[richandfleur]

Yeah the K-1 and K-3 are distinctly different focussed units.

[zkarj]

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.

As a heavy user of (initially) the 55-300 ED and (now) 55-300 WR, I can confirm it was f/11 we settled on as the sweet spot. For those wondering how well it can perform...

Yes, it's quite a small hole, light-wise, but on mine it may as well have a stuck aperture ring as I rarely take it out of f/11. With modern bodies, certainly my KP and the K-5 before it, the noise is workable. Of course it does affect your DOF. And as for sharpness... well how sharp do we want?

Here's a shot at 135mm. I'll wait while you count the rivets.



Or a more natural subject in more challenging light, at 170mm.



And back to the tin at full wide 55mm...



...and full tele 300mm (with some heat haze).


Half of the sharpness battle is with the software you use for PP. I've said before in this thread that I have been re-processing photos from as far back as 2008, using PhotoLab 4. This final photo was taken on a K10D with the then-brand-new 55-300 ED I got for my birthday the week before. The EXIF data isn't showing on Flickr for this one. It was in fact f/8, 1/350 at 87.5mm. The difference between what I originally published in 2009 and 2020/21 is obviously not the lens or camera, but software. And, if I'm honest, a little more care and skill on my part.

[Kiwizinho]

As a heavy user of (initially) the 55-300 ED and (now) 55-300 WR, I can confirm it was f/11 we settled on as the sweet spot. For those wondering how well it can perform...

Yes, it's quite a small hole, light-wise, but on mine it may as well have a stuck aperture ring as I rarely take it out of f/11. With modern bodies, certainly my KP and the K-5 before it, the noise is workable. Of course it does affect your DOF. And as for sharpness... well how sharp do we want?

Or a more natural subject in more challenging light, at 170mm.

That's an impressive robin. I do enjoy photographing aircraft, but last Classic Fighters I took my Tamron 70-200/2.8 and that had quite enough reach, and it's a sharp lens, but for birds, 200mm isn't always enough, and the Tamron is a bit of a beast to take tramping, as well as lacking quick shift or weather sealing.

Looking at the robin, I'm thinking less than F/11 might already be getting a bit low in DOF, so maybe it's not so much of an issue having to use a small aperture.

I think the K-70 and KP might have the same sensor, and I have PhotoLab, so I'd anticipate I can achieve a similar level of sharpness/noise with a good copy of the lens, although I think the KP has better AF.

[zkarj]

I have some $$$ in my gear budget and am thinking very seriously about a PLM 55-300 but they don't seem to be available at the moment. Even overseas suppliers seem to be out of stock.

[NZ_Ross]

I have some $$$ in my gear budget and am thinking very seriously about a PLM 55-300 but they don't seem to be available at the moment. Even overseas suppliers seem to be out of stock.

Hayden got me one over the past 3 weeks. They have more than one supplier it seems. Very efficient service from Southern Camera's

---------- Post added 04-09-21 at 08:11 PM ----------

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.

I have found the same, as I have added lenses over time some of my older lens choices no longer get used, as the more recently acquired lenses make more sense for me to use. I suspect this is a common enough issue.

[Kiwizinho]

I've been having a play with Lightroom's smart collections to get some objective idea of what type of images I create the most compared to what I think I do.

I've created several focal length ranges, and ranked them in order of number of photos I've taken from least to fewest. It's been interesting to see what focal lengths I actually use compared to what I think I want to use.

17-35mm (7626)
35-70mm (6555)
71-200mm (3140)
200mm + (1074)
<17mm (511)

There are a few additional interesting stats. Between 71-200mm almost a third of these are taken with a macro lens (either Tamron 90/2.8 or D-FA 100/2.8) (900 images)

These stats are influenced by how long I've owned lenses, for example I only have one ultra-wide <17mm lens and it's one of my more recent acquisitions, whereas my first lenses were the kit 17-55 DA-L and 50-200 DA-L so naturally there are more images with these lenses.
Actually, considering how long I've owned an ultra-wide lens compared to a 200mm + capable lens, I wonder if I'd be better to invest in a really good ultra wide, as I only got the ultra-wide in January 2019, but I've had a 200mm + capable lens since 2012.
Of course I haven't been entirely satisfied with the IQ from my longer lenses, and that may have some influence, but there are still far fewer images than I thought. A sharper long lens would be nice, but probably not worth throwing a lot of money at.

