[Ducatigaz]

K-3ii/ FA*600mmF4ED[IF]/Gitzo 1348

[RockvilleBob]

Big Cyprus Bend Boardwalk
Irma caused a lot of damage in the Everglades. One spot, Big Cyprus Bend Boardwalk had a nesting pair of eagles last year. They came back and built a new nest on top of a dead tree.


My first outing there was with a zoom lens on a monopod secured to a pouch on my belt. I was able to get the first two shots at 600mm with the monopod.


We need more lens to get closer so I added the 1.4 TC and came back another day. The next three shots are at 840mm on a tripod. One bird was in the nest calling for its mate which arrived. The bird in the nest went to the top of the dead tree, the returning bird circled the nest.


For the next three shots I had to back off to about 400mm to get the nest and both birds. The last shot of the top bird was at 600mm.


I think it was pretty amazing to see the eagles back and occupying a new nest post-IRMA.

[Kevriano]

+1 (at least) on those comments. Enviable work, but I've seen very few images from zzeitg that were less than excellent

Same here. Utterly superb

[redpit]

DA560

Great shots! You really demonstrate what this lens is capable of! Congratulations.

Which camera have you used with the DA 560?

OK! I just saw it was the K-3 on your Flickr pages...

[Tas]

A scene from a contemporary version of Shakespeare's 'As You Like It'. The K-1 and 150-450mm @ 330mm.



Tas

[stihlmania]

High ISO shot with K-3II.....

[Ducatigaz]

A couple of Kestrel shots K-3ii/FA*600mmF4ED[IF] handheld

[str8talk83]

I'm a Sony mirrorless shooter who migrated from Canon several years ago. When I shot Canon I used to have a 40D, then 7D and I used the 100-400 (old version). After switching to Sony I was using the adapted 70-400 A mount lens for a while. That lens was excellent, but I didn't want to mess around with adapters and sold the lens and adapter.

I've been itching to get back into shooting wildlife and am exploring systems, lenses etc. I tend to be brand agnostic, so I'm open to about anything. I've always thought the DA 300 looked like a great lens. On a K3 it would probably make a nice combo for wildlife shooting due to the light weight, especially since I like to shoot from a kayak. The K1 is also very fairly priced for what it is. I was also wondering how the DFA 150-450 has been in real world use? Would you prefer that lens on the K1 or the DA 300 on a K3 for similar "reach" ?

thanks for your time and I've enjoyed checking out the photos!

[zzeitg]

WOW that lens is superb.

Of course any lens is subject to the ability of the eye behind the eyepiece, and this series is a fine example of what a fine eye can do with a fine lens.

+1 (at least) on those comments. Enviable work, but I've seen very few images from zzeitg that were less than excellent

Same here. Utterly superb

Great shots! You really demonstrate what this lens is capable of! Congratulations.

Which camera have you used with the DA 560?

OK! I just saw it was the K-3 on your Flickr pages...

Thanks, guys. I really appreciate your kind words!


(Yes, I'm using K-3 in combo with DA560. Since I bought this lens, these two haven't parted.)

[WPRESTO]

I'm a Sony mirrorless shooter who migrated from Canon several years ago. When I shot Canon I used to have a 40D, then 7D and I used the 100-400 (old version). After switching to Sony I was using the adapted 70-400 A mount lens for a while. That lens was excellent, but I didn't want to mess around with adapters and sold the lens and adapter.

I've been itching to get back into shooting wildlife and am exploring systems, lenses etc. I tend to be brand agnostic, so I'm open to about anything. I've always thought the DA 300 looked like a great lens. On a K3 it would probably make a nice combo for wildlife shooting due to the light weight, especially since I like to shoot from a kayak. The K1 is also very fairly priced for what it is. I was also wondering how the DFA 150-450 has been in real world use? Would you prefer that lens on the K1 or the DA 300 on a K3 for similar "reach" ?

thanks for your time and I've enjoyed checking out the photos!

