[RioRico]

I bought a Rubinar 1000/10 mirror for US$225 a couple years back. Don't use it much, but maybe I would if I lived in a beach town rather than a monotonous forested hamlet. It's M42 but the base is too wide to fit snug against the camera mount; the flash snood protrudes too far. About 10mm extension pushes it far enough away and makes it more like a 1200/12 lens. Not enough reach? Replace the extension with a 3x TC so it's a 3000/30 lens. Woo woo! Er, I mean, Cowabunga!

Did I mention that a single tripod isn't sufficient? If the tripod is staked down and the lens is loaded with one or two sandbags, it's pretty stable. Even better: Sandbags on my car roof (engine off) AND atop the lens. That usually holds it in place...

[timh]

Someone's just put a Sigma 170-500 on the marketplace, here on this very site... Could be suitable? Do use a tripod.

[Just1MoreDave]

Someone's just put a Sigma 170-500 on the marketplace, here on this very site... Could be suitable? Do use a tripod.

Not a bad price for a 500mm solution. For a bit more, a K300/4 and the Pentax-AF Adapter 1.7x would be 510mm and f6.3, right? Really close to the Sigma at its long end. I would have a hard time paying $300+ for the tiny adapter and $200 or less for the giant lens, though.

Although the OP might need more than 300mm, that's not an easy or cheap step to take.

[falconeye]

@Metalwizard,

the advise to do the math was a good one. It tells you that you end up cropping anyway.

Therefore, the focal length counts only so much. It is the pixel sharpness at the tele end which counts at least as much too. And then you'll dismiss super bridge zoom lenses and DSLR super zoom lenses. And a DA*200 gives you more reach than the DA 55-300. Because of resolving power.

So, if you are really into some adventures for long reach and low budget, you'll have to experiment with mirror lenses. They are worth about half their focal length when compared to a good tele lens. But expect a low keeper rate.

[Frogfish]

I bought the K-R with the DA-L, lens was $160

I just picked up a lens for the DA 55-300 on eBay for $20.

Keep in mind it is a plastic mount (no big deal for me) and no quick shift (no big deal for me)

...... and of course no hood is included.

Personally I would go for the non L version simply for the quick-shift which I use far more often than I thought I would at those times when the lense can't find focus or is hitting focus on the wrong subject (birds in trees etc. being particularly difficult).

[Frogfish]

i bought a rubinar 1000/10 mirror for us$225 a couple years back. Don't use it much, but maybe i would if i lived in a beach town rather than a monotonous forested hamlet. it's m42 but the base is too wide to fit snug against the camera mount; the flash snood protrudes too far. About 10mm extension pushes it far enough away and makes it more like a 1200/12 lens. Not enough reach? Replace the extension with a 3x tc so it's a 3000/30 lens. Woo woo! Er, i mean, cowabunga!

Did i mention that a single tripod isn't sufficient? If the tripod is staked down and the lens is loaded with one or two sandbags, it's pretty stable. Even better: Sandbags on my car roof (engine off) and atop the lens. That usually holds it in place...

rofl !!!

[Frogfish]

Not a bad price for a 500mm solution. For a bit more, a K300/4 and the Pentax-AF Adapter 1.7x would be 510mm and f6.3, right? Really close to the Sigma at its long end. I would have a hard time paying $300+ for the tiny adapter and $200 or less for the giant lens, though.

Although the OP might need more than 300mm, that's not an easy or cheap step to take.

........ though usability makes the DA*300+AFA a much more manageable package to walk around with and even use hand-held with a supporting door-frame etc.

[calculator01]

...... and of course no hood is included.

Personally I would go for the non L version simply for the quick-shift which I use far more often than I thought I would at those times when the lense can't find focus or is hitting focus on the wrong subject (birds in trees etc. being particularly difficult).

Oops, I meant lens hood for $20

I originally had my mind set on the non L version, but I realized... I rarely use quick shift. My suggestion for someone considering the 55-300 would be to play with a quick shift lens and see if they need this feature.

[cats_five]

If you do desire a 300mm, buy the DA-L 55-300. It is the same optically as the DA version, but a lot less expensive.

Where I brought my 55-300 from there (in the UK) was £20 difference between the DA and the DA-L. Getting a lens hood would have eaten up some of that, and I reckon it was worth it just for the metal lens mount. The price was good as well. My advice - shop around, if you can find the DA at a keen price get it in preference to the DA-L.