Best bang for the buck long 300mm tele for Q?

vonBaloney · 09-01-2015, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by barondla

Impressive moon image Piotrek K. You have the Q and 300 producing to the max. Did you have any trouble getting the Q to do 5 exposures quickly enough for stacking? Were you using a clock drive or can Registax combine multiple exposures when the subject has shifted in each shot?

That's the "regi" part of the Registax name I'm guessing -- registration. In any case, yes it aligns all the images. It can take a snippet of crappy video of the night sky and turn it into a great looking still by combining 100s of frames. (Which is how I think it is usually used instead of with full-size DSLR images -- it always seems to crash if I try to use it to stack "normal" images.)

Piotrek K · 09-01-2015, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by barondla

Impressive moon image Piotrek K. You have the Q and 300 producing to the max. Did you have any trouble getting the Q to do 5 exposures quickly enough for stacking? Were you using a clock drive or can Registax combine multiple exposures when the subject has shifted in each shot?

Thanks! I used 2 seconds interval for several moon shots (up to 10 frames, but I discard the first ones ffrom dach series). And yes for a moon shots there is no problem for Registax to combine them. But I do not tried this with the objects filling the frame more then the big moon seen on the black sky.

klaus123 · 09-02-2015, 11:12 PM

In my view the DA55-300 is not too bad.

I had the K300/4 (not on Q), but sold it because of the massive CAs.

Here is a DA55-300 Examplew taken with a Q10

**pacerr** · 09-03-2015, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by raider

. . . I don't think the Tamron 70-200 has an aperture ring . . .

No, but the optical equivalent is available in its previous form as the Adaptall SP 80-200/2.8 (30A) which does have an aperture ring. Mine works very well with either the Adaptall - Q or the PK - Q adapters. The smaller 19A may be an even better fit for the Q's but I no longer have one to try.

CheepShot · 09-15-2015, 04:43 AM

I'll also toss in a recommendation for a Sigma 300mm f4 prime in any mount. Reasonably sharp wide open but extremely sharp at 5.6 and up.

reh321 · 09-15-2015, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by CheepShot

I'll also toss in a recommendation for a Sigma 300mm f4 prime in any mount. Reasonably sharp wide open but extremely sharp at 5.6 and up.

Have you actually used this one on a Q? One of the things I've discovered is that resolving power is extremely important with the small Q-family sensors. "Sharp" on a Q partly depends on having a different piece of the image hit each of the tiny sensor cells.

CheepShot · 09-18-2015, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by reh321

Have you actually used this one on a Q? One of the things I've discovered is that resolving power is extremely important with the small Q-family sensors. "Sharp" on a Q partly depends on having a different piece of the image hit each of the tiny sensor cells.

I had one in a Nikon mount, the Sigma 300 F4 primes are exceptionally sharp and would be a great match for the Q at a fraction of the cost of the 300mm DA*. My copy had pinpoint focus, much better than the 70-300mm VR I had.

There's one for sale in the marketplace, the seller also is selling a Q. He may have tried it.

Last edited by CheepShot; 09-18-2015 at 02:53 PM.

pleo · 09-29-2015, 03:58 AM

as for 300mm I prefer my Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro.
Better than
Sigma AF 4/100-300
Sigma AF 70-300 APO
Tamron AF 70-300 Di

But:
Haven't tried it on my Q/Q7 but only on my Pentax dslr.

Problem with focal lengths like this is: handling!
Therefore I prefer to reduce to my Pentax M 3.5/135 which is a really good lens for the Q.
BTW: I preferred it over the K 2.5/135 (different colour & contrast, heavier and therefore handling problems too) which doesn't outperform the 3.5 on the Q.

reh321 · 09-30-2015, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by pleo

as for 300mm I prefer my Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro.
Better than
Sigma AF 4/100-300
Sigma AF 70-300 APO
Tamron AF 70-300 Di

Yes, I would expect a prime lens to work better than a zoom lens at its extreme,
which is why I'm looking for an older prime to use with my Q because I use my zooms mostly at their 300mm extreme and I'd like to get better detail on those closely packed sensor pixels.

Originally posted by pleo

Problem with focal lengths like this is: handling!
Therefore I prefer to reduce to my Pentax M 3.5/135 which is a really good lens for the Q.
BTW: I preferred it over the K 2.5/135 (different colour & contrast, heavier and therefore handling problems too) which doesn't outperform the 3.5 on the Q.

That is fine if 135 is long enough, but even 200 hasn't been long enough for most of the birding I do.

pleo · 10-05-2015, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by reh321

....

That is fine if 135 is long enough, but even 200 hasn't been long enough for most of the birding I do.

200 mm x 5.5-crop-factor = 1100 mm lens on full frame (or film) slr is not enough?!?

reh321 · 10-05-2015, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by pleo

200 mm x 5.5-crop-factor = 1100 mm lens on full frame (or film) slr is not enough?!?

