Don't know what to do. 55-300 or DA* 300mm

Sorry I know I have mentioned this in the last few days but I have one dilemma remaining.

I have a new K-5 and 18-135 and am over the moon with it, really happy. I am about to order a Metz 58 AF-2 and the 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro for close up, indoor low light and Head & Shoulder portraits.

I would also like to complete my kit a lens for wildlife and I really have a dilemma here. It isn't really a money thing, I know the 300mm prime is 4 times the price of the 55-300 but I am seeing this as an investment and I presume I will keep my lenses longer than the body itself, probably

Without using both lenses (I intend to use for birds and nature/wildlife) I really don't know which one to get. I have read very good reviews on the 55-300 and other posters here concur it is a good lens but at 300mmm is the prime 300mm that much better?

Is there anyone here who has both who can post samples of shots at 300mm, or if you have one or the other can you post some samples? Maybe between a few posters I can see some comparisons?

I just don't know whether to pay the extra for the apparent superior IQ and speed (F4 instead of F5.8 at 300mm) of the prime or go for the flexibility of the zoom. I just don't know...

mibu2011 said:

I just don't know whether to pay the extra for the apparent superior IQ and speed (F4 instead of F5.8 at 300mm) of the prime or go for the flexibility of the zoom. I just don't know...

Click to expand...

Go with DA* 300 f/4. It's one of the best newer lenses in the Pentax system. The extra speed gives you more flexibility, in a different sense. The extra sharpness gives you crop-ability.

You may need to consider DA*60-250 F/4 too.

I don't think for my purpose and the cost of the lens the 60-250 is long enough.

There's always the sigma 55-500, 150-500, 120-400... If you're going to do wildlife, how fast do you need it anyway?

mibu2011 said:

I don't think for my purpose and the cost of the lens the 60-250 is long enough.

Click to expand...

I have ordered the 55-300 and will take advantage of the low noise sensor at higher ISO's that the K-5 is more than capable of to counteract the slower speed at the long end.

The money saved will go towards a software suite. Either OnOne Suite or Nik Software suite, can't decide arrrrrgh!!!

So my kit will consist of:-

Pentax K-5, DA 18-135, DA 55-300, DA 35 F2.8 Macro, Metz 58 AF-2 and.....

Either OnOne Suite or Nik Software suite with PS CS4 for PP.

Then to start taking some photos

For birds you really need the 300mm plus a decent extender, as 300mm usually isn't long enough. 400 is better; 500mm preferred.

The zoom you ordered is more of a consumer product which may be a bit slow. You want to photograph birds as wide open as possible as backgrounds can be funky.

Regardless, I'm sure you get plenty of good photos with your new setup.

SmertZ

Thanks. To be honest, birds is probably the thing I am least interested in shooting. I prefer larger animals, bugs, flowers and general nature.

I think you have got a good solid kit there covering most elements with minimum weight, its part of my kit. When you find you are specialing in a particular focal lenght then you can buy the appropriate prime.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation

I have both lenses, and I've also tried the 60-250. The 55-300 at f7.1-11 matched the output of the 300/4 at same f-stops. Wide open, the 55-300 does not match the 300/4 at same f-stops; and even at f4, the 300 is sharper until you stop down the 55-300 at least 1 f-stop.

For travel, the 55-300 is lighter and if you are okay with stopping down, it makes more sense. However, if you want to shoot at f4, or add a 1.7x converter, then the 300/4 makes more sense.

Considering what you've got, I'd go with the 55-300 and possibly add another prime later, like the 70 limited or the 100 macro.

As for the 60-250, it extends too far and seems too heavy for travel. I much prefer the 55-300 in this regard.

The DA* 300 is just an amazing lens, and the birdies or whatever wildlife you are imaging will not hear a peep out of it.