[NZ_Ross]

Of course I haven't been entirely satisfied with the IQ from my longer lenses, and that may have some influence, but there are still far fewer images than I thought. A sharper long lens would be nice, but probably not worth throwing a lot of money at.

I did the same sort of analysis a few years back and it helped confirm the direction of lens purchases etc. As you have observed there is a fair bit of confirmation bias you have to watch out for - if you have a really good quality lens which you really enjoy using, then you will have lots of images from that lens and focal length .

[zkarj]

Wow! I did not realise just how different a lens the PLM is from the ED/WR models.

* 22.5 mm shorter when retracted (and it looks like it will be longer when at full stretch)
* 24 g lighter
* Swaps the large zoom and small focus rings for small zoom and large focus ring
* Has a focus lock button
* Has a double-barrel extending mechanism versus the old single barrel
* Focuses 47 cm(!) closer
* Has a slightly smaller max aperture throughout the zoom range.

I knew about that last one before today.

[GUB]

Wow! I did not realise just how different a lens the PLM is from the ED/WR models.

* 22.5 mm shorter when retracted (and it looks like it will be longer when at full stretch)
* 24 g lighter
* Swaps the large zoom and small focus rings for small zoom and large focus ring
* Has a focus lock button
* Has a double-barrel extending mechanism versus the old single barrel
* Focuses 47 cm(!) closer
* Has a slightly smaller max aperture throughout the zoom range.

I knew about that last one before today.

And optically different - 14E 11 groups vs 12E 8 groups

[richandfleur]

Wow! I did not realise just how different a lens the PLM is from the ED/WR models.

* 22.5 mm shorter when retracted (and it looks like it will be longer when at full stretch)
* 24 g lighter
* Swaps the large zoom and small focus rings for small zoom and large focus ring
* Has a focus lock button
* Has a double-barrel extending mechanism versus the old single barrel
* Focuses 47 cm(!) closer
* Has a slightly smaller max aperture throughout the zoom range.

I knew about that last one before today.

In practise I’d summarise that as it’s more compact and the focus speed/lack of noise is insane. The image quality is really good.

Longer term it feels more plastic. It’s not the sort of thing you could hammer fence posts in with, like say the Tamron zooms, but it’s a very nice piece of kit.

These two newer APS-C lenses really bring the Pentax focussing system to life. I genuinely feel the internal focus motor approach is what has held Pentax back in the focussing game for many years. There are draw backs as well as all the pros to maintaining older lens compatibility.

What’s missing for me now is the smarts like face and eye detection/subject tracking. That’s what puts me at a cross roads. I want the image quality/ergonomics of the Pentax combined with the smarts of say Canon/Sony around focussing abilities. Not sure I’m ever going to find that in Pentax world though.

[NZ_Ross]

Has a slightly smaller max aperture throughout the zoom range.

This is much less of a concern now with the more recent sensors having a much higher usable ISO overhead.

In practise I’d summarise that as it’s more compact and the focus speed/lack of noise is insane. The image quality is really good.

I would agree around the lack of noise and the focussing speed. I went out yesterday to try the lens out on fantails, but they hid. I will try again this afternoon - I reckon it is a very good test, as they really don't stay still

What’s missing for me now is the smarts like face and eye detection/subject tracking. That’s what puts me at a cross roads. I want the image quality/ergonomics of the Pentax combined with the smarts of say Canon/Sony around focussing abilities. Not sure I’m ever going to find that in Pentax world though.

K-3 III has some of this, but still not as good as the Canon/Sony from what I read. I am sticking with Pentax for stills, travel, portrait and some bird photography, and video at a pinch whilst travelling. I am keeping my Panasonic G9 m4/3 for 4K video, and some bird photography - much quicker and longer high speed burst etc. although I need to buy the Panasonic 100-400 lens to make full use of this.

I did seriously look at swapping systems to do all of this in one camera before I brought the K3-III - a Canon, Sony or Nikon mirrorless, but there are still plenty of compromises, and a massive lens reacquisition cost, for marginal gains. So, given I have a good Pentax system, and the Panasonic for my work video production - it made perfect sense, and a lot less ongoing money to stick with the 2 systems.

As a footnote, the K3-III sensor and image quality output is so good I have backed off the idea of purchasing a K-1 for now. I think I will wait until there is a K-1 III with one of the new BSI sensors, and see how everything sits at that time.

