I love my DA* 300mm. It is my favorite lens, and when I had the opportunity to illustrate a book about Danish wildlife last year, I used it almost exclusively.

Still, with the flight distances of birds in my densely populated and intensively hunted homeland, this is a short lens for wildlife.

I have the Pentax 1.7 AF converter, which I have used on a few occasions, f.ex for stationary animals like owls. It doesn't provide true AF though, only "assisted autofocus", which is very imprecise and often locks on the wrong focal distance, which is why it is better for stationary animals. I only use this combo when the conditions are right, and between the light lost to the converter and the light quality in cloudy Denmark (I think Seattle is wonderfully sunny, seriously), they rarely are.

I sold my Sigma 150-500mm APO, because it was not entirely sharp on the long lengths except stopped down to at least f/7, and then I might as well use my converter + 300mm. Using the Sigma at <400mm seemed silly, when I have the DA* 300mm

Most likely, I will have to stick with what I have - if I save up for the K3, the AF situation might improve - but I would still like to be able to dream! I am just not sure what to dream of...

The new DA 560 mm is horribly expensive, but that aside it didn't exactly get rave reviews. With my converter, I have 510 mm as it is, but poor low light performance and AF - and in a much more wieldable package. Would the 560 mm be a huge upgrade in terms of IQ? Is IS a bit faster, but bigger.

There is the Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO, which is only available second hand, but I HAVE seen a few around the marketplace - and they are almost within budget. It gets very good verdicts on sharpness, and it isn't huge. The reach is another 100mm compared to be "bare" DA* lens, and a bit faster than the DA*+converter, and full AF. Would that feel like a significant upgrade?

The Sigma 150-500mm APO wasn't for me, and if I went for a zoom lens again, it would need top performance at the longest focal distance, because that is where it would get used.

What I would really love is the opinion of someone who has and loves the DA* 300mm, but bought something else to get longer reach, and who is really happy with the results. Thanks for any replies!

The options currently available - as new - are:

Sigma 50-500. This is optically somewhat better than the 150-500, but nevertheless suffers of similar problems, albeit to a lesser degree.
Pentax 560mm. I have no personal experience of this. However, it´s price tag is beyond reason and the test reports I have seen are not exatly stellar.
Sigma 500/4,5. This is the lens I chose after similar considerations. I am very pleased with it and would come to the same conclusion if I were to buy today. A high quality lens both optically and mechanically. Optically sharp even wide open. Contrast improves when stopped down even 1/2 a stop. This behaviour is sometimes mistakenly confused with sharpness. When used wide open, you can easily compensate for this in post processing. In practice it reaches it´s optimum performance already at f 5,6.
Maybe the most serious shorcoming is that the lens hood is all too short- especially for APS-C bodies. This is fairly easy to correct by extending the hood with a piece of plastic. This is worth considering, because without it there is a risk of flare in backlit situations.
Of couse this lens does not have the versatility of a zoom, but in terms of image quality it is probably the best super telephoto currently available for Pentax bodies. There are several shots with this in my gallery on this forum.

I also was not satisfied with the Sigma 150-500mm. I love my DA*300 but I agree it's often short. The K-3 has been a huge improvement because of its fast AF, excellent tracking and significantly higher pixel density for crops. I have a Kenko 1.5X PZ TC. IQ is good but AF is bad, even with the K-3.

There are lots of times here in Northern Ontario that I need f/4, so the DA*300 alone or with TC makes a lot of sense. I've ordered the new Pentax rear converter. I expect the K-3/DA*300/HD 1.4x RC will be the right answer for me.

As a complement to my DA*300mm which is used mainly for BIF's and birds that are not too far, I have purchased a few years ago the A*600mm which I use for stationary birds.(Florida birding is also great for this lens as you can approach them more easily). You may want to look at this option. The A*600mm works well with the TC 1.4XL from Pentax. but that TC does not fit the DA*300 but it does fit the DA*200mm. Let us know what your decision will be... here are some A*600mm photos : https://plus.google.com/photos/104543922083693015547/albums/5626810741862984369?banner=pwa



Robert

Thanks, all - you have given me a lot to think about.

PePe, If my goal is "something to dream about", then I will go for the Sigma 500mm f4.5. Your pictures are just wonderful. I don't need zoom: If I had this lens, I would keep it mounted on the tripod, and bring my k3 (yes, I'm dreaming, so I have a k3 too) with the DA* 300mm mounted. If I found something interesting that was beyond the reach of my 300mm, I would switch to the tripod mounted 500mm - and if something unexpected came by, I would be ready to shoot handheld with my 300mm.

In my dreams. SRS-microsystems list this lens at £3769, which is probably my realistic goal x4. So for now, I will stick with what I have, and save for the k3, which I hope will improve my AF ( I currently shoot BIFs with AF-S and constant half-pressing the button, which gives me _nearly_ in focus birds, which is much preferable to AF-C, which just gives me ulcers while it loses focus). The colour-sensitive tracking AF in the k3 is a huge selling point with me.

ramiot, the A*600mm looks really great too, and by the average price in the reviews it could be a possibility, but I can't recall seeing a single one in the marketplace. audiobomber, I would love to hear about your experiences with the new converter. I already have the Pentax 1.7x AF converter, so getting a new one seems a bit of a waste, but if I upgrade to the k3, I wouldn't really want to lose my new wonderful AF capabilities when I mount the converter... so maybe changing converter is next on the list. At least if this new one gets nice reviews on IQ.

