Long(ish) telephoto

[peter_sanders2]

<p>If a Pentaxian wanted a 300mm prime lens, faster than f/5.6 (at is semi-acceptable, and even more so as the price goes down), that would work for anything within, up to and/or including 35mm, for as cheap as possible, where would he/she(/in this case I) go? Off-brand is perfectly acceptable, as is any mount designed for a longer lens-film distance than Pentax (so that the adapter doesn't require an infinity focus optic). Any and all variations of stopped down metering are accepted.</p>

<p>Thank you very much.</p>

<p>P.S. the holder of the best idea deserves a cookie.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The <a href="http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/54B.html">Tamron SP 300mm f/5.6</a> is a very fine lens, can be had for most reasonable prices if you're patient. But it doesn't meet your faster than f/5.6 requirement.<br>

The Pentax K 300/4 has the demerit of no tripod mount, which would be a big negative if used on a "plastic" camera body. Probably more expensive than the Tamron.<br>

There's an old Sigma 300/4.5 which appears to be affordable.<br>

There's a Ricoh 300/4.5 which appears to be cheap -- just remove the Ricoh pin. <br>

Problem is, a decent 300/5.6 is pretty easy to make, any old Japanese T-mount 300/5.6 will probably be fine. Faster than that and it's a design challenge.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>No tripod mount is a non-issue. If I need a tripod, I'll just use my 500mm/8.<br>

What do you mean "remove the R. pin?"</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Peter, it's minor lens surgery to take a troublesome pin off that isn't needed for K mount anyway. Super easy.</p>

<p>John, did you see any of those 300 4.5 lenses for sale? Where?</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Try KEH.com they have some long lenses was there the other day</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>Thank you for responding quickly, but where are you seeing this? I have yet to find any of the items even for sale. I've checked google shopping, ebay, and lightly KEH. I assumed that Adorama and B&H results would show up in google. Am I wrong?</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I'd look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.</p>

<p>I'd also look at the Pentax DA* 300mm.</p>

<p>A tripod mount on a larger lens is IMO essential. If the lens is small enough, and f/4.5 lenses it might be, then no such attachment is technically needed.</p>

<p>The problem is camera flex, which many people have reported with the K10D/K20D and I assume also with the K-7/K-5, though I haven't seen specific reports. A long lens without a tripod mount will be poorly balanced and create problems.</p>

<p>Pentax has never been a fan of tripod mounts, though they shouldn't be faulted as the only ones. Nikon occassionally decides it's 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses don't need such mounts.</p>

<p>Even a lens as small as the 50-135mm f/2.8 can benefit from a tripod mount, Tokina put one on while Pentax decided not to. Don't even get me started on the 200mm f/2.8 DA*, which should also come standard with a tripod mount!</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I was suggesting choices, not sources. I got my Tamron SP 300/5.6 on eBay, took a month or two of watching. There's one for $99 at KEH.com right now, with a bonked filter ring. A fine deal. The lens is also quite light.<br>

Pentax K Adaptall mount is cheap, Pentax KA adaptall mount is $75 to $100.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>I have read a book, The 35MM Handbook, and it goes into detail about everything and every aspect thereof. Including how to make a tripod mount for use with tandem tripods. Also, my hand will always be supporting the other end of the lens because I do almost nothing but manual focus (when given the option), and I will need my hand on the focusing ring. Last, the shots that require a tripod can, once again, use the slower lens nine times out of ten. I can for the most part accept the one time out of ten, but anyone who says that that could be the one good shot would have a point.<br>

In my year and a half of photography with anything better than a 2.1MP point & shoot, however, I have never <em>barely</em> missed a shot by a margin that would be determined by that.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>If your hand is on the lens, your lens has movement. You'll want to remove all the variables from the system. Using a remote cable release, hands off the camera and tripod, a wind block, and mirror lockup.</p>

<p>No, you don't need a tripod mount all the time, it's just for the shots you do need a tripod mount that you will miss having one.</p>

