Improving on DAL 55-300

Hello All

Perhaps like other members from time to time you wonder how much your IQ could improve with a change of glass. I found the Pentax zoom to be a little better than the Sigma 70-300. Would moving on to the DA*60-250 really be worth the extra money?

Are there other high quality zooms to consider if the weatherproofing of the DA* is not required? I have Kx and K10 bodies.

Would appreciate any experiences/comments as I'm thinking others will have been in this situation.

I already have an af 1.7 teleconverter, so if I was going to look for a tele, I'b be very happy to buy the new 200mm.

I just don't get opportunities to use super teles very often.....
but that 200 on my k10 would be awesome for vacation or birds!

I think I have more or less asked the same question on another thread and so have one or two others. From my own point of view I'm still not absolutely sure. I don't really want anything massive like the Bigma but want 300mm or more and better than the DAL 55-300. I'm thinking Prime from my experience of my cheap 200mm M42 Tele Takumar which seems better than the DAL at 200mm which is encouraging me towards a prime of some sort.
Dave

I've gone the prime route too, and picked up a DA*200 today. Looking at the shots I take with the 55-300 most are short of between 170 and 250, which, if sticking to Pentax glass, meant choosing between the DA*200, 300 or 60-250. In my case the 60-250 would probably have been the best compromise but out of my budget, the 300 would be too long, too often. So I went with the 200 as it also faster being a 2.8. I'm now looking forward to see how I get on with it.

Hello Dave - I've been researching the Pentax zoom offerings. Certainly there are people who speak as highly of the DA* 60-250 as do the DA*50-135 (which I have and know well)

I haven't yet seen any real time shots taken side by side with the Pentax zooms. One link goes into the depths of resolution and other lab tests and conclude about a 10-15% improvement in resolution from the 50-300 to the DA 60-250

Sometimes lenses show colour and contrast differences which are their fingerprints.

A comment for Don -I wonder if a 200 mm telephoto would be long enough for photographing birds. With the 50-300 mm zoom I seem to end up at the 300mm end even if its just for the robin in the garden.

I agree about the 200mm not being long enough for birding which I want. I think perhaps he was saying it was so good it was still superior to the 55-300mm with a teleconverter on. Next time I go on a birding trip I might hire the 300mm DA* from SRS and try it for 3 days. I'n not sure 10-15% justifies an extra £900 or so at the moment!
Dave

guess that depends on whether you like to hunt your prey, or just grab snapshots when opportunity presents...
I'd sooner set up a blind near a feeder and drink beer all afternoon, than yank out a telescope and grab shots from the other side of the province....

To me it was worth it (though for a used 60-250 as new ones then and now are too steep) - the image quality is outstanding (and the 55-300) is really pretty good too). I do find it heavy though and a good AF 200m f4 (DA*, limited or whatever) that weighs a lot less would be ideal - not holding my breath though. Tempted to give an eBay K or M 200mm f4 a go.

Hi MostlyHarmless -I have an old 200mm Pentacon F4 M42 screw which I tried on my K bodies but find it very soft and also quite heavy, built like a tank no doubt. Thanks for your comments on the 60-250 - have you ever been able to use the 50-300 on similar shots?

Also I like Don's style and surely a glass of beer is far cheaper than new camera glass!

Sigma 100-300 f/4 is also worth a look

I had one of them too
I'll have a look when I get back from work later on.
Neal

A bit like rocking horse droppings. Of course you can also join the scrum for when MikeP sells his.

Davex

I think the 200 is a little short as well, especially as its magnification is also less than the 300mm. Even at minimum focus distance on the 300mm small birds still don't fill the frame. They'd require even more cropping with the 200mm.

The DA* 200mm with the 1.7x TC is a very good combination.

Oh, Missed that, yes a 340mm f5 is not bad at all as the minimum focus distance should remain the same, right?