[photolady95]

than my Sigma 70-300mm? I know the Pentax 55-300mm is a better one but I can't afford the price on that one. Is there another that would be better for less money?

I find the Sigma not as sharp at 300mm as I'd like it to be. Even my Pentax F 100-300mm was sharper than this lens is.

[yeatzee]

buy used....

I got my 55-300mm for $230 iirc in immaculate condition.

[interested_observer]

This is sort of a backdoor approach, but the 55-300 lens is about $140 when its part of the KX kit (or use to be through the holidays). I guess you could buy the KX kit with the 55-300, keep the lens and sell the body (or body with the 18-55) lens. Or I guess, you could try to find someone who wanted to just buy the single lens kit, go in with them for the double lens kit and split it up after it comes. Another approach is to search for I think the DA 55-300 L version on the resale market and see what they are going for.

The 55-300 lens is ever so slightly different from what I understand in that it has a plastic mounting and does not come with a lens hood.

[Marc Sabatella]

There have been many, many threads comparing the various budget telephotos; I'd suggesting browsing/searching the forums for those. I think most people put the Signa 70-300 dead last among the major contenders (DA55-300, Tamron 70-300, DA50-200) when it comes to sharpness. If the 55-300 even used is too much, the Tamron 70-300 would be the next logical contender if you need 300mm, although you'll trade some CA for that extra sharpness.

[photolady95]

I wish I had researched before getting that Sigma lens, had I known it was dead last in the better lens category, I'd have left well enough alone and gotten something else. The Tamron 75-300mm f4, at Christmas time, was selling for $134. Now I can buy it for $164 at Porter's.

[pacerr]

IMO, the Tamron 75-300 LD is comparable to the 70-300 LD Di in most regards and can be found used for $50-70.

My copy provides results about the same as a good DA 50-200 in actual practice.

H2

[audiobomber]

IMO, the Tamron 75-300 LD is comparable to the 70-300 LD Di in most regards and can be found used for $50-70.
H2

From anything I've seen on the net, the LD Di is less prone to purple fringing than the older LD, probably due to coatings.

[Reportage]

I wish I had researched before getting that Sigma lens, had I known it was dead last in the better lens category, I'd have left well enough alone and gotten something else. The Tamron 75-300mm f4, at Christmas time, was selling for $134. Now I can buy it for $164 at Porter's.

it depends...if its the Sigma one with APO, doesnt perform the same as its cheaper version.

[Ash]

Unfortunately, not a great deal of sharpness will be gained by going to the Tamron 70-300, particularly at larger apertures than f/8. The Pentax 55-300, however, does have a noticeable sharpness advantage, particularly wide open. On top of that you have more superior colour and contrast renditions at those larger apertures in a fairly compact little lens package. It's certainly worth every cent it costs.

[photolady95]

I've read the database here for third party lenses and reviews on the "Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD MACRO 1:2" says this is the purple fringe model, not the Tamron 75-300mm LD. So I don't know who to believe. But I think I'm going to research the Pentax 55-300 and see what prices I can come up with on that. The only reason I was considering the Tamron 75-300mm was a post here on the forums where a member was raving about it's useage, which after searching my threads seems to have gotten lost in the ether.

[lesmore49]

The 55-300 Pentax is a great little lens. Been very happy with mine. Very sharp even at 300mm...when I shoot pix of wildlife I would be unhappy if @ 300 the lens was not sharp...300mm is usually where you have it for birds, animals in the wild.

[CWyatt]

My Sigma 70-300 APO is way better than my old Pentax 50-200. My Sigma 70-300 non-APO was also better than my Pentax 50-200.

None of them are that great. Unless you go manual or get a second hand bargain, you'll need to pay decent money for better.

[pacerr]

I The only reason I was considering the Tamron 75-300mm

You may be referring to a thread of mine - I've had good results from a 75-300 and recommended it as a bargain econ zoom a few times here. Mine's good enough that if it weren't for the smaller size and 50-70mm range I could eliminate my DA 50-200 (which seems to be a good lens).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/60448-tamron-7...-part-1-a.html

H2

If you can stand not having the 300mm FL, the Pentax 50-200 kit lens can be picked up cheaply and it is a reasonable lens.


If you are going to go for the Tamron, I don't know what your budget is or what other lenses you have but there is a twin zoom deal via Amazon that is reasonably priced.
Amazon.com: Tamron 28-80mm Lens + Tamron 70-300mm Di Macro Lens + (2) UV Filters + Accessory Kit for Pentax Digital & Film AF SLR Cameras including K2000, K-7, K10D, K20D, K100D, K110D & K200D: Electronics

If you're on a budget, you're on a budget unfortunately.

[photolady95]

I could handle spending $200 but not at this moment. That's a good deal Gary, and if at the time that I have the extra money, I'll check into it further.

I need at least 300mm because of the shots I do take.