<p>Beyond that, tripod mounts make going for portrait to landscape a simple practice. Something very useful in sports photography, and I'm sure many other genres.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>Does anyone here think I could have my hands on a lens for cheapish (i.e., what has been described here) by the eclipse this June? I used the 500mm/8 this past December and this is the best I have to show for it, bracketing 8 stops per image, with a cable release and MLU</p><div></div>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>I would prefer to stay away from DA and DA* lenses because I own a film camera as well.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>@J.S. When I plan on cropping, enlarging to a great degree, et cetera, I do what you said. I mean for action, like that of a bird taking off or in flight, in which I would be touching the camera anyway.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>There are a couple of 300mm Takumar f4s with tripod mounts over at KEH. I think they're asking near $300+, but it's probably a good lens. The screwmount adapter will probably be near $30. I don't know about those other lenses listed above. I have been satisfied with the Takumars. They're good lenses. Durable, reliable and sturdy.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>Thank you for your help. I found what I'm looking for.<br>

Question:<br>

24 <em>million</em>. That's the number of lenses usable with Pentax digital cameras. Couldn't they stop turning out $200 lenses with image quality worth about $20, and start taking $1000+ lenses and figuring out how to get ± the same effect for a price that will appeal to a larger group of people?<br>

Why don't they?<br>

(yes, I am aware that the design itself couldn't be changed, per se, but the process could)</p>

[laur1]

<p>DA* 300/4 should be the best lens in production.<br>

Older F/A/FA* lenses of equal or longer focal lengths would also be great if you can find them, but they would probably cost as much as the DA*.<br>

The Tamron SP 300/5.6 is a good lens, but it has more PF than the SP 60-300/3.8-5.4 (the latter is also faster than 5.6 :) ). I would rather look at the last <a href="http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/360B.html">Tamron SP 300/2.8</a>. Or maybe use the <a href="http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/30A.html">SP 80-200/2.8</a> with the 1.4x TC.<br>

At this focal length, image quality will cost - there's no way around that.</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>One of the less-expensive choices is adapting a Pentax 67 300/4 but you'll a) need the 67=>K adapter, and b) have to use stop-down metering, and c) these are good lenses but older and may have a bit more CA than the newer ED designs. The inexpensive ones are usually the older ones, not the newer and superior Pentax M* ED IF edition. Unfortunately, I think only the M* version has a tripod mount?</p>

<p>As a response to the gripe about the relatively small number of highly desirable lenses available for Pentax, it's not only on Pentax. Over the decades, Pentax has attracted the value-oriented customer who whenever Pentax has made upmarket lenses available has voted with their wallets to not buy all that many of them so they are relatively uncommon on the used market. In addition to the fact that a relatively small number of Pentaxians have been willing to bear the cost of such lenses, many Pentaxians have gravitated towards lighter & more compact gear as well. The obvious comparison is vs. Nikon--there are tons of 300/4 and 300/4.5 available on the used market, at half the cost or less vs. the Pentax alternatives. One could buy a decent Nikon digital body to go with one of those lenses for what it would cost to buy a Pentax 300mm prime.</p>

<p>For what it's worth when it comes to moon shots, I think I might be happier with what I took with the FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 vs. the Sigma 600/8 Mirror lens. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/57thstincident/tags/moon/">See here for both shots</a>. I have been wondering whether cropping the 80-320/4.5-5.6 or DA 55-300/4-5.8 would yield results as good as the 600/8 uncropped. A better test would be to shoot all three lenses under the same conditions.</p>

[fritz_carlsson1]

<p>Hi Peter! The Super-Takumar and the SMC-Takumar 300mm f/4 lenses both have tripod mounts and are very fine lenses. It surprises me that the SMC-Pentax equivalent does not. </p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>I would like to take pictures of humming birds. Would I be able to take good pictures of them (assuming my lowish level of photographic capacity allows me to do so) using nothing but the soonish-to-be-mine 300mm/4 and a few extension tubes?</p>

<p>Oh yeah: I do have a "plastic camera." My Vivitar V3800n is plastic-y and doesn't advertise any metal body, and the worst problem I've had with it and my 80-200/4 is not being able to turn it sideways. From my experience, when they are flying (or hovering) it is always at a horizontal format.</p>

