Originally posted by tmlawes Sorry, but when mounted on the K3-III, your description of the IQ, vignetting, and focus speed for the DFA150-450mm and 1.4X teleconverter compared to a cheap 150-600 is just wrong. However, if Pentax provided a lens with 600mm of reach without the teleconverter, I would be very interested in that lens.
Well I have the K3 (first of the name), 150-450 and DA x1.4. The quality I get with this setup is I think similar to the picture you posted, but I'm unable to evaluate the IQ on a 900*720 picture. My results were not, in my opinion, worth a 2500€ lens, so I after a few weeks of trying it and being disappointed, I removed the TC and never used it again. Same on my DA* 300. The IQ loss is extremely close than when cropping, but when cropping you do not slow down your AF, you still have a F/5.6 lens, you don't carry the (small) extra weight, and you spare 400$ (well in my case I didn't since I didn't succeed to sell it, but you get the point ^^).
I uploaded 4 full res samples
here, comparing 2 shots taken using the K5 + DA* 300 + TC vs 2 shots taken using the K3 + 150-450. I selected shots very representative of the IQ I get with both combos. To compensate the sensor resolution advantage of the 150-450 (mounted on the K3) I selected shots where the lightning conditions were unfavorable for the zoom (I don't think I've ever used the TC on the K3, nor the 150-450 on the K5).
I think the comparisons are fair, yet in both cases the 150-450 is way ahead the 300 + TC. And the 300 being very slightly sharper, and much faster (f/4 vs 5.6), than the 150-450, comparing the 150-450 vs itself + the TC is much worse (I didn't find a shot using this combo in my photos, I don't think I ever kept a single one).
If you are happy with the results you get, all good. I wasn't with my TC. Maybe your copy is better than mine. Anyway I've now switched to the K1, so the TC is no longer an option. If Pentax releases a FF TC, I don't think I'll be in the game unless I can rent it for long enough. But I don't expect to be happy with an f/8 lens anyway.
Originally posted by reh321 I took that picture at a state-run 'wildlife refuge' where people go every Spring and Fall to see migrating cranes.
The first time we went, in 1992, the Whooping Cranes were a novelty. They were on the edge of extinction, so Feds had placed Whooping Crane eggs in the nests of Sandhill Cranes.
The dumb birds raised all the young the same, and over time a new flock of Whooping Cranes was formed.
Now, neither species is exactly special, but both state and federal governments still watch over them all.
I guess I should have also recorded the signage. By order of the state government, this observation post - a mile walk from the parking lot - is as close as we are allowed to come to them.
Going any closer would be in violation of both state and federal statute, so you can be certain that none of us was going any further, and at my age, I wouldn't want to lug a heavier kit.
In this case, there's not much more to do than what you did
I added in the zip above a photo taken ages ago using my K10d + Sigma 70-300. Both your KP and 55-300 are much better, so that's at least the IQ you can get without spending a penny, just by getting close enough.
Originally posted by Rondec I think the point is that people who do a lot of wildlife photography want longer lenses -- ones that go to 600mm, if possible. Putting teleconverters on lenses that are f6.3 (the DA 55-300 PLM) or f5.6 (150-450) produces serious limitations with regard to the quality of the photos. You are just going to end up pushing you iso up pretty high and having softening due to the optics being pushed too hard. Teleconverters work better with high quality lenses with faster apertures.
+1. There's no long f/2.8 lens in the current lineup that would, maybe, be well suited for TC use, and the current TC is not usable on the K1s.