[NZ_Ross]

went out yesterday to try the lens out on fantails, but they hid. I will try again this afternoon - I reckon it is a very good test, as they really don't stay still

Good walk this afternoon, but the fantails were still hiding. Nothing further to report

[Kiwizinho]

I've done an unscientific test of all my 200mm capable lenses. Certainly not up to Gub's standards, but enough for a quick evaluation. All taken RAW on tripod, IS disabled, 1/500s, TaV, Centre weighted, F/11 since that's apparently where the DA 55-300 lenses are at their best, but I don't have one to evaluate, but thought I could try a focal length I do have plenty of that's within the zoom range.
Flower was about 10m away. Any images that looked particularly bad, I repeated a few times in case I could get better results.
Images imported into Lightroom, cropped, exported with no other changes and compiled in Photoshop.
Noise varies as lighting was changing a bit.
Google Photos degrades image quality a bit, but the comparison between lenses still is clear enough.
I'm actually surprised how good my old Tokina 28-200 is compared to newer lenses. In my film days it lived on my camera, and produced some nice images, and although it's inclined to halo a bit in bright conditions, it's certainly not the worst lens in the lineup by a long way, and it has a pretty handy walk-around zoom range.
I'm surprised how poor the big Sigma is, even at 200mm.


Link to full sized image.
Google Photos

[GUB]

I've done an unscientific test of all my 200mm capable lenses. Certainly not up to Gub's standards, but enough for a quick evaluation. All taken RAW on tripod, IS disabled, 1/500s, TaV, Centre weighted, F/11 since that's apparently where the DA 55-300 lenses are at their best, but I don't have one to evaluate, but thought I could try a focal length I do have plenty of that's within the zoom range.
Flower was about 10m away. Any images that looked particularly bad, I repeated a few times in case I could get better results.
Images imported into Lightroom, cropped, exported with no other changes and compiled in Photoshop.
Noise varies as lighting was changing a bit.
Google Photos degrades image quality a bit, but the comparison between lenses still is clear enough.
I'm actually surprised how good my old Tokina 28-200 is compared to newer lenses. In my film days it lived on my camera, and produced some nice images, and although it's inclined to halo a bit in bright conditions, it's certainly not the worst lens in the lineup by a long way, and it has a pretty handy walk-around zoom range.
I'm surprised how poor the big Sigma is, even at 200mm.


Link to full sized image.
Google Photos

Nice one.
The F 70 -210 looks a sick puppy but its background is softer so check whether it stopped down correctly.
And conversely the Tok 28 - 200 has very sharp background like it has stopped down to a greater extent than the others.
(With a set aperture, set image magnification an set background distance they should all have matching blur.
Yep - here is nothing worse than that constantly changing light when you are trying to be consistent.
I have my camera on manual and take care that the highlight area is not clipped and expose all the same as raw.
In Darktable I adjust exposure so that the right hand side of all histograms is at the same place. This means the exposure variable is expressed as variation in noise which is a minimal effect.
I mostly test wide open to stress test all the glass in the lens. Have a look in your lens at f11 and see how little glass you are testing.
And I am sorry but if the 55 - 300s out there need to be stopped down to f11 to be crisp then that model is a dog!
Did you understand why I have the other two caps forward and back of the target one? to help gauge whether you have hit focus coz it is surprisingly hard to nail it consistently isn't it.

[Kiwizinho]

Nice one.
The F 70 -210 looks a sick puppy but its background is softer so check whether it stopped down correctly.
And conversely the Tok 28 - 200 has very sharp background like it has stopped down to a greater extent than the others.
(With a set aperture, set image magnification an set background distance they should all have matching blur.

Good spotting. I'll have to wait till tomorrow to retest, but I've figured out what the issue is with the Tok 28-200. It's a 3.5-5.3 lens, but it's not transmitting changes in zoom to the body, so wide open at 200, the body is reading 3.5 when in fact it's 5.3 so to get a true 11, I guess I'll maybe need 8 showing in the viewfinder?
I might need to check the other Tok as well as it's also an older manual focus lens and may have the same issue.

The F 70-210 is reading correctly, so the only other thing to check is focus, but I did try several images with it, so it might be a dog. Quite a few people seem to like it, so maybe I just have a bad copy.