[peter_sanders2]

<p>What does Non-MFG mean? I always thought it meant non manual focus grip (i.e., AF only), but they keep showing up in the <acronym title="Manual Focus (not medium format)">MF section</acronym></p>

[peter_sanders2]

<blockquote>

<p>"[...] soonish-to-be-mine 300mm/4."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or is that [lens/purchase] even a good idea?</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I am not clear as to which lens you are about to acquire. Also, which film body you use. Some DA lenses actually can be used for 35mm. </p>

<p>Some years ago, I read in Pop Photo of a special arm that can be attached around a lens, and also secured to the tripod. They did tests indicating that having both the lens and the camera secured to the tripod was even better than using a tripod mount on the lens. This or similar may still be available. Hopefully so, because it is evidently a good concept. </p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>In KEH terminology, "non-mfg" is basically their way of saying it's from one of the third-party companies -- Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc.</p>

<p>For example, if you go to the KEH web site and you want to see Tamron manual focus prime lenses in Pentax K mount, you would select Pentax Manual Focus from the Brands menu, then select Non-Mfg Fixed Focal Length Lenses from the Categories menu. That'll give you a listing of all their K-mount non-Pentax manual focus primes.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to take pictures of humming birds.<br /> Or is that [300mm lens/purchase] even a good idea?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter,<br /> It's useful to read your shooting objectives here. You don't necessarily need a 300mm lens to capture hummingbirds successfully. A decent 200mm (f2.8 preferred) lens will do just fine. What matters more is how you configure your shooting environment for success.</p>

<p>Hummingbirds are crazy quick, but they are fairly predictable. If you are aiming to shoot from home, I would suggest you plant some <em>abutilon</em> (aka flowering maple) plants about 5-10 feet from a convenient shooting location. We have a cluster about that far off our deck. These good looking plants attract lots of hummingbirds for several months.</p>

<p>It is important to setup your camera and tripod on a regular basis so the hummingbirds get to know you. Once they realize that you are not a threat, you can inch a bit closer if necessary. Over time you will recognize particular flowers they like. I recommend you lock your tripod and pre-focused lens on that section, set your desired aperture/shutter, attach a shutter release (wireless is less obtrusive), and be patient. Eventually you should get a lot of decent shots.</p>

<p>This is one reason a lens with a tripod mount is preferred. Using a monopod out in the field will also give you more flexibility of movement. An alternative (though I have and use all of these) is to use an Ultrapod 2 or the newer longer Gorillapod as a convenient chest tripod.</p>

<p>It seems like you are aiming to go cheap, and that may be quite OK depending on your personal quality requirements. If you don't want to spend more than $200, consider something like the Tamron 70-300mm f 4-5.6. It's light (you won't need a tripod mount) and the optics are surprisingly good. The AF is ouch-slow but if you are using MF then that is irrelevant. Some of the older versions work on film bodies too.</p>

<p>Otherwise I would echo Justin's recommendation for the Sigma 100-300mm f4. I would then recommend a 1.4x teleconverter to give you better reach for birds. This is pretty subjective, but on an APS-C -based DSLR, 300mm is not my favorite focal length. It's too short for many types of birds and some sports, yet too long and slow for other occasions. A fast 200mm Pentax A* + a 1.5X TC will work just as well if you don't care about autofocus.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Regarding the Tamron 70-300: the "Di" version, which is the newest version that is available in Pentax mount, will work just fine on film bodies, since it has an aperture ring. Tamron makes an even newer version that doesn't have an aperture ring, but it's not available in Pentax mount so it's nothing to worry about.</p>

<p>I got my Tamron 70-300 Di brand new for around $170 if I remember correctly. That includes a 6 year warranty. Hard to beat. B&H currently has it for $164.95 with free shipping. At that price, you almost can't afford <em>not </em>to get one! http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423730-REG/Tamron_AF017P700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html</p>

<p>Photo below: Tamron 70-300 Di @ 300mm and f/8</p><div></div>