|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-07-2009, 09:47 PM
|
| |
I do understand, Marc. Every telephoto lens is a compromise, I guess - a fast, long lens will be large and heavy, while a compact, light, long lens is gonna be slower. However, the best lens for the job is not the one that got left at home (again), but is the lens that's with you when you're ready to shoot - .
"Been there, done that..." (more or less). I used to have a gorgeous A* 600/5.6, and I even used it hand held on rare occasion (back in FF film days, and in very bright light only). But, most of the time it got left at home (along with the tripod, which also often got left home).
I eventually replaced the 600/5.6 with an A* 300/2.8 (comparatively "smaller"), which, with an A 2X-L TC, gave me a "more practical" (even though somewhat less sharp) 600/5.6. But, it was ~still~ a bit big to carry most of the time.
But, the F* 300/4.5 is small enough and fast enough (and certainly sharp enough) for ~most~ situations (even if not bright enough for ~all~ conditions). And, the bottom line is that an F* 300/4.5 (or, at an earlier time, an A* 300/4) can go with me ~most~ of the time.
In a sense, because of its excellent optical and mechanical qualities, but also because it is not overly large (or overly fast), an F*/FA* 300/4.5, compared to one of the 300/2.8's is sort of a "Limited" long telephoto lens...
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-05-2009, 09:10 AM
|
| |
Both good lenses (and I once had the A* 300/2.8, and I'd love to sometime get an FA* 300/2.8), but it seems as if the one-plus stop aperture advantage (f/4.5 to f/2.8) brings with it what seems almost like an order of magnitude loss in portability and usability.
While my osprey crops were taken hand-held (easy to do with an F* or FA* 300/4.5, or an M* or A* 300/4, or - I assume - with a DA* 300/4), it's a bit more difficult (but not impossible - I've done so on occasion with the A* 300/2.8) on any 300/2.8 lens.
Plus, there's the issue of portability - an F* 300/4.5 fits (sort of) comfortably in my old holster camera bag (circa 1980), while the A* 300/2.8 goes in a dedicated trunk case (next to the tripod).
I'd like an FA* 300/2.8 anyway, though - . (I still have my 1.4X-L and 2X-L TC's - .)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-05-2009, 06:29 AM
|
| |
Inspired by ivoire's excellent osprey crops, I'm also contributing a few of my own F* 300/4.5 osprey crops.
[Except for cropping, there was no post-processing performed on these images.]
Thumbnails -
   
100% crops -
Hmmm... Might make a good avatar... ()
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-03-2009, 06:15 AM
|
| |
Well, in my defense, I offer the following -
1. A factoid - They do show up fairly frequently on eBay (and, by the way, I think more often than do the FA* 300/4.5's) - they certainly are not rare lenses.
2. An Eternal Truth - You can ~never~ have "too many F* 300/4.5's". ()
It is - it's punishable by heaven - .
Har !!! I just watched the video - . However, I would like to point out that having three PS3's represents an obsession bordering on a fetish, while having three F* 300/4.5's is merely totally logical.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-03-2009, 05:57 AM
|
| |
I just checked the displayed EXIF data from an F* 300/4.5, an FA 28-105/4-5.6, and a DA 55-300/4-5.8 (the latter two were the closest "post-F" lenses to me before I headed off to work this morning, while the F* 300/4.5 was already on the K20D - now ~that's~ not surprising - ), in Pentax Photo Browser, in FastStone Image Viewer, and in KUSO EXIF Viewer, and all showed essentially analogous information. () So, I have removed the incorrect statement from my original post. Thanks for the "heads up".
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-02-2009, 09:49 PM
|
| |
Hmmm... Aren't there some EXIF differences (limitations for F lenses compared to FA lenses) (besides MTF data, say)?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-02-2009, 01:19 PM
|
| |
For me, who is lucky enough to have three F* 300/4.5's (two used quite a bit, with one serving as a backup), I could almost just as well own FA* 300/4.5's. I almost never use this lens on a tripod (and, in fact, I can't even remember the last time I even put a tripod mount on one of these lenses), so the tripod mount presence or absence has never been as important to me in effect as my mind thought it would be.
More important to me is the hood design - I ~really~ like the way the built-in, sliding/screw-in-screw-out hood works on the F* (as opposed to the more typical separate hood of the FA*). The F* hood is ~always~ there (I don't have to worry about remembering to bring it, or worry about losing it), and, when it's extended, it's about as ~solid~ as a hood can be.
However, the FA* design does have its advantages, too. I guess that the transition from mf to af and back is better in the FA* lens (although someone else will have to chime in with what the difference is - not having ever handled an FA* 300/4.5, I don't remember what the difference is - . And, I have heard that the silver finish in the FA* is tougher than the tan finish of the F* (not terribly important to me).
[Further on the tripod mount, there have been one or more 3rd-party mounts (that fasten with adjustable straps, I guess) that have been reputed to work on the FA* lens (although I am not sure about how they work). And, the "official" tripod mount for the F* is a bit of overkill, much taller than it has to be. (The shorter tripod mount for the A* 200/4 Macro, even though it's black, makes, IMHO, a better tripod mount for the F* 300/4.5 than does the stock mount.)]
So, I am happy with owning F* 300/4.5's, but I would not hesitate at all to recommend to someone that they should buy an FA*, especially if hand-holding were going to be the main use.
|
