FA* 300 f4.5 wide open.

I put an FA* 300mm on the K1 the other day to take advantage of the sunshine. These are mainly wide open at f4.5.

1 Aspen catkins



2 Some almost spent blackthorn blossom



3 A garden escapee about to be smothered by cow parsley



4 The first tulip - (has already been posted in the main gallery)



5 and a grab shot - pity about the OOF branch to the right



Most taken with the aid of a tripod and IR release. All comments welcomed.

I think Pentax were clever in the design of this lens - they chose a maximum aperture that was capable of delivering the highest quality without having to stop down (the earlier M* and A* 300's need to be stopped down one stop or more to get better results), yet it's not too slow either. Your images show the IQ and "look" of this lens at its best - Nice selection

First tulip for me. Great light and so well presented. Lovely.

No. 3 is top of the list for me - grape hyacinths have never looked so good! And No.2 is close behind.

The OOF branch in the squirrel shot doesn't bother me, it's just the way things are. But it's a pity the squirrel has a grey coat, if only it were red ... .

The lens is obviously a good 'un, but is it significantly different (better?) than the DA*300mm f4 (apart from the slightly smaller max aperture)?

Steve

I love squirrels.

I find the DA* produces the most annoying artefacts in its bokeh. If, for example you have a twiggy hedge in the background or the foreground it simply can't cope with it. If you want (say) a railway engine 200 yards away it's great. If you want clean detail then the FA trumps it every time. I expect a LOT more from a £1000+ lens than this - example below ....

Here is a DA*300 example that is almost directly comparable to those taken at f4.5 above. Just look at the ridiculous mess on that hedge. Even Topaz gave up on it. The hedge is about 3feet wide across its top.

Interesting. The 1.4TC is almost permanently attached to my DA*300. I've sometimes thought that OOF long grass or reeds can look a bit fussy, but assumed that it was the price to pay for using the TC. Perhaps it's due to the lens itself.

Steve

The example isn't a one-off. It's what the thing does every time when your depth of interest is around ten feet. The important DoF will emerge sharp as you like but in front of it and behind look like an intentional camera movement contest. Photograph a cathedral and you can see what the stone saint in his niche had for dinner when you crop it but this sort of thing usually ends up messy.