[dc1500]

I don't own the lens either, although I'm seriously considering buying it, which is why I'm interested in the results others have achieved with it. To be taking these photos hand held with a heavy lens isn't easy. If I can't get results which are at least as good as the DA*300 with the 1.4x TC, it makes spending AUD$3K hard to justify. Having said that, the two features which I'm most excited about with this lens are the speed of AF and focus limiting. I miss a lot of photos with the DA*300 because it's so painfully slow to focus or hunts. I'll link a photo below that used the DA*300/1.4TC combination hand held. I'd like to see this sort of sharpness from the new lens (and the examples posted here look great!).
https://flic.kr/p/pZecnM

Any serious bird photographer knows that this is the exact issue. IQ is not a problem with the DA*300 with or without the TC. It is all about "getting the shot" and the hunting and tracking is still dire compared to Nikon and Canon. It struggles to initially locate an image that is occupying 10% of the screen against a blank sky. You learn how to be ready but it usually hunts and is too late for those magical moments much of the time. That's the comparison needed between the two, but I doubt it will be that much different as it is a camera issue as much as a lens issue.

[crewl1]

Hello again. I will give you my first impressions of the DFA in comparison with my Bigma 50-500 (APO-OS the latest model) which is my super telezoom the last two years.

First of all the high quality of the DFA is obvious from the beginning, when you hold and feel it. It's heavy with no plastic parts and a great hood and tripod foot. The Bigma is not a bad quality lens, doesn't feel cheap, but the DFA is in another league!

Three things really impressed me with the DFA.
1. It is really sharp lens with great resolution and contrast and typical nice and accurate Pentax colours!
2. It is very bright in comparison with the telelenses I've used up to now. As another forum member said it seems that it might slightly underexposes, but surely I like that because it gives pictures with significantly lower ISO values in comparison with the Bigma (usually 50% lower).
3. It works fine with the HD 1.4X adaptor and the results from this compination vary from decent to impressive! I'm trying to figure out the ideal conditions and learn how to better utilize the 210-630/F8 lens!
The SR of my K-5IIs works fine with the lens and the focus speed is fast although not as fast as Canonikon tele lenses, but in any case satisfactory and you won't miss shots due to slow focus! It is silent too.
On the downside, it is a heavy and quite bulky lens, but anyone can expect that. Better construction, more metal and glass relult in a heavier lens! It is definitely handholdable although when I used my Bigma after a week with the DFA it seemed quite small and a bit of a toy lens!

I have started using the K-5IIs with the DFA for aviation photography that is my passion and when I have a better idea of what it is capable of and a few good samples I will write a complete review in the lens database. From my first tests of the DFA 150-450 Vs the Bigma I can ensure you that the new lens is better in every aspect both in close and long distances. Not a huge difference, but obviously better.

Since I know that you want some pictures I attach here some samples of a chimney that I shot from my terrace (about 100 feet away). Nothing special but a sample nevertheless! As I told you I have shot different targets at various distances and the DFA gave better pictures everytime! Is that difference worth the extra money? This is up to you to decide after considering the advantages that the DFA offers apart from better picture quality. Here is a link to the 3 RAW files cropped parts from which are presented below (at full size).
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1unqe9yvqecgluj/AADDXmzuOFoUXaR8nEcl45zea?dl=0
All pics are as they came out of the camera.

Thanks for the comparison. I'm traveling at the moment so just looking at the crops here it appears the Pentax has more contrast. Is magnification at 450 similar to Bigma at 500 or is that an illusion?

[redpit]

Thanks for the comparison. I'm traveling at the moment so just looking at the crops here it appears the Pentax has more contrast. Is magnification at 450 similar to Bigma at 500 or is that an illusion?

No. Bigma at 500mm offers a bit more magnification.

[zantaphia]

Hi!

1st day of shooting this incredible lens.

[Mike.P®]

Few from an air show yesterday on K-5IIs

[Zygonyx]

Nice page !


I find often very practical to be able to lessen the focal on imprevisible occasions.... here from450 down to 190mm to catch this chasing action.

[redpit]

Great pictures guys! And from so many different subjects! I think that the DFA 150-450 has started building its reputation!

