleconverter is very interesting to me. My kit then would have roughly the same focal length as the 55-300 PLM, while offering better overall IQ.

But once more I would like to ask for your experience with my following line of thought: The teleconverter changes the f-stop from F4.0 to F5.6.... So that means that the biggest advantage of the 70-210mm lens (the better performance under low light circumstances) is more or less gone, right? So at the end of the day I would be paying 4x more for a combination which offers almost no significant advantages over the 55-300 PLM? (Maybe a bit sharper images overall?)

I want to add that the 55-300 PLM is F6.3 at 300mm zoom, so there is still a tiny difference to F5.6 on the 70-210mm, but would it be noticable? I have no idea if that´s considered to be a real difference at all.

So do you agree with my hypothesis, or would you say that the overall performance and IQ still would make a great difference in favour of the FA 70-210mm?

Thanks again!

[wadge22]

I think the largest difference will be size and weight. The 70-210 with the TC will be, comparatively, huge and unwieldy, whereas the 55-300 will be compact and convenient, if somewhat less "high build quality" feeling.

There is also the matter of autofocus speed, where the 55-300 is known to be outstandingly fast and confident. Contrastingly, the 70-210 with TC will almost certainly be slower to focus than the 70-210 alone, although from what I've read it's a pretty good lens in that regard.


One advantage of the 70-210 + TC, other than as you mention the (likely) better IQ particularly at the long end, and the (definitely, but slightly) wider aperture, is that you can use it without the TC when suitable.


Also note that with the 70-210 (or ~100-300 w/ TC), you are losing a decent amount on the wide end. The 55 end of the 55-300 makes it a very versatile lens that may be on the camera more often than just when shooting wildlife.

[UncleVanya]

I have tried the 70-210 plus 1.4x but while it worked reasonably well - I never did detailed optical comparison with the 55-300 plm. I have compared the 60-250 plus 1.4x with the older DA 55-300 and the 60-250 plus 1.4x was better and offered slightly longer focal length at a distance (focus breathing makes shorter distance use more of a lopsided comparison with the 55-300 offering more magnified views close to the subject.)

[mikesbike]

So after a few days to think about all your input, I have to say that the combination of the FA 70-210mm lens + 1,4 teleconverter is very interesting to me. My kit then would have roughly the same focal length as the 55-300 PLM, while offering better overall IQ.

But once more I would like to ask for your experience with my following line of thought: The teleconverter changes the f-stop from F4.0 to F5.6.... So that means that the biggest advantage of the 70-210mm lens (the better performance under low light circumstances) is more or less gone, right? So at the end of the day I would be paying 4x more for a combination which offers almost no significant advantages over the 55-300 PLM? (Maybe a bit sharper images overall?)

I want to add that the 55-300 PLM is F6.3 at 300mm zoom, so there is still a tiny difference to F5.6 on the 70-210mm, but would it be noticable? I have no idea if that´s considered to be a real difference at all.

So do you agree with my hypothesis, or would you say that the overall performance and IQ still would make a great difference in favour of the FA 70-210mm?

Thanks again!

In comparing this setup with the DA 55-300mm PLM, the difference in IQ wide open" might" be better with the larger lens + TC. I say "might" because the TC will have to add some slight degree of IQ degradation, which will take place when adding glass on top of the glass of the lens. The f/5.6 aperture vs. f/6.3 is slight but real. However, if really needing more shutter speed at the same ISO, the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC would provide a much more meaningful gain. However, this might well never be an issue, unless dealing with lower light scenes where you'll be shooting at wider apertures, or needing these for faster action subjects. Most scenics are landscape shots where smaller apertures are used to maximize DOF. If both lenses are of internal AF design, both will have some degree of focus breathing, but this mainly pertains to subjects at closer distance ranges.

Keep in mind, the K-70's ability to deliver fine results at higher ISO settings also provides a lot more leeway in terms of aperture needs. This means performance with a slower aperture lens can be about equal to a faster lens on a less capable camera when it comes to shutter speed. I've see some excellent BIF shots from the slower 55-300mm PLM by using this advantage for higher shutter speeds, and its AF is far better. It seems to me, as far as IQ capabilities, the advantages of the larger, heavier choice would be rather slight, if any, and have to be weighed against the practical carrying aspect of the much more compact and lighter 55-300mm PLM on trips where there might well be a lot of walking and carrying, as well as possible lens-changing for wider shots. Also, the 70-210mm with the 1.4x TC becomes 98-294mm.

As with any zoom lens, for the best possible IQ from it, one must stop short of its longest FL settings. This includes the DFA 70-210mm f/4 as well. They are all invariably that way- below optimum at the longest FL. This is even true of your fine DA 16-85mm lens- I have no doubt the DA 55-300 PLM can provide better sharpness at 85mm. So compare both it and the 70-210mm at 210mm, where the 55-300mm is mid-way while the 70-210mm is at max FL, and the difference will be narrower if any. Then add the 1.4x TC to the 70-210mm which then goes to 294mm max with some degradation from the TC along with being at max FL, while 294mm with the 55-300mm is still not quite at max, and with no TC, and also AF will no doubt be better. It is reasonable to conclude, the two setups will be quite close in performance, but the practical differences will certainly not be close, favoring the DA 55-300mm PLM lens.