I have a Q-7, which is a 4.7X crop-factor.

I have moved our bird-feeder several times.
I'm not quite sure where it will be this coming winter, but probably a little farther than it was last winter.
This is the kind of picture I take in our backyard.

The ultimate goal is taking pictures of warblers in the wild ... and they are both small and skittish (so I can't get nearly this close to them)

reh321 · 11-24-2015, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by pacerr

Consider a Tamron Adaptall SP 350mm mirror lens. Size and weight fits the Q's 'personality' and there's no CA. And also consider that LOTS of practice will be a big part of the price you pay for really good extreme telephoto images with ANY gear.

Has anyone here actually used a 300mm mirror lens with a Q?
They have the advantage of no CA and are much lighter than standard lenses.

The ultimate issue for any adopted lens, though, is how it resolves, does it resolve down to the tiny pixels on a Q's sensor, and you need to actually take some pictures to have much information on that.

**pacerr** · 11-25-2015, 09:07 AM - **1 Like**

Here's the Tamron/Adaptall SP 500/f8 on the Q. The 350/5.6 should be even better and more useful. There's also an Adaptall to Q adapter rather than the PK-AD + P-Q set-up. Results on the Q7 are even better.

danmdan · 12-01-2015, 10:46 AM

I use a 300mm Vivitar f/5.6 lens on my Q7, with good results. Tried it out today, but weather dull and with little sunlight.

Here are 2 shots using an ISO of 6400 to get a high enough shutter speed at F/8 ---

Phenix jc · 01-03-2016, 12:11 PM - **1 Like**

Hi,
Here's a Quick & Dirty test of 3 300mm :

Nikon 300mm 4.5 AI (not Ais)

Nikon 300mm 4.5 IFED

Tamron 60-300 3.8-5.4 23A

Camera : Q7, so 1380mm 24x36 here
higher speed 1/500e, lower speed 1/50e
Distance : 50m ?
Handheld on a Bean bag with IS (SR) on
Model : Michel.

Caution :
1/ It's made Q&D
2/ Samples may vary

Let's go,

First the scene full frame with each lens, sharpening for web images applied :

And now 100% crops :
zero pp, OOC JPEG.

AI

IFED :

23A

09-02-2015, 11:12 PM	#48
klaus123 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Germany Posts: 238	In my view the DA55-300 is not too bad. I had the K300/4 (not on Q), but sold it because of the massive CAs. Here is a DA55-300 Examplew taken with a Q10 Last edited by klaus123; 09-04-2015 at 02:32 PM.

10-05-2015, 08:32 AM	#56
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by pleo 200 mm x 5.5-crop-factor = 1100 mm lens on full frame (or film) slr is not enough?!? I have a Q-7, which is a 4.7X crop-factor. I have moved our bird-feeder several times. I'm not quite sure where it will be this coming winter, but probably a little farther than it was last winter. This is the kind of picture I take in our backyard. The ultimate goal is taking pictures of warblers in the wild ... and they are both small and skittish (so I can't get nearly this close to them) Last edited by reh321; 10-05-2015 at 09:01 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wide angle best bang for the buck?	ismaelg	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	04-04-2015 01:09 AM
Best bang for the buck in telephoto lenses?	pentaxmz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	08-13-2014 07:04 AM
Best bang for my buck 35mm film processing?	Lacrosse321	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	7	04-26-2012 09:25 AM
Long & Fast , Best Bang for the Buck?	seacapt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	10-21-2009 03:52 PM
Best "bang-for-the-buck" flash?	lastdodobird	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	24	02-13-2009 11:32 AM

09-01-2015, 08:35 AM	#46
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by barondla Impressive moon image Piotrek K. You have the Q and 300 producing to the max. Did you have any trouble getting the Q to do 5 exposures quickly enough for stacking? Were you using a clock drive or can Registax combine multiple exposures when the subject has shifted in each shot? That's the "regi" part of the Registax name I'm guessing -- registration. In any case, yes it aligns all the images. It can take a snippet of crappy video of the night sky and turn it into a great looking still by combining 100s of frames. (Which is how I think it is usually used instead of with full-size DSLR images -- it always seems to crash if I try to use it to stack "normal" images.)

09-01-2015, 08:54 AM	#47
Piotrek K Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,384	Originally posted by barondla Impressive moon image Piotrek K. You have the Q and 300 producing to the max. Did you have any trouble getting the Q to do 5 exposures quickly enough for stacking? Were you using a clock drive or can Registax combine multiple exposures when the subject has shifted in each shot? Thanks! I used 2 seconds interval for several moon shots (up to 10 frames, but I discard the first ones ffrom dach series). And yes for a moon shots there is no problem for Registax to combine them. But I do not tried this with the objects filling the frame more then the big moon seen on the black sky.

