[baro-nite]

Maybe I am off in my thinking or math, but....the DA*300 on the K-5 is a 420mm equivalent FL. The M 150 on the Q is a 825mm equivalent.

Well, you're a little off, in that the K-5 crop is more like 1.5. But the crop isn't really the important factor, it's the pixel density. The Q has roughly 3x the pixel density (linear) of the K-5. So, yes, a 150 on the Q is 50% more pixels (again, linear) than the 300 on the K-5, but that's a poor tradeoff against extra noise, smaller DR, touchier focusing, more CA, and, since we're talking about bird photography, no AF and generally slower handling. Unless you want to shoot video. And sorry, I should have said FA*300 in your case.

I don't know that the 135 or 150 will have a particularly long focus throw. I've never used either, but in my experience it is only macro and manual super-tele lenses that have an extra-long throw.

[robtcorl]

Some folks like the wide stuff, some like the long stuff.
I'm strictly a hobby shooter, and like the long stuff.

For me the jury is still out about a heavy crop of my DA 55/300mm compared to an adapted lens on the Q.
I do know that I'm loving the reach, even if IQ is not quite up to snuff, with an adapted lens on the Q.

Wish I could afford some fast long glass for my K-5, but I can't at this time.
So I'll keep on comparing.

PS: A rough check of my M 135/3.5 shows that the end to end throw is about 190/195 degrees.
As a retired land surveyor that's a pretty good guess, I think.

[drougge]

I don't know that the 135 or 150 will have a particularly long focus throw. I've never used either, but in my experience it is only macro and manual super-tele lenses that have an extra-long throw.

Macros have longer total throw, but not usually longer throw per focus change. At least in my experience. (My A100/4 macro has much touchier focus than my M100/2.8 non-macro when used as a tele, even though the total focus throw is longer.)

[baro-nite]

Macros have longer total throw, but not usually longer throw per focus change

Good point!

[MegaPower]

Q + A*300/4
I think all are f8







Q + vivitar 3x + A*300/4
F8 on the lens, the result is pretty good to me.
This vivitar 3x is sure better than some cheap 2x that I had.

I cannot stop the bird from moving its month and the light does not allow me to shoot a faster shutter.

[MegaPower]

Above set up

The set up:
Q + vivitar 3x + A* 300/4



The "orange dot" shows you the size of the second bird.

[hnikesch]

Great results, nice looking setup. That 300 is on my list of lenses to try to get

Hans

[crewl1]

Great shots TFS the setup pics, MegaPower.
Ha! I have one of those white tripod rings with the canon logo. I spray painted it black

[hnikesch]

I shot the same bird with the Kr and DAL 55-300 @ 300 and from the same spot the Q with DAL 55-300 @300 and cropped the Kr image to the same FOV of the Q and was impressed. Both hand held with the same lighting. Same PP, slight sharpening and slight addition of contrast for all images. Both were shot @ f8. Center image was shot with Q.


Hans

Based on Larry's comments I found a shot from the Kr that was shot from closer to the bird but without the motion blur (the bottom 2) Not quite as dramatic I still believe the Q turned out better. Bottom shot full frame one above cropped to about the Q view

[robtcorl]

I shot the same bird with the Kr and DAL 55-300 @ 300 and from the same spot the Q with DAL 55-300 @300 and cropped the Kr image to the same FOV of the Q and was impressed. Both hand held with the same lighting. Same PP, slight sharpening and slight addition of contrast for all images. Both were shot @ f8. Bottom image was shot with Q.
Hans

Very impressive results from the Q!
I love this type of comparison.
Since getting the Q, I've hardly picked up my K-01, and not sure where my K-5 even is.

Plenty of PF around this critter, but I still like the shot.
Handheld, un-cropped, with a M135/3.5, and 640 ISO.

[crewl1]

Kr vs Q I shot the same bird with the Kr and DAL 55-300 @ 300 and from the same spot the Q with DAL 55-300 @300 and cropped the Kr image to the same FOV of the Q and was impressed. Both hand held with the same lighting. Same PP, slight sharpening and slight addition of contrast for all images. Both were shot @ f8. Bottom image was shot with Q. Hans

Impressive Hans. There appears a bit of motion blur on the K-r shot, bot the contrast and sharpness of the Q shot is really good.

[crewl1]

Very impressive results from the Q!
I love this type of comparison.
Since getting the Q, I've hardly picked up my K-01, and not sure where my K-5 even is.

Plenty of PF around this critter, but I still like the shot.
Handheld, un-cropped, with a M135/3.5, and 640 ISO.

Great shots, A little PP should clean that grape juice right off that squirrel

[hnikesch]

A few days later and the lighting is no better than last time, extreme back lighting on a fuzzy body, again monopod with DAL 55-300 f8, last shot with DAL 55-300 on Kr This time I shot in raw and tried to compensate for the poor lighting but still couldn't get the shadows sharp.

Hans

[crewl1]

Last edited by hnikesch; Today at 08:58 AM. Reason: added shot without the motion blur

Agreed the Q still is ahead. Nice job.

The owls are amazing, too bad the light isn't helping. You are getting nice bokeh from the K-r combo

[stormtech]

No images to post yet - but received my M 135 3.5 today which I bought especially for the Q. I got very lucky with this ebay buy - lens is just like new and even came with its original hard case which was not listed in the auction. My original thoughts were correct in that the nice small size of the lens is nice and easy to hand hold even for me. And the beautiful smooth dampened long focus throw is sweet. This will be my 825mm gun to get those ducks in the middle of the river.