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

If I could afford your two primes I'd be more than happy with zooms for everything else!
Dave

You never know these days with the silly prices people are asking for Pentax gear. There is a Tamron Adaptall adaptor (PKA) for £73 at the moment. Would you pay an extra £60 not to press a green button?!

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 know getting the right Pentax lens at a bargain price is tricky but it is getting silly. There are some nice Tamron Adaptall legacy lenses out there that were once a bargain. I've just seen the PKA Adaptall mount on Ebay BIN for £73 !! Now a decent one of the Adaptall range will probably cost, say £60 or more so you are paying nearly £150 for an old manual focus lens. Surely that can be matched by a legacy Pentax lens with auto aperture function. The manual Adaptall mount is more reasonable at around £15 and the only difference really is that you have to stop down with the green button.
The world's gone mad!
Dave

Price vs quality. Don't you just hate it! Always difficult. If you are at the beginning of your wildlife journey I would go for the DAL 55-300. Not because it's better but because you will be very happy. In fact I would even say the saving of the DAL over the DA is worth it on a cost effective basis, bearing in mind they are optically the same. I have used the DAl 55-300 on my KX for over a year and have enjoyed the lightness and the quality (but not the slow and hunting autofocus) but find myself wanting more, but also wondering if the next step up like the Sigma 120-400 or 150-500 really will be worth the extra weight and cost. Then of course the DA* 300mm raises it's head. Dunno - but if you want to see what the first part of my journey has been like with the DAL 55-300 then go here and have a look:-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcweather/page4/
Taken with DAL 55-300 and K-x unless it says otherwise.

I'm not sure I'd dump them! I've just done some pretty controlled comparisons at F8 and 200mm and the Adaptall 60-300mm matched the Pentax 55-300 DAL and the Tamron Adaptall 80-210 was pretty much the same at that focal length. The Takumar was best but then it is a 200mm prime.
Having said that I want quality at 300mm plus and with that overlap I may as well lose a few and save and get a 300mm DA*.
Thanks for the comments,
Dave

If you trade it in let us know where!

Sell the AFA 1.7TC - to me!
Seriously there is some good advice there, especially with regard to the Tamron SP 90mm. Perhaps you should sell almost all of them. You would get a lot of money, probably enough to get what you really need - if you know!
Dave

Thanks, pretty much what I thought. I agree about the final image being with the photographer but artistic quality can't be done by the camera and lens (well not really) so that bit is a constant. I'm sure the top end modern lenses will be the best bet but I have to say I was amazed at the quality I got from the old M42 200mm Tele Takumar. I'm sure it was better than the DAL 55-300mm at the same focal length. Like Frogfish, I will probably go for the DA* 300mm but maybe rent it for a few days from SRS first. Is there a teleconverter with this lens that would maintain the SDM?
Dave