[konraDarnok]

A Canon 6D with a 300mm 2.8 lens is 8500 dollars new. A Pentax K5II with a 200mm 2.8 lens is 2200. That's quite a price spread for a change in the depth of field, but does anyone have any samples of the same subject matter to illustrate what you're buying for 6300 dollars?

[boriscleto]

Well, you do get a much bigger lens/camera combination and a chance to tell everyone you spent $8,500...

The difference in DOF @F2.8 @30 feet is 3 inches...

[DeadJohn]

The 6D should give you better autofocus on moving subjects and better high ISO performance (compared to the K5II's already excellent low noise at higher ISOs). The Canon option also provides intangible like better support in many countries, greater accessory availability, increased software options, etc.

Is this worth the extra price? Not for me.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well always a matter off taste and oppertunity I guess.

K-5 with DA*200mm/f2.8:
Settings: f3.2 | 1/500th | iso1250


Here is a bigger file.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20195454/_K5I1594HD.jpg
Already an older image, so I would make it a little different today in coloring.

I don't own the , but only used it for one weekend or so. It is a great lens.

[Tord]

The Pentax 300 is on my wife's wish list, as it is much sharper than her 55-300. I think the K-30 and the 300 is a superb combination, as the K-30 has a much better AF than the K-5 (don't know the K-5 II). I now mostly use Nikon, and then often my D600 that has a fast AF, but both that camera, and a Nikon 300 lens cost a lot! I think the K-30 plus the 300 wins hands down!

[Tord]

Well always a matter off taste and oppertunity I guess.

K-5 with DA*200mm/f2.8:
Settings: f3.2 | 1/500th | iso1250


Here is a bigger file.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20195454/_K5I1594HD.jpg
Already an older image, so I would make it a little different today in coloring.

I don't own the , but only used it for one weekend or so. It is a great lens.

Very nice shot, Ron! Olympics?!

[RonHendriks1966]

Very nice shot, Ron! Olympics?!

These are from our National team volleyball and they did not made the Olympics.

[pdo]

K5 II+ 200mm F2.8 vs D600 300mm F4.0 is more like it.

[konraDarnok]

K5 II+ 200mm F2.8 vs D600 300mm F4.0 is more like it.

Losing a full stop is going change your exposure or ISO. Less of an apples to apples comparison IMHO.

[RonHendriks1966]

Losing a full stop is going change your exposure or ISO. Less of an apples to apples comparison IMHO.

Not really, you also compensait for the IQ advatage that het FF has over aps-c.

[borno]

I have the older canon 300mm f2.8 and it is has the fastest AF of any lens I have tried and the sharpness and contrast in low light can make a big difference getting a useable shot. It is sharp wide open even with a 2x TC without fringing too. If you need the best 300mm f2.8 currently made and have the money the new one would be the one to get. (and a 1dx to put behind it) When I got my 300mm, it wasn't much more than a used FA*300mm f2.8 and the one I got was not sharp (why I went canon)
A sample on a 7d at f2.8 at dawn.

[joe.penn]

A Canon 6D with a 300mm 2.8 lens is 8500 dollars new. A Pentax K5II with a 200mm 2.8 lens is 2200

K5IIs with Siggy 300 2.8 roughly $4,300 (for new).

D7100 with a Siggy 300 2.8 roughly $4,500 (for new).

Here is a sample photo, D7100 with the Siggy 300 2.8 taken with matched sigma 1.4tc (420mm f/4):

[JinDesu]

OP is specifically looking for APSC+200mm vs FF+300mm to consider the cost difference vs results.

[borno]

OP is specifically looking for APSC+200mm vs FF+300mm to consider the cost difference vs results.

Should be 200mm f2.0 and a 300mm f2.8, but that would kind of blow the cost saving premise.

[JinDesu]

Should be 200mm f2.0 and a 300mm f2.8, but that would kind of blow the cost saving premise.

He is accounting for (and asking for) DOF difference between a 200 F2.8 on APSC vs the 300 F2.8 on FF. Boriscleto has given the difference as 3" if you have focused on a subject 30 feet away. OP has asked a very specific question.