[Kunzite]

He is right - the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 is not a PLM lens; it has a ring-type SDM motor.

KAF3 means in-lens focus motor (only).
KAF4 means electronic aperture control.

[normhead]

KAF4 means electronic aperture control.

It's about time, that aperture never sticking out of the back can be a real pain during lens changes.

[reh321]

The D FA* 50mm f/1.4 is a KAF4 lens.

So someone with aperture control block issues on his K-50 would have several choices if he doesn't want to fix it himself

(1) send it to the guy in Calif who fixes them for $100

(2) purchase DA 55-300 PLM lens + FDA* 50mm lens

I wonder which solution would cost less?

[Larrymc]

So someone with aperture control block issues on his K-50 would have several choices if he doesn't want to fix it himself

(1) send it to the guy in Calif who fixes them for $100

(2) purchase DA 55-300 PLM lens + FDA* 50mm lens

I wonder which solution would cost less?

Probably not a lot of difference in price my DA 55-300 PLM cost me $366 from B&H not long ago. The DFA * 50 might set you back a bit.

BTW, who is the guy who fixes aperture block failure K-50s for $100?

Larry

[normhead]

Today on the deck. I am really enjoying the option to chase butterflies with a lens without a 2 pound lens on a 2 pound camera.
K-3 and DA* 55-300.

I had the camera set to TAV 1/1600s and ƒ8. One at 1600 ISO, one at 3200 ISO, one at 6400 ISO. I'm impressed.

[LensBeginner]

Today on the deck. I am really enjoying the option to chase butterflies with a lens without a 2 pound lens on a 2 pound camera.
K-3 and DA* 55-300.

I had the camera set to TAV 1/1600s and ƒ8. One at 1600 ISO, one at 3200 ISO, one at 6400 ISO. I'm impressed.

Very nice pictures.
Do you have any idea what's that? Looks similar to an Iphiclides, but the orange spots are different, and that genus should be endemic to Europe (and at most the northern part of Africa).

[swanlefitte]

Someone swallowed a tail. Really like the last one with the color pallet.

[LensBeginner]

Ok, Papilio glaucus, probably a female

Someone swallowed a tail. Really like the last one with the color pallet.

Quite literally, haha!

[normhead]

Ok, Papilio glaucus, probably a female


Quite literally, haha!

I have trouble enough keeping up with what birds are called, with insects, I don't even try.

[LensBeginner]

I have trouble enough keeping up with what birds are called, with insects, I don't even try.

I've developed a small passion for entomology, but all started because of macro photography
It's familiarly called "eastern tiger swallowtail" - it's worth noting that "swallowtail" per se means very little... there's a lot of different families carrying that name.

It took me a while because I'm naturally more into European butterflies than North American's, since I see only the former.

[reh321]

Today on the deck. I am really enjoying the option to chase butterflies with a lens without a 2 pound lens on a 2 pound camera.
K-3 and DA* 55-300.

I had the camera set to TAV 1/1600s and ƒ8. One at 1600 ISO, one at 3200 ISO, one at 6400 ISO. I'm impressed.

Which two pound lens are you thinking of?

BTW - One of the advantages of more recent cameras is our willingness to make better use of TAv.

[normhead]

Which two pound lens are you thinking of?

BTW - One of the advantages of more recent cameras is our willingness to make better use of TAv.

My DA* 60-260 is about 2, my Tamron 300 2.8 is about 6 pounds. My DA* 200 is only 1.5 but a little heavier with TC on it to give me a comparable focal length.

I was in varying light conditions. The first was 1600 ISO, I thought "I can live with that." I had no idea I'd be shooting at 6400 ISO. So, I'm not sure I was willing, tricked by light conditions would be more like it.

But all is well that ends well.

[Des]

My DA* 60-260 is about 2, my Tamron 300 2.8 is about 6 pounds. My DA* 200 is only 1.5 but a little heavier with TC on it to give me a comparable focal length.

I was in varying light conditions. The first was 1600 ISO, I thought "I can live with that." I had no idea I'd be shooting at 6400 ISO. So, I'm not sure I was willing, tricked by light conditions would be more like it.

But all is well that ends well.

I've sometimes got a good shot at ISO 3200 on the K-3, but usually it's pretty ordinary. Maybe the difference is the light. In good-ish light 3200 is OK, allowing for narrower apertures and/or faster shutter speeds. But in poor light it seems better to drop the shutter speed and keep the ISO to 1600 or less. Is that your experience Norm?

This is an area where I'd be hoping for big improvements in the next APS-C flagship. Seems the K-P is already well on the way. High-ISO capability seems very important for APS-C because users want relatively compact, light-weight lens like the 55-300 PLM. With a max aperture of f6.3 at the long end, and typically wanting fasting shutter speeds for wildlife, better high ISO performance matters.

[Larrymc]

Today on the deck. I am really enjoying the option to chase butterflies with a lens without a 2 pound lens on a 2 pound camera.
K-3 and DA* 55-300.

I had the camera set to TAV 1/1600s and ƒ8. One at 1600 ISO, one at 3200 ISO, one at 6400 ISO. I'm impressed.

Beautiful shots of that Eastern Swallow Tail, Norm!!

[BirdDude007]

Just got my K3 replacement (it was stolen when someone broke into my house, got a killer deal on this one with only 257 clicks on it) I put this lens on it and the autofocus just outright amazes me, I set it to AFC and as I move it around the room near and far, I barely even see it focus, and don't even hear any noise whatsoever. Will be posting pics soon. This lens performs killer, finally Pentax is looking like they are catching up to the big boys on focus speed