da*300 f4?

Looking for some advice re the performance of the da* 300 f4, which I'm seriously considering getting (from SRS).


I have the Sigma 150-500 OS, which I use a lot for birds & wildlife generally.


This is a JPEG, straight from the K5, the Sigma set at 440mm zoom.




And this is a crop therefrom, PPd in Elements 11.






Can I reasonably expect the 300, with the reduced focal length, from the same viewpoint, to match this performance, given the greater cropping required?


Any assistance would be gratefully received!

Roger.

K5 and DA*300, uncropped:




100% Crop:




Also worth considering:

The new 1.4 converter is very well reviewed and partners well with the lens.


I read that the K3 and DA300 blows away the K5 and DA300 for resolution and cropability. I am happy with the above resolution and cropability so I would be very interested to see K3 results that do blow that away, bodes well for when I upgrade.

Thanks for that prompt response, Doc!

Your answer to my question would appear to be "Yes"!

Any further thoughts/images/examples from anyone?

Roger.

It's a magnificent lens Roger, much sharper than the 150-500 and more usable, given the smaller size/weight and the wider max aperture. It's also sharp from wide open, see my previous thread with images from this lens:

link

Hope this helps to make up your mind!

Regards
David

A fixed 300mm is very restrictive with regard to framing.
The zoom is more flexible and reaches further.

The only time I would use a DA*300mm is when the light is bad.
The greater contrast certainly helps.

--

Thanks David & Algi for your v. Interesting
thoughts.

The performance certainly isn't in question but I think I may miss a) the flexibility &b) the in lens stabilisation, which I find most useful for the steadiness of the image in the viewfinder.......


Roger.

They may be short zooms at times, but every lens I own has the ability to zoom in or out.......

And here's another recommendation for the DA*300..

Raw converted in LR5, minimal pp, there is some shadow adjustment in the crop only.




Ciop from the above image

And more recommendations

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrookes/13991676393/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrookes/13474988734/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrookes/13541568434/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrookes/13541568434/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrookes/13272195633/

Well that statement doesn't tie in with your PU gallery

Mostly old stuff in the gallery and I prefer to take lighter gear out nowadays mostly the 55-300mm + Jessops 1.7TC which never comes off the lens. This year I intend to go back to the Tokina 80-400mm and do away with the TC.

The TC lets you get in closer when the odd butterfly pops up.....




55-300mm + Jessops 1.7TC on K-5.. 400ISO.. Original JPG

Zoom out a bit and you get a nice 3D Effect....




--




--

David has basically summed it up for me. Smaller, sharper wide open (albeit I am comparing the 300 with my 170-500 instead of the 150-500), superior bokeh, and better contrast in all light. I have had to work a lot more with my bigma than I have with the DA*. The DA*300 it just better out of the box.
Algi does make a point about the flexibility of zooms, hence why I have not got rid of the bigma, but for ultimate IQ, the DA*300 has it licked.

I cant really offer opinion on the discussion here. As I don't own a Pentax DA*300. But I do own the 150 - 500. Most people purchase this lens for its reach and versatility. It seems after reading here that the Pentax lens has the edge. If you make large crops. But is it fair to compare a lens that is almost twice the price of the other ?

Difficult to say, it all depends what the OP wants out of the lens. As he has said that he is considering getting the DA* it would appear that the price difference may not matter. Having said that, the advantage of the DA* over the siggy is that it is sharp wide open and with that you can separate the subject from the background. With that in mind and if you crop, you still get a great image from the DA*. But of course it also depends on how big you want to print the result and how much you crop from the image. I suppose that having sensors well above 10mp you have that comfort of cropping with a shorter focal length, yet still have excellent IQ. I am not dissing the Bigmas, on the contrary, they are very good lenses for the price and do produce great images. But then again It is not a surprise that a number of photographers I know out grow them due to the sharpness wide open or even lack of a fast aperture wide open, and have switched from the various bigmas (170-500, 150-500, 50-500) and gone down the route of 300mm F4's because of the faster aperture and ultimately bought a 1.4x converter in due course.
Only the OP can answer the question of what he wants out of the lens, whether he is happy with his Bigma, or having and ultimately a superior optic in the DA* and having to crop until adding a converter. Also it all depends on what he want to do with the images as well.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Iain is saying above. The Sigmas are extremely good lenses, well built and with great IQ for the money (although I don't think they are half the price of the DA*300).

The crunch for me though, is the following:

- The DA*300 is better cropped than the Sigma is at full size

- The DA*300 has F4 and is sharp at that aperture. At the Siggy's max of F6.3 it is soft and has halos around edges. This disappears by F8, but compare that with the DA*300 being sharp at F4 and this is a major difference

- The DA*300 is much more portable and much easier to handle, I can get sharp images at 1/40 second with it, that simply would not be possible with the 150-500 unless using a monopod

The DA*300 is a big investment, especially for someone like me who is not a pro photographer and earns nothing from taking pics, but it is worth every penny. It is a gem.

Regards
David