|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-07-2018, 09:18 AM
|
| |
There really isn't a whole lot of difference between a 300mm lens and a 400mm lens and since you are coming from the 55-300mm zoom you may actually find that a 300mm prime gives you some more reach. I have a tamron 28-300 lens and a couple of 300mm f/4 primes. I wanted to see the difference in quality between the 300mm primes and the cheap superzoom. I was more taken aback by the difference in field of view with the tamron at 300 and either of the 300mm primes with the primes having a much tighter crop. You may find this is also the case with your 55-300 but I have never used that lens so don't know how close it's 300mm length is to a real 300mm length. Also I would go and look at the images where you felt you wanted more reach and ask your self how much more. Is it a little (10-25%) or do you want the subject to be 50-100% bigger. If it was a little then the a zoom on the long end at 400mm would work or maybe even a 300mm prime, if you want a lot more then you need to start looking at the really big expensive lens.
With the long lenses I have I find that wanting more reach really means I want a lot more reach. The times when I really something bigger than either of my 300mm lenses I start thinking I should get either an old 600mm or old 1200mm lens. I then realize that using either of those monsters will slow me down a ton as I hand hold a lot of shots with my 300mm lenses and with either of those other 2 I would probably have to be shooting off a tripod all the time. I do want a one old 400mm for a little more reach but mostly for the substantial increase in speed but there I would really only be using that lens for astrophotography
|
