[Interstellar Whale]

so for context i currently use a SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED but i'm finding it lacking in sharpness (i haven't used it a lot, so it might be sharper if change settings.), but i also think it's not enough telephoto. so i was looking around and found this lens SMC Pentax-FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8 and wondered if using a older lens might be a good idea? i don't want to spend too much since i don't think i will be using it very regularly. but it needs to be automatic since i'm mainly planning on shooting wildlife with it. my current kit consists of an 16-85mm and a 90mm lens, so it doesn't have to start at 50mm.

somewhere else i got the recommendations of the Tamron AF Di LD Macro 70-300mm F4-5.6 and the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6

[ProfessorBuzz]

Full-frame zooms that have less range tend to be sharper and faster. eg 100-300 is likely better than the DA 50-200.
Are you shooting with a tripod or monopod? How fast are your shots? Have you tried mirror lockup/electronic shutter? Sometimes its not the lens, its mirror slap or movement of the subject or photographer.
Which camera are you using ?

[normhead]

Save yourself time and just go for the DA 55-300 PLM. It's the perfect companion for your 16-85. I have owned the Sigma 70-300, the Pentax 70-210, and a couple DA* telephotos, the PLM will keep up with the DA*s except it's not very fast at 300 6.3. But since I try and shoot a ƒ5.6-ƒ8 in any case, that's rarely a factor.

My stop gap lenses just don't get used.

[UncleVanya]

The 55-300 - original version - beat the pants off my FA 80-320. The 80-320 is supposedly better than the 100-300 in most reviews. I’d suggest the 55-300 over the older lenses. There are many models.

DA L - lacks a hood and quickshift. It may also have a plastic mount - I don’t think that’sa problem personally but the quickshift and hood are.

SMC DA - good lens

HD DA WR - supposedly the best version until the PLM version came out. WR = weather resistant.

There are some additional variations - I think there’s a DA L that’s WR.

You can buy some of these these fairly cheaply, but if your budget Won’t stretch the older lenses do work. The 80-320 doesn’t come with a hood, doesn’t offer quickshift, and purple fringes badly, but if you stick to 300 rather than 320 it’s sharp. Even 320 isn’t terrible. They do have a penchant for breaking internally - the controller board in my copy died leaving me with a manual focus manual aperture lens.

[northcoastgreg]

somewhere else i got the recommendations of the Tamron AF Di LD Macro 70-300mm F4-5.6 and the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6

I've had the Tamron 70-300 and I'm currently use the FA 80-320 on the K-1. The Tamron is okay, but not great. Like all consumer grade tele zooms, its performance degrades as you zoom out to the long end. The FA 80-320 is a terrific lens at 80mm. It's still pretty good at 150mm. But at 320mm, it's not very good at all. I personally consider it unusable at that focal length, although I have pretty high standards and am rather picky.

The FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8, which I also have owned (and didn't care for) does have it's supporters. It used to have almost cult-like reputation around here. It does, to be fair, render beautifully for consumer grade zoom and may actually be a tad sharper than the FA 80-320 at 300mm. But the best option is clearly the HD DA 55-300 PLM. It's also the most expensive by far. Among cheaper options the best is probably the DA-L version of the earlier 55-300. Used versions of that lens can sometimes be found at prices not much higher than what you might have pay for a good copy of the FA 80-320.

[NatureHike]

Just chiming in with another recommendation for the 55-300. I've got the HD WR version, it is a cut above the other budget 300mm zooms I've tried.

[que es tu]

I also suggest a version of the 55-300. I have used a HDDA red ring version for 4 years or so and it is a very useful, well made, and versatile lens. My son has the non-WR version and it works great too! These can be found fairly in expensively on the used market and pop up here on the Marketplace too. I have heard that the autofocus is super fast on the PLM version. I have had good results with the slower screwdrive by pre-focusing using quick shift. I have a FA 100-300 f4.7-5.8 also, but the DA lens is better. A bit better IQ, faster focusing, and stronger build. The FA is very inexpensive, so if money is really tight you could go with the FA, otherwise save up for a newer version, and I think you will be happier with the results.