Thanks a lot, everyone!

I have both the A*600/5,6 (with both L rear converters) and the Bigma, which I have used extensively for two years. The Pentax is much better than the Bigma from an optical standpoint: much more sharper at all the working distances, better overall quality at great distances, better colours, much better bokeh. The great advantage of the Bigma is that is a compact build and I can carry it in my backback when hiking, to take it out and shooting whenever a subject (deer, boar, or flying raptor) appears. The A*600 needs a tripod and a hide to be used. AF in the Bigma is not a great plus, because it hunts a lot, especially with BIF, and that makes vane the first reason for which I bought it. I am going to sell it, waiting for the release of the new telezoom of the roadmap, hoping for the same quality and responsiveness of the 60-250, an ideal lens for BIF if not for the too short focal lenght.

The ideal BIF lens to me should be a prime. A zoom requires an extra step, raise the camera, zoom, focus, shoot.

Not necessarily, I have a Sigma 70-300mm APO non DG and I keep it on the 300mm. Then I don't have to zoom then focus. I cannot afford a prime in a long length at this time. But I have shot BIF with it, my avatar was shot with this lens and the Pentax K100D.

Pssst...Photolady...I just ordered a Vivitar 300mm with TX mount for $23. Already have the M42 adapter for it...Look around they are available at good prices...and if this one is as good as the 200mm that died a while back I'll be happy. But I also got a 200mm just like it, also $23...They had a couple of others listed under $50...old, but vintage M42 era glass is often very good.

I won't ask where but I do not like M42 lenses, mainly because they are way to heavy for my tripod head or me to hand hold. That's why I said I couldn't afford any prime long lenses.

Having said that, I see a Sigma 400mm A lens that I might get after I do some researching. It's under $150.

Quite the contrary, for me. Aim the bird with a short focal lenght, zoom in while the camera focus, and shot. I find much more difficult to frame the bird with a long prime than with the Bigma.

My photography professor in college 15 years ago said, and I quote "zoom out, focus, then go to your desired focal length, take photo," unquote.

Photolady - My 200 and 300 both have tripod mounts around 2/3 toward the back of the lens, so they balance fairly well on tripods. I've used them plenty times, even on a lightweight tripod they do fine. On my old Safe-Lock no problem at all, but that thing's built like a tank. That's the way they built them when it was made, probably early 60's. It's really not that heavy either, and the most stable one of the 3 I have. The Vivitars I got are also TX moount, so if I can ever find one, and afford it, I can use M42 or K mount adapters. For now M42 will have to do...

The bird has flown several feet by the time you trip the shutter.

Also some lenses are not parfocal, in which case your professor's method won't even work on stationary subjects.

Hej Mette,

I was another of us here that eventually gave up with our Sigma 150-500 (specially BIF was horrid, hunting galore in low light), and went looking for something better.

As an experiment I got an old A 400/5.6, but that suffers a lot from CA, and need to be stepped down to f8, or so, thus nothing for birds in flight.

A little too soft for my liking, and the CA is evident in the out of focus areas.

So eventually I ditched most of my Pentax gear, keeping a few basic lenses and a K-x, including the A 400, to finance buying a really good lens (Nikkor AF-S 80-400 VR II N), and a suitable camera for it, in my case the lightest full format on the market, a D600 (ancient history by now, as the new Sonys are far lighter!).

While the camera isn't perfect, the lens is very nearly so, being as razor sharp from edge to edge as from 400 to 80 (marginally sharper in the wide end).

But getting on in age, even this fairly light combo, say 7 kilos including a small Gitzo tripod, or a beefy monopod, and head, is sometimes too much.

So I have an alternative set-up, less costly, almost as sharp, and much more portable, if less useful in low light.

Something that could suit your needs, Mette:

A Nikon V1/V2/V3 camera, whose crop factor is 2.7, compared to you Pentax's 1.5, and the AF-S 70-300 VR, a cheap and in the center utterly sharp lens, up to at least 260mm, and still sharp at 300. You need an adapter (FT1), and you there have a package weighing just a little more than your DA*300 on its own. The focal length (in 35mm terms) is 200-840mm, not bad at all!

These cameras use CX sensors, and lightning-fast focus. No idle claim, especially if you use the native lenses (the 30-110mm zoom is very sharp, equaling a 80-300 on a full format camera).

To simplify it just a bit, The area of a full format (FX) sensor is twice that of a APS-C (aka DX), which is twice that of a MFT sensor, which is twice that of a CX (aka 1") sensor. With smaller sensors one loses a bit of color depth, but the CX has still better color depth than printing can reproduce.

My V1 isn't perfect, my wife's K-30 + DA55-300 is a little better at BIF than mine with the F Mount lenses on.

Tord

On FlickR: Tord55

PS I have used the magnificent 80-400 on the V1 as well, but then the VR buzzes a bit (said to work very well on a V2, though).