new lens

I have a Tamron 70-300. I'm pleased with the image quality except for the purple fringing that it suffers from quite badly sometimes. Apparently the Pentax 55-300 is better in this regard.

Yes 300mm at faster than f5.6 requires Big Money

thanks pete does anyone have any expeience with the tamron 18-300mm or the pentax 55-300mm?

by the way pete what is the sharpness like on the tamron 70-300mm?

The Pentax 55-300 is (from what I've heard) an excellent lens
If it wasn't for getting the new SMC-DA 17-70, the 55-300 would definitely be on the wish list

I have the old Pentax SMC-FA 80-320 which is very, very good. Others have said the 55-300 is better still

The resulting images can make Canon users feel slightly sick after realising their "mega-bucks" lenses don't perform that much better than a £90 second hand Pentax 80-320 lens Hahaha!


Matt

hi matt. thanks for that i think i will go for the 55-300. its looking really good AND my hubby's just said i can order it now as an early birthday pressie! just got to get round someone now to buy me the battery grip.

Sharpness of the Tamron 70-300mm is very good for the type of lens. In fact it's sharper at the important f5.6 setting than the Pentax according to Photozone.de. It's also sharper than some older Pentax zooms and primes that I have tried.

See http://www.photozone.de/pentax/281-tamron-af-70-300mm-f4-56-ld-di-macro-pentax-k...

and http://www.photozone.de/pentax/396-pentax_55300_458

hmm! now im confused. the only thing im not keen on is the minimum focusing distance on the 55-300. maybe i will keep looking.

at the risk of boring everyone with this, now i have just seen sigma 70-300mm apo dg lens. anyone know anything about it. thanks for all your kind help and advice. still very confused, have lenses and reviews spinning round in my head!

The Sigma 70-300mm lenses (there have been several models) are pretty good as an all-rounder medium to long'ish zoom. Some (if not all) also have a reasonable macro capability, but not 1:1, about 1:2 or 2.5 I think. Useful nevertheless.

I have one of these and they are capable of excellent results and very reasonably priced. When fully extended, they protrude rather a long way and are best on a tripod in this mode. The macro setting is 1:2 but this relates to FF camera - with the cropping in an APS Pentax digital camera this equates to 1:1.3 and is adequate for many macro subjects. Can't comment on comparison with the Pentax 55-300 except the latter is a bit more expensive and I don't know what its macro capability is. However, I would probably favour the Pentax as I now have macro covered with a Sigma 180 mm macro - the Pentax wasn't available when I purchase the Sigma zoom!

Hope this helps

John

It's normal for a telephoto zoom not to be able to focus very closely to a subject and only a bonus if it has close-focusing ability, that you might hardly use anyway. Don't worry much about that.

The Pentax 55-300 didn't exist when I bought my Tamron. Then the only similar alternative was the Sigma. I decided against the Sigma because it was more expensive, slightly heavier and not necessarily any sharper.

The Tamron 70-300: I recommend to anyone on a very tight budget.

The Pentax 55-300 should be attractive to anyone who can afford it for the wider range (zooming in to 55mm) and lower levels of purple fringing, and for the build quality.

I'm afraid that is not quite correct. A 1:2 macro means the 20 mm object will project as 10 mm on your sensor/film frame, irrespective of sensor size.

By the way, I have the Sigma 1:4-5.6 70-300 mm APO DG lens, and I am very satisfied with the image quality.

thanks for all your replies. love the photo of lions terry. looks pretty sharp there, which is what i was worried about.

just seen that the sigma 70-300mm is not far off the price of the pentax 55-300mm so it might be better to go for the pentax having the extra down to 55mm. im sure i will make up my mind eventually.

where can you get an 18-300mm tamron from i wont one.