[timautin]

I'm also using a K5, maybe it is better on a K3, I don't know, but the loss in IQ is just to important IMHO. I may have an opportunity to try a K3 this month, so I'll see.
Also, I bought the TC as soon as it was release, maybe the new ones have received some adjustments ?

Still, I'm looking forward the 150-450, if the IQ is better than the 300 + TC and near the 300 alone (or equal or better ), I will probably get one.

[jpzk]

I'm also using a K5, maybe it is better on a K3, I don't know, but the loss in IQ is just to important IMHO. I may have an opportunity to try a K3 this month, so I'll see.
Also, I bought the TC as soon as it was release, maybe the new ones have received some adjustments ?

Still, I'm looking forward the 150-450, if the IQ is better than the 300 + TC and near the 300 alone (or equal or better ), I will probably get one.

I too got this TC soon after it was released and immediately mounted on the K5/DA*300.

As you said .... "if the IQ is better than the 300 + TC and near the 300 alone ..." that will be my next big purchase .... for a long while !

[Nicolas06]

Sigma is an obvious one and others are not so should I use my money to support to Sigma just because other companies do or might do the the same...no. By all means, keep buying Sigma but I'll pass. Easy pass too, just as easy as giving the boot to Facebook about ten years ago :-)

This is just for me this time this is Pentax (or Nikon or Canon) that are not ethical with their walled garden, not sigma or tamron that try to provide lenses for many mounts.

So if I wanted to avoid a brand for their non legitimate behavior, that would be most camera maker... But not lenses makers.

Pentax mount mechanism is a bit like when you computer only accept DELL memory because it DELL while all other computer conform to the standard or if a car maker was starting to make tire and would make the wheel non standard so you could not replace the tire with alternative brand (even throug they might have supperior offering).

If all classical 35mm FF mount where compatible (like it was before) we could use the best lense design available for each focal length. Pentax as a lens maker would be able to sell small limited to Canon and Nikon camera users, while Pentax camera user would be able to benefit of the wider echosystem. (There no 600mm lense available new for example). Nobody wanting silent lense would have to wait years until pentax fix SDM or finish to made new DC lenses.

Purely and anti concurrential behavior doesn't look that ethical in my book. Trying to make thing that work for everybody looks better.

[normhead]

This is just for me this time this is Pentax (or Nikon or Canon) that are not ethical with their walled garden, not sigma or tamron that try to provide lenses for many mounts.

So if I wanted to avoid a brand for their non legitimate behavior, that would be most camera maker... But not lenses makers.

Pentax mount mechanism is a bit like when you computer only accept DELL memory because it DELL while all other computer conform to the standard or if a car maker was starting to make tire and would make the wheel non standard so you could not replace the tire with alternative brand (even throug they might have supperior offering).

If all classical 35mm FF mount where compatible (like it was before) we could use the best lense design available for each focal length. Pentax as a lens maker would be able to sell small limited to Canon and Nikon camera users, while Pentax camera user would be able to benefit of the wider echosystem. (There no 600mm lense available new for example). Nobody wanting silent lense would have to wait years until pentax fix SDM or finish to made new DC lenses.

Purely and anti concurrential behavior doesn't look that ethical in my book. Trying to make thing that work for everybody looks better.

Ya, and who decides what works better for everybody? .. that's always the issue.

I'm sure if everyone wanted to license K-mount, Pentax would be thrilled. Imagine a couple bucks made on every DSLR sold. The thing is everyone wants that couple of bucks for themselves, and for developing their mount, to work with the way they build their lenses.

[monochrome]

^^ Tamron tried this approach with the Adaptall mounts but they were a kludge.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with patenting your intellectual property. Consumers have the right NOT to purchase your product should they wish to not limit themselves to your constraints - that is sufficiently ethical. No other manufacturer should have the right to make a profit from corporate intellectual property independent of compensating the company (by licensing use of the intellectual property) for its use. Or perhaps all manufactureres should simply give their products to all consumers - what a nice, warm, fuzzy idea.

By your logic Super Multi Coating, patents for which Pentax purchased outright from Optical Coatings Laboratories Inc. (OCLI), based in California*, should have been made available to all lens manufacturers. It should be known that every lens maker except Leica licensed at least parts of the SMC process from Asahi - and Leica adopted the basic process once the original patent expired. I suspect Asahi survived for many many years on the royalties from SMC, which began to fall off in the late 90's. Coincidentally, that's about the time Asahi began to encounter financial contraction and eventual takeover attempts.

