grant_lupton1 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 In the UK a new Pentax 400mm ED IF costs around 6000 pounds. A 300mm ED IF costs 1,500 pounds A 1.4 converter costs 400 pounds. A 300mm plus 1.4 converter will give 420mm at a cost of 1,900 pounds. Will there be any correlation between price/quality of the 300mm plus converter compared to the 400mm? Grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_janik Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I have the 300, it is an amazing lens and I suspect the 400 is as well. I have used the 300 with the Pentax 2x and it is still quite good. Given the price difference, I would, and have, opted for the 300 and use of an extender or crop. I might add that the 300 is still a reasonable size and can be hand held at 1/500. I will at some point acquire a 600, where the extra reach becomes significsnt. Just my view. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_smith10 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Grant: Go to luminous-landscape.com In the archives under P (Pentax 400) is a test of the very question you ask. Quite thorough. The reviewer speaks highly of both lenses and the 1.4x converter. The 300 combination would certainly be easier to afford, the 400 being the crown jewell of the 67 big guns. How deep are your pockets? You should be able to get both lenses on the open market for less than you quote locally. good luck, msmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_rhodes Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I have the 300mm Ed IF and it produces stunning results. I would go for the 300, plus 1.4 TC, which would give you a 420mm f5.6. If you later buy a 600mm, then you would have a 300mm, a 420mm and a 600mm. The only way I would recommend getting the 400mm, is if you don't need a 300mm. If that is the case, then with the 400mm, you would have a 400mm and a 560mm, with a 1.4X TC, in which case, you would then not need the 600mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_lupton1 Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Thomas, Mark and George, thank you for the opinions. I think I will go with the 300 mm plus 1.4 converter (which can also be used with my other lenses). I am aware of the Luminous-Landscape review and this supports the consensus. I can"t see the justification for the price of the 400 mm. In the final analysis, in 35 mm terms it is only a 200m equivalent, ie giving c 4x magnification, ie a short telephoto. Even if I did have deep pockets, I doubt I would pay this much. By way of analogy, I would never buy a Rolex; it doesn"t offer any significant advantage over a basic watch. Of course, if one was a pimp, gangster or nouveau riche... The prices I quoted were the only ones I could find in the UK (Robert White and Mifsuds). If you know better, let me know. Importing is possible but any price advantage is eroded when import duties, vat, etc are paid. Second-hand is an option, and I know of a 400 mm at 1,495 pounds, a significant saving. However, a corresponding saving could be had with a 300 mm. Grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now