DA 55-300 vs DA* 300 f4

Started Sep 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
awaldram Forum Pro • Posts: 13,161
Re: My 55-300 at 300mm ...

veroman wrote:

awaldram wrote:

... all the 'what a great lens 'posts images are postage stamp where quite frankly a 2001 P&S could look good ..... to me the very fact all these beautiful colorful images are posted low res with additional sharpening prove the 'run of the mill' accusation more than anything anyone could say ...

It seems to me that you don't fully understand the relationships between image resolution, image size, screen resolution, screen size and pixel density.

I have no intention of getting into a slanging match with you.

You post an image to prove a lens optical quality

560px × 393px

i.e slightly less than an old cathode ray television form the 60's and then question my understanding of resolution !!

Vs the cameras capability of

4928 x 3264

In the Electronics world we consider the 10:1 ration the point of no return i.e the down-sampled image is so removed from the original it no longer holds any of the originals characteristics. Which is what we have here you image could come form a Pentax , Canon, Nikon or Sony from any lens ranging from a £15 Kit to a £5000 prime and we wound;t be able to tell from this print.

lwph about 2800 for the k5

Giving around 2000 lw/ph for the 55-300@300mm F5.8 Vs 2200@f5.6 for the tamron Vs 1950@5.6 fro the Sigma APo Vs 2400 for the da*300@f4

I'm left wondering what you think raises the Pentax out of Run of the mill ?

It can't be resolution so were left with contrast, quick shift or just cause I own it ?

I'll swap you close focusing of the Tammy and Siggy for the quick shift of the Pentax so were left with contrast.

Can you justify double the price for the improved contrast to justify your 'value' claim?

In any event, there's overwhelming testimony by any number of reputable online review sites as well as 55-300 owners that underscore the value of the 55-300 and remove it from the "run-of-the-mill category."

There is plenty of platitudes from online review sight for the other 'run of the mill' contenders

I, for one, would never waste my time defending a lens that's universally acknowledged as "poor," nor would anyone else in their right minds.

It's safe to say that the 55-300 represents excellent value

I would tend say reasonable value not excellent.

and that some samples of this lens are not up to par.

Not so sure I suspect all samples here are withing factory specification so trying to say a 'good' copy proves its a great lens as as churlish as making-out a bad copy proves its rubbish.

Having said that none of the web posting sized postage stamps prove it one way or the other which the point , what do you think a 560px × 393px shows?.

And at what point does the low resolution fail to show IQ.?

Does this 1x1 down-sample from a da*55 show its quality?


-- hide signature --

'When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece.'
— Found in a Chinese Fortune Cookie

 awaldram's gear list:awaldram's gear list
Pentax K-x Pentax Q Olympus PEN E-PM2 Pentax Q7 Pentax K-3 +17 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow