[NZ_Ross]

I have the original K-3 and that lens. It’s freakin’ amazing. No other way to put it.

Not very fast aperture wise but another league focussing, tracking and clarity wise.

I would agree Rich. I am looking forward to learning to use it better

[Kiwizinho]

I have the original K-3 and that lens. It’s freakin’ amazing. No other way to put it.

Not very fast aperture wise but another league focussing, tracking and clarity wise.

Hmm.. I might have to have a word to Hayden. He doesn't have it listed on his website, but obviously can sell it.

I have a K-50 with the dreaded aperture block failure, but PLM will work with that if I want to use it as a back up body, although the K-70 is what it will get most use on. Sharpness is the biggest concern for me. The K-70 is fairly good at high ISO, so a slower lens isn't too much of a problem.
Stopped down, the older 55-300 seems to take reasonably sharp images, and I guess if one goes for a bargain I could consider it, although Gub's recent comparison of 300 capable optics didn't show it up too well wide open.

A Comparison of 300mm capable lenses on the K-1 - PentaxForums.com

[NZ_Ross]

Stopped down, the older 55-300 seems to take reasonably sharp images, and I guess if one goes for a bargain I could consider it, although Gub's recent comparison of 300 capable optics didn't show it up too well wide open.

We did a big test on this tread a few years back across all the versions, but not the PLM as it wasn't released then. F11 seemed to be where the lens is sharpest from memory.

[bobD]

@GUB

How old is he Bob?

four and a half..... ruptured the cruciate ligament totally and now has 'bits of rubber and fishing line" according to the vet...lots of drilled bone for attachments...etc

8 days on and just starting to use the leg...another 5 and we see if it has been successful. Then recovery and therapy and perhaps in 3-6 months can be off lead again. 18 months before it is fully healed ..fingers crossed.

[GUB]

@GUB

four and a half..... ruptured the cruciate ligament totally and now has 'bits of rubber and fishing line" according to the vet...lots of drilled bone for attachments...etc

8 days on and just starting to use the leg...another 5 and we see if it has been successful. Then recovery and therapy and perhaps in 3-6 months can be off lead again. 18 months before it is fully healed ..fingers crossed.

Wow he is still in his prime - good liuck with all that.

[GUB]

We did a big test on this tread a few years back across all the versions, but not the PLM as it wasn't released then. F11 seemed to be where the lens is sharpest from memory.

Yeah but I was fairly certain I had a dud before then. Having said that a lot say (the older 55-300s at least) need to be at f11 and I find that unacceptable.

[Kiwizinho]

Yeah but I was fairly certain I had a dud before then. Having said that a lot say (the older 55-300s at least) need to be at f11 and I find that unacceptable.

F/11 is pretty slow. At longer focal lengths the DOF is pretty limited, so I'd be pretty happy with something that's sharp at f/8.

[NZ_Ross]

F/11 is pretty slow. At longer focal lengths the DOF is pretty limited, so I'd be pretty happy with something that's sharp at f/8.

The older 55-300's are ok at F8 for sharpness, but it is a lens that has limitations. You trade off portability and reach for lens speed and sharpness. It is not a patch on the DA*60-250, but then that is a much heavier lens. I have found the 55-300's ideal for travel, as they don't weigh too much and have reasonable image quality.

The new PLM, even though it is marginally slower, seems to give very nice image quality - I have seen landscape images from both Kerrick James and Edward Thomas with the 55-300 PLM that are very good quality.

Where I have landed with this is I really enjoy top image quality, but with zooms that generally doesn't come with portability. So the 55-300's provide me a decent trade-off for travel and hiking. Out of the back of the car and short walks there are of course much better options.

[Kiwizinho]

After looking at Gub's focal length lens comparisons in other threads, and doing a bit of a stock take, I might have to have a go at something similar.

I only have 2 300mm capable lenses, neither of them primes.

I have 7 200mm capable zooms.

At 100mm I have 10 lenses capable of that focal length with 1 prime.

At 70mm I have 11 lenses capable of the focal length, with no primes.

At 50mm I have 11 lenses including 2 primes.

At 35mm I have 8 lenses including 1 prime.

At 28 mm I have 7 lenses including 1 prime.

[GUB]

After looking at Gub's focal length lens comparisons in other threads, and doing a bit of a stock take, I might have to have a go at something similar.

I only have 2 300mm capable lenses, neither of them primes.

I have 7 200mm capable zooms.

At 100mm I have 10 lenses capable of that focal length with 1 prime.

At 70mm I have 11 lenses capable of the focal length, with no primes.

At 50mm I have 11 lenses including 2 primes.

At 35mm I have 8 lenses including 1 prime.

At 28 mm I have 7 lenses including 1 prime.

Start with the 50mm lenses because I suspect for a person with so many zooms this will soon become an exercise for you in the prime vs zoom debate.

[NZ_Ross]

Start with the 50mm lenses because I suspect for a person with so many zooms this will soon become an exercise for you in the prime vs zoom debate.

The eternal debate, to which there is no definitive answer

[richandfleur]

I'm essentially down to the K-3, 16-85 and PLM 55-300 zoom. That's my kit.
Floating in the background is the 35mm plastic and Tamron 90mm macro prime, and an old school 50mm 1.7 A, but to be honest they don't come out to play much anymore.

[Kiwizinho]

I'm essentially down to the K-3, 16-85 and PLM 55-300 zoom. That's my kit.
Floating in the background is the 35mm plastic and Tamron 90mm macro prime, and an old school 50mm 1.7 A, but to be honest they don't come out to play much anymore.

I think if the PLM 55-300 is sufficiently sharp, I could just about live with your kit, with the addition of the D-FA 100mm macro. (I've just come inside from the garden to get it.)

Currently I don't have either the 16-85 or what I'd consider a decent 300mm capable lens.

There are odd times I want a fast lens for portraits, and the D-FA 100 almost would do although it's a bit long. Either the FA 50/1.4 or the DA* 50-135/2.8 would do for this, so really 4 lenses would be enough to have me covered, just I started out cheap and gradually added better lenses as I could afford them, but to be honest, many of them I don't need any more.
OK, I could add one more to make 5. I do quite like ultra-wide non-fisheye landscapes but they're a niche, as lots of landscapes don't lend themselves to ultrawide, but when they do, (think steep, South Island mountainous landscape up close), the results can be nice, but I could still quite easily dispose of half my lenses if I had the ideal for what I like to photograph.

[GUB]

The eternal debate, to which there is no definitive answer

I think it boils down to your approach to aperture.
For the zoom camp it is at least f8 unless you are forced down by light / motion etc.
And for prime users it is wide open unless you are forced up by dof or overall image IQ.

[stillwell]

Well it passes the Rex test wide open. Focuses snappy.

The seller was using it on a K-1. Nice to know there is at least one in Palmerston Nth!!

My K1 is now a resident of Auckland!. Have downsized to a K3 11.Easier to carry when tramping. .Works wonders with my Fa 300 telephoto. Much faster focus as well.
Take care