[bwgv001]

The PLM version would work only on cameras newer then K-50

[normhead]

The PLM version would work only on cameras newer then K-50

It works fine on our K-5. A fixed ƒ6.3 aperture is right in the wheel house for a telephoto. After all with mirror telephotos some were fixed at ƒ8. It's T's most used telephoto on her K-5. She has access to the DA*60-250, DA* 200, F 70-210, Sigma 18-250 and my Tamron 300 2.8. It's not like she couldn't use faster heavier lenses if she wanted to.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

so for context i currently use a SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED but i'm finding it lacking in sharpness (i haven't used it a lot, so it might be sharper if change settings.), but i also think it's not enough telephoto. so i was looking around and found this lens SMC Pentax-FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8 and wondered if using a older lens might be a good idea? i don't want to spend too much since i don't think i will be using it very regularly. but it needs to be automatic since i'm mainly planning on shooting wildlife with it. my current kit consists of an 16-85mm and a 90mm lens, so it doesn't have to start at 50mm.

somewhere else i got the recommendations of the Tamron AF Di LD Macro 70-300mm F4-5.6 and the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6

What about this one? Pentax HD 55-300mm lens als tweedehands kopen? | CameraNU.nl

[normhead]

I guess my push for the PLM is, looking back, if it had been available a lot sooner, a lot of people would have been a lot happier. Even with the other lenses I own, it's first off the shelf. If I'd had it, I probably wouldn't have bought the DA*200 and DA*60-250. Anything else you buy may still buy the PLM in the future. Then you look back and think how much you missed out. I started with the Sigma 70-300. It's been gone now, for longer than I used it, and I've never missed it even a bit. That was $300 I wouldn't have to spend if I was starting out today, the zoom ring broke as it does on so many of those lenses, and I gave it away. It's always an advantage if you can avoid stop gap solutions.

[UncleVanya]

I guess my push for the PLM is, looking back, if it had been available a lot sooner, a lot of people would have been a lot happier. Even with the other lenses I own, it's first off the shelf. If I'd had it, I probably wouldn't have bought the DA*200 and DA*60-250. Anything else you buy may still buy the PLM in the future. Then you look back and think how much you missed out. I started with the Sigma 70-300. It's been gone now, for longer than I used it, and I've never missed it even a bit. That was $300 I wouldn't have to spend if I was starting out today, the zoom ring broke as it does on so many of those lenses, and I gave it away. It's always an advantage if you can avoid stop gap solutions.

I still use the DA* 200 and 60-250 - but the older DA 55-300 is long gone. The PLM certainly goes out with my KP more often than the others. On FF I have used the DA* 200 and 60-250 a few times as well - there they have the advantage of better FF coverage.

[normhead]

I still use the DA* 200 and 60-250 - but the older DA 55-300 is long gone. The PLM certainly goes out with my KP more often than the others. On FF I have used the DA* 200 and 60-250 a few times as well - there they have the advantage of better FF coverage.

I forgot to mention, it's a new design with more elements and better correction, 7 times as fast focussing in the wide end, twice as fast focussing in the long end. You don't really know how good Pentax AF can be unless you've tried this lens. Silent electronic focussing, more accurate than previous 55-300s. It's kind of unfair that they didn't do more to differentiate it from the old 55-300s. It's not the same lens with much better all around performance.

[marcusBMG]

I have been comparing the F/FA 100-300mm lenses and 80-320mm. Overall I can say that the similarities are more evident than differences. They are all really quite good at shorter/middling focal lengths. @northcoastgreg has posted a lot of nice pics with the 80-320mm that exemplify this in the FAunlimited thread. I have found the FA 100-300mm lenses, both versions, to be best at 300mm, the F 100-300mm doesn't seem to be as good. And the 80-320mm I have not found to offer any advantage over the 100-300mm, it's softer at 320mm. At their best these lenses are competitive with the DA/DAL 55-300mm in terms of resolution but the latter is more consistent and much better corrected: you can get halos and significant CA/fringing with the earlier lenses especially wide open.

I suspect that sample variation is also an issue with these lenses, but the game is to acquire very cheaply, if it doesn't measure up then just try another. The 55-300mm is the right choice if $$ isn't an issue, later versions best it seems, otherwise you can get the earlier lenses for as little as <$50 if you bide your time and look around.
PS there is another thread currently that is worth a browse:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/450032-budget-vintage-telephoto-gems-interesting-nature-lenses-2.html#post5667066

also see

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/130-lens-sample-photo-archive/427263-pen...4-5-5-6-a.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/430510-com...ses-k-1-a.html

[Interstellar Whale]

my biggest problem is that i don't know how much i will use it, or get the opportunity to use it. because besides birds i don't encounter that much wildlife. so i'm conflicted on how much i should spend on this. i found the tamron for a total €86 including shipping and import. but the Pentax HD DA 55-300mm for €319 might not be to bad once i have some more spending room.