Thanks from me too for the suggestions - some of them I hadn't considered at all until now.

Quite likely I guess - fewer elements but a bit heavier.
Regards
Neal

Now that's interesting because I hadn't really thought about it and I've come across a (probably) version 2 M 80-200, which is supposed to not have exposure issues (though it's a bit heavier). Anyone have any idea of the performance difference between the two versions? They are optically very different, and version 2 is much less common.
Regards
Neal

Just a thought - why not chance your arm on something like the M200mm f4 for now and have a little time to play with it whilst you make your decision on whether or not to buy a more expensive item

You should be able to recoup your cash on resale if you don't spend too much

Regards


Stu[/quote]Exactly what I was thinking I've thought of the DA* 200 but I'd have to sell the 60-250 for that, it's not a lot smaller/lighter, and I don't really need f2.8.
Regards
Neal

Well that was a bit harder than I thought - I didn't have the 55-300 long and so it was tricky finding meaningful comparisons. And the ones I found aren't particularly good as images. And - well I've hopefully lowered expectations enough by now



_IGP3444 by neal_harman, on Flickr. DA 55-300 @ 190mm, 1/125, f4.5, ISO 800. SR was on and I was leaning on a railing. Also this was live view for no particularly good reason other than I was on my own and didn't have any time pressure.

Crops from edge and centre:


IGP3444-edge by neal_harman, on Flickr



IGP3444-centre by neal_harman, on Flickr



_IGP4397 by neal_harman, on Flickr. DA* 60-250 @ 250mm, 1/30, f4.0, ISO 800, SR on but given the shutter speed I suspect there's a bit of shake.

Crop from centre:


IGP4397-centre by neal_harman, on Flickr

A couple in better light.



_IGP3124 by neal_harman, on Flickr DA 55-300 @ 260mm, 1/1000, f8.0, ISO 400, SR on.

centre crop:


IGP3124-centre by neal_harman, on Flickr



_IGP3628 by neal_harman, on Flickr. DA* 60-250 @ 250mm, 1/1500, f4.0, ISO 200, SR on.

Centre crop (not 100% but the full-size version is on flickr - goofed the cropping and made it a bit big):


IGP3628-centre by neal_harman, on Flickr

Thinking in a purely utilitarian way, and ignoring potentially-subjective issues like rendering, the DA* 60-250 gets you about two stops over the DA 55-300 (because, for me, the 60-250 is OK wide open and the 55-300 needs stopping-down a bit). It does this at the cost of a shed load of cash and about 600g.

[quote="Mike-P"]From the DA 55-300mm ... Are the other 2 worth more than 3 times the price of the budget zoom ... debatable.[/quote]Well the prices have changed, and like me you could always 'come across' a used one, and I'm very glad I've got it (apart from the weight...). But no - I don't think it is now, for something that isn't real life for most of us. Even when I add the personal, subjective things (my 60-250 images do seem to stand out to me compared to the 55-300 ones) I can't imagine spending that much. The weight is a bit of an issue too - though maybe not if you're coming from a 70-200 f2.8.

Newer cameras have much better high ISO performance, and DOF is still pretty narrow on a 300mm lens at f8.

[quote="Stuey"]I have a Pentax M 200 f4 and love it - there are a few pic's on my flickr site if you want to take a look [/quote]Thanks - I did and am now officially very tempted.

Regards
Neal

Apologies for failing to dig anything out today - only just got in from work
Neal

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

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.

Me too - well owned one and seem two. Horrible suspicion it gets them all in the end.

It's (a) on a K5 so imagine it's the same on a K20d. digitalCG is right about the dark frame subtraction, but if you keep the exposure down you can do stuff like this


M31-128 by neal_harman, on Flickr

which is 100 3 second exposures stacked, K5 with sigma 50-150, ISO 128K, cropped a fair bit, with 20 dark frames. The K20d won't do such high ISO, but a shorter lens will obviously let you use longer exposures (8-10 sec for 50mm) before you get trailing.

If you're going to do it, you're probably better off with something like Deep Sky Stacker - there's a tutorial
here - I didn't use the capture software he talks about but just took multiple dark frames (identical to the image frames but with the lens cap on) and loaded them directly into DSS. It's not brilliant, but I'm pretty happy given it needs no special equipment - just stuff a lot of us have and some free software.

The 55-300 is very good and at 300mm you'll be framing 1/2 (near enough) the area you would at 200mm, so it will bring you significantly 'closer'. I'm thinking (heresy :shock of ditching the 60-250 and going back to it.