09-03-2015, 08:45 AM	#49
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	Originally posted by raider . . . I don't think the Tamron 70-200 has an aperture ring . . . No, but the optical equivalent is available in its previous form as the Adaptall SP 80-200/2.8 (30A) which does have an aperture ring. Mine works very well with either the Adaptall - Q or the PK - Q adapters. The smaller 19A may be an even better fit for the Q's but I no longer have one to try.

09-15-2015, 04:43 AM	#50
CheepShot Forum Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 95	I'll also toss in a recommendation for a Sigma 300mm f4 prime in any mount. Reasonably sharp wide open but extremely sharp at 5.6 and up.

09-15-2015, 02:37 PM	#51
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by CheepShot I'll also toss in a recommendation for a Sigma 300mm f4 prime in any mount. Reasonably sharp wide open but extremely sharp at 5.6 and up. Have you actually used this one on a Q? One of the things I've discovered is that resolving power is extremely important with the small Q-family sensors. "Sharp" on a Q partly depends on having a different piece of the image hit each of the tiny sensor cells.

09-18-2015, 02:44 PM	#52
CheepShot Forum Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 95	Originally posted by reh321 Have you actually used this one on a Q? One of the things I've discovered is that resolving power is extremely important with the small Q-family sensors. "Sharp" on a Q partly depends on having a different piece of the image hit each of the tiny sensor cells. I had one in a Nikon mount, the Sigma 300 F4 primes are exceptionally sharp and would be a great match for the Q at a fraction of the cost of the 300mm DA. My copy had pinpoint focus, much better than the 70-300mm VR I had. There's one for sale in the marketplace, the seller also is selling a Q. He may have tried it. Last edited by CheepShot; 09-18-2015 at 02:53 PM.*

09-29-2015, 03:58 AM	#53
pleo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Hamburg Posts: 116	as for 300mm I prefer my Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro. Better than Sigma AF 4/100-300 Sigma AF 70-300 APO Tamron AF 70-300 Di But: Haven't tried it on my Q/Q7 but only on my Pentax dslr. Problem with focal lengths like this is: handling! Therefore I prefer to reduce to my Pentax M 3.5/135 which is a really good lens for the Q. BTW: I preferred it over the K 2.5/135 (different colour & contrast, heavier and therefore handling problems too) which doesn't outperform the 3.5 on the Q.

09-30-2015, 07:16 AM	#54
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by pleo as for 300mm I prefer my Tamron SP 5.6/300 macro. Better than Sigma AF 4/100-300 Sigma AF 70-300 APO Tamron AF 70-300 Di Yes, I would expect a prime lens to work better than a zoom lens at its extreme, which is why I'm looking for an older prime to use with my Q because I use my zooms mostly at their 300mm extreme and I'd like to get better detail on those closely packed sensor pixels. Originally posted by pleo Problem with focal lengths like this is: handling! Therefore I prefer to reduce to my Pentax M 3.5/135 which is a really good lens for the Q. BTW: I preferred it over the K 2.5/135 (different colour & contrast, heavier and therefore handling problems too) which doesn't outperform the 3.5 on the Q. That is fine if 135 is long enough, but even 200 hasn't been long enough for most of the birding I do.

10-05-2015, 12:33 AM	#55
pleo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Hamburg Posts: 116	Originally posted by reh321 .... That is fine if 135 is long enough, but even 200 hasn't been long enough for most of the birding I do. 200 mm x 5.5-crop-factor = 1100 mm lens on full frame (or film) slr is not enough?!?

11-24-2015, 02:41 PM	#57
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by pacerr Consider a Tamron Adaptall SP 350mm mirror lens. Size and weight fits the Q's 'personality' and there's no CA. And also consider that LOTS of practice will be a big part of the price you pay for really good extreme telephoto images with ANY gear. Has anyone here actually used a 300mm mirror lens with a Q? They have the advantage of no CA and are much lighter than standard lenses. The ultimate issue for any adopted lens, though, is how it resolves, does it resolve down to the tiny pixels on a Q's sensor, and you need to actually take some pictures to have much information on that.

11-25-2015, 09:07 AM - 1 Like	#58
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	Here's the Tamron/Adaptall SP 500/f8 on the Q. The 350/5.6 should be even better and more useful. There's also an Adaptall to Q adapter rather than the PK-AD + P-Q set-up. Results on the Q7 are even better.

01-03-2016, 12:11 PM - 1 Like	#60
Phenix jc Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 105	Hi, Here's a Quick & Dirty test of 3 300mm : Nikon 300mm 4.5 AI (not Ais) Nikon 300mm 4.5 IFED Tamron 60-300 3.8-5.4 23A Camera : Q7, so 1380mm 24x36 here higher speed 1/500e, lower speed 1/50e Distance : 50m ? Handheld on a Bean bag with IS (SR) on Model : Michel. Caution : 1/ It's made Q&D 2/ Samples may vary Let's go, First the scene full frame with each lens, sharpening for web images applied : And now 100% crops : zero pp, OOC JPEG. AI IFED : 23A