[derekkite]

I must say that I'm impressed. I have the Sigma 500mm f4.5, which is quite nice. This lens is very tempting for a few reasons; the flexibility of a zoom, closer focus distance, faster focus, focus limiter. The downside is half a stop. Weight is probably similar.

What I notice is the very nice Pentax rendering of colors. The Sigma is no slouch but not as rich. There are very nice sharp shots here.

There is lots of light right now which makes a long lens shine. I'm watching for low light shots. The Bigma is a pretty nice lens for the money, but I can't shoot it past September around here. How about this one? Shooting wide open in low light makes you begrudge the stops you lack.

[RobG]

Few from an air show yesterday on K-5IIs

Great shots! Wish I could visit air shows in the UK!

---------- Post added 13-07-15 at 01:20 PM ----------

Any serious bird photographer knows that this is the exact issue. IQ is not a problem with the DA*300 with or without the TC. It is all about "getting the shot" and the hunting and tracking is still dire compared to Nikon and Canon. It struggles to initially locate an image that is occupying 10% of the screen against a blank sky. You learn how to be ready but it usually hunts and is too late for those magical moments much of the time. That's the comparison needed between the two, but I doubt it will be that much different as it is a camera issue as much as a lens issue.

If there was a focus limiter on the DA*300 it would be a lot better, but the slowness of the AF is agonising when you see the subject fly (or hop) away. Even if I try to prefocus manually the lens often hunts anyway. Since focussing on the eye of an animal is critical, I generally stick to centre spot AF which reduces the AF points for the camera to work with. At the moment in winter the light is so poor I am stuck with f5.6. Using multipoint AF might reduce hunting but is much more likely to end up with the focus on the wrong part of the subject. Narrow depth of field, wasted shot.

From what users have said, the FA150-450 focusses much faster, has a focus limiter and is able to respond better in continuous AF mode. It looks good, but $3K is a lot to me. I'm even wondering whether I'd be better off buying a Canon or Nikon DSLR and a Sigma lens for the same price because the AF may be that much better. Lower IQ perhaps, but getting a shot with lower IQ would still be better than not getting the shot at all. After four Pentax bodies I'm loathe to go elsewhere.

[Zygonyx]

An other serie, still very hard light and very blue sky...

1-

2-

3-

4-

5-
-
6
-

[Zygonyx]

7-


8-


9-


10-

[Zygonyx]

11-

[jacamar]

Great shots! Wish I could visit air shows in the UK!

---------- Post added 13-07-15 at 01:20 PM ----------



If there was a focus limiter on the DA*300 it would be a lot better, but the slowness of the AF is agonising when you see the subject fly (or hop) away. Even if I try to prefocus manually the lens often hunts anyway. Since focussing on the eye of an animal is critical, I generally stick to centre spot AF which reduces the AF points for the camera to work with. At the moment in winter the light is so poor I am stuck with f5.6. Using multipoint AF might reduce hunting but is much more likely to end up with the focus on the wrong part of the subject. Narrow depth of field, wasted shot.

From what users have said, the FA150-450 focusses much faster, has a focus limiter and is able to respond better in continuous AF mode. It looks good, but $3K is a lot to me. I'm even wondering whether I'd be better off buying a Canon or Nikon DSLR and a Sigma lens for the same price because the AF may be that much better. Lower IQ perhaps, but getting a shot with lower IQ would still be better than not getting the shot at all. After four Pentax bodies I'm loathe to go elsewhere.

I have a tracking/focusing problem for birds in flight and distant, small targets with my DA* 300mm with or without the 1.4x teleconverter. I was wondering whether an upgrade from my Pentax K-r would help but from what I'm reading here that might not do much good.

[rawr]

I was wondering whether an upgrade from my Pentax K-r would help but from what I'm reading here that might not do much good.

I expect it will make a difference. I went from K200D to K-x to K-5 to K-3, and every step of the way the AF got better. The K-5 to K-3 step brought the most noticable improvements. So a new body could certainly help.

[jacamar]

I expect it will make a difference. I went from K200D to K-x to K-5 to K-3, and every step of the way the AF got better. The K-5 to K-3 step brought the most noticable improvements. So a new body could certainly help.

Thanks - I was also wondering about the K-SII as I would make good use of the articulated LCD screen for macro, but the K-3 might be a good option.