Sigma is, of course, free to create their own intellectual property by reverse engineering - subject to the risk of defending a patent-infringement suit (such as the $96,000,000 settlement Minolta paid to Honeywell referenced above).

In point of fact, I have read here and on PF that Pentax compatible lenses are too expensive for Sigma to release due to the mechanical aperture lever, not the AF electrical signals engineering.

* source - Asahi Optical Historical Club

[normhead]

^^ Tamron tried this approach with the Adaptall mounts but they were a kludge.

A number of times I actually removed the lens from the adapted mount, instead of removing the mount from the camera. I absolutely hated those things. Your hands are full, and you still can't put the lens you were changing to on the camera.

[Shanti]

I have posted, several times now, that I am not getting what others report in terms of IQ when using the DA*300/4 and the HD 1.4X TC.
This could well be my own fault: technique, settings, fine AF adjustment ... whatever.
Then again, I am still using my good old K5; could be a different game with the K3, I have no idea.
Some time ago, I was considering the Sigma 500/4.5 but the price took me back to reality.

I am so looking forward to this new 150-450 lens, hoping it will have the IQ of the 300/4 (wishful thinking?) without a TC, of course.

Edit: my bad .... my reply should be in "the other thread" !

maybe your DA300 needs to be adjusted by a service center? mine was off from new with focus & thought like you,but better after adjusted..using K5II
also for me closer subjects, say under 10m come out much better than distant/infinity ones,but am close to the ocean & probably no lens would be so good.

[Nicolas06]

Ya, and who decides what works better for everybody? .. that's always the issue.

I'm sure if everyone wanted to license K-mount, Pentax would be thrilled. Imagine a couple bucks made on every DSLR sold. The thing is everyone wants that couple of bucks for themselves, and for developing their mount, to work with the way they build their lenses.

There is no real standard widespread alternative so you can't vote with your wallet. if you want a DSLR, all come with their walled garden lens mount. The few standard are unfortunately not used enough to make a difference.

[jpzk]

maybe your DA300 needs to be adjusted by a service center? mine was off from new with focus & thought like you,but better after adjusted..using K5II
also for me closer subjects, say under 10m come out much better than distant/infinity ones,but am close to the ocean & probably no lens would be so good.

The way I see it is this: as long as my DA*300/4 performs great, I am happy.
Now, this TC sure bugs me but I have no intention to send all that gear away for "fine tuning".
I was expecting the HD 1.4X TC to perform beyond my expectations I suppose.

We shall see how this works out with the new 150-450 (without a TC) .... maybe I will put that TC up for sale.

JP

[harrisonww]

Yes

Ken do you have a link with any shots you have taken with the 70-200mm with your k3?

[normhead]

The way I see it is this: as long as my DA*300/4 performs great, I am happy.
Now, this TC sure bugs me but I have no intention to send all that gear away for "fine tuning".
I was expecting the HD 1.4X TC to perform beyond my expectations I suppose.

JP

Mine has.... but I have no experience with the DA*300 and 1.4 but I'm sure there are som pictures somewhere that looked pretty good.

[jpzk]

Mine has.... but I have no experience with the DA*300 and 1.4 but I'm sure there are som pictures somewhere that looked pretty good.

I saw several of your pics taken with this TC and, if I recall, the DA*60-250?
They are awesome and that is what is bugging me: why so good with your gear and not with mine ??

[audiobomber]

I saw several of your pics taken with this TC and, if I recall, the DA*60-250?
They are awesome and that is what is bugging me: why so good with your gear and not with mine ??

Several people have suggested that you post examples to show what you're seeing. Formal tests would be better. It's not hard. Get out your tripod and a target, shoot with and without the TC, post the images.

[kenspo]

Ken do you have a link with any shots you have taken with the 70-200mm with your k3?

I can put up some later. But i have only concert pictures. Will do some more portraits etc when i get the finished product soon.

[timautin]

A few samples of the DA* 300 vs DA* 300 + TC. Both taken on tripod, with shake reduction on (I should try again without it, on my latest tests I got better results with SR off, even without the TC).
You need to zoom a little bit on the pictures to really see the loss.

300 alone, damn sharp , and the weather was cloudy, so the light wasn't that good.
1/1600s f/5.6 ISO400 300mm



300 + TC, damn soft , despite the very nice light. I sometimes get better results, but this is the average IQ I get.
1/3200s f/7.1 ISO800 420mm



You also download a few other samples here : http://timphoto.free.fr/__autres/Pentax/TC_1.4/300_vs_420.zip