The 140~450mm is HEAVY. about twice the weight of a 300 f4. The latter plus the 1.4X TC will give nearly identical IQ, nearly identical reach, same f-stop at the long end at considerably less cost and weight. If you like the idea of a K1, just put it in crop mode when the TC is being used. If you want to go light weight, consider a Panasonic GX8 + Pana/Leica 100~400mm, or for almost double the money, a Pana/Leica 200mm f2.8 with its matched 1.4X TC which will give you the FF equivalent of a 400mm f2.8 plus a 560mm f4 that is still smaller & lighter than the 150~450mm

[str8talk83]

The 140~450mm is HEAVY. about twice the weight of a 300 f4. The latter plus the 1.4X TC will give nearly identical IQ, nearly identical reach, same f-stop at the long end at considerably less cost and weight. If you like the idea of a K1, just put it in crop mode when the TC is being used. If you want to go light weight, consider a Panasonic GX8 + Pana/Leica 100~400mm, or for almost double the money, a Pana/Leica 200mm f2.8 with its matched 1.4X TC which will give you the FF equivalent of a 400mm f2.8 plus a 560mm f4 that is still smaller & lighter than the 150~450mm

Thanks for reviewing the options. I’ve never been a fan of smaller than aps-c. I’m leaning towards the DA 300 with K3 ii.

[WPRESTO]

I will repost test images taken more that a year ago without giving all the details. Basically, shot downstairs, K3, ISO 200, f8, standard USAF test sheet, manual exposure, output from single flash output adjusted to correct exposure, manual focus using focus peaking, best of several shots selected, some adjustment to exposure done in PP but no sharpening. Distance lens to target about 20 feet.
1) 150~450mm @ 450mm
2) crop of central target from preceding image file
3) DA 300mm + 1.4X TC (= 420mm)
4) crop of central target from preceding image file.

Judge for yourself whether the 150~450mm or the 300mm + 1,4X TC provides better IQ. I think it's a tossup.

[str8talk83]

I will repost test images taken more that a year ago without giving all the details. Basically, shot downstairs, K3, ISO 200, f8, standard USAF test sheet, manual exposure, output from single flash output adjusted to correct exposure, manual focus using focus peaking, best of several shots selected, some adjustment to exposure done in PP but no sharpening. Distance lens to target about 20 feet.
1) 150~450mm @ 450mm
2) crop of central target from preceding image file
3) DA 300mm + 1.4X TC (= 420mm)
4) crop of central target from preceding image file.

Judge for yourself whether the 150~450mm or the 300mm + 1,4X TC provides better IQ. I think it's a tossup.

Thanks for sharing. I agree with your assessment. They are probably very similar in real world image quality. Have you ever done any bokeh comparisons? I find that the TC usually degrades a lens in this area. Zoom lenses tend to be inferior to primes (in my experience) so they might tie in this regard as well...

[normhead]

Thanks for sharing. I agree with your assessment. They are probably very similar in real world image quality. Have you ever done any bokeh comparisons? I find that the TC usually degrades a lens in this area. Zoom lenses tend to be inferior to primes (in my experience) so they might tie in this regard as well...

Those aren't the kinds of generalizations I'd live by. Not in Pentax land anyway. You need to evaluate the lenses you might want. I originally bought the DA*60-250 because it was as far as I could tell better or equal to both the DA*300 and the DA*200 and used with my HD DA 1.4 TC (sometimes) it has been used for a good number of my wildlife images.

As for the bokeh, a TC puts your wide open Aperture down a stop so the 300 ƒ4 is now the 420 ƒ5.6. Any difference in bokeh is probably a product of shooting wide open at a lower f-stop. The comparison one could make would be with the DA*200 2.8 with the 1.4 TC compared to the DA*300 both at ƒ4.

DA*200 and HD DA 1.4 TC wide open (ƒ4).


Unfortunately, I don't have a DA*300 so I can't really help too much.

[WPRESTO]

Thanks for sharing. I agree with your assessment. They are probably very similar in real world image quality. Have you ever done any bokeh comparisons? I find that the TC usually degrades a lens in this area. Zoom lenses tend to be inferior to primes (in my experience) so they might tie in this regard as well...

No I have not done bokeh comparisons, and I cannot do that now because the 1.4X TC has gone on to another Pentaxian as I rarely used it. The difference between 300 +TC and simply cropping a straight 300mm image is also relatively insignificant. As I've observed several times, the TC was originally intended to crop at exposure or provide extra FL in the film era when most wildlife photographers were using chrome film and it was extremely difficult to crop at all. And also, no TC can improve the IQ of the lens on which it is used. The best you can expect is an undetectable degradation. The very best 1.4X TC's accomplish this, SFAIK even the very best 2X TC's noticeably reduce IQ (one of the best = the old Pentax 2XL, I have one, and it served on a 400mm f4 Tamron, but there was some loss of IQ). Zooms generally don't have the IQ of a prime, so a prime + TC even with slight image degradation can match the IQ of a zoom at the same FL.