Pentax DA* 300mm..an extraordinary lens. What do you think?

[yvon_bourque2]

<p></p>

<h3><br /><strong>I spent the afternoon trying my new Pentax DA* 300mm with the Pentax <em>K-5</em> and the Pentax <em>K-7</em>. Most of the pictures were taken with the <em>K-5</em> while I was using the <em>K-7</em> with the DA 16-45mm lens to take picture of the way I was shooting the images. As you can see below, The stability of the camera was important, as shooting "hand held" with a large telephoto is difficult. I didn't have a tripod on purpose since I also wanted to test my stabilizer as well.</strong><br /><br /><strong>Both performed very well. The DA* 300mm lens is a dream lens. Before getting it, I was using an older Tokina 400mm (soon to be on EBay or you can email me if you want it) which is good enough, but not comparable to the new Pentax DA* 300mm. The 300mm is a bit faster, with a maximum aperture of f/4, and the glass is optimized for today's DSLRs. If you look at the images below, you will see the water droplets very clearly. Of course, the images are small for this site, but the full size images are stunning. I will certainly have one or two enlarged for display and for selling.</strong><br /><br /><strong>The stabilizer was also instrumental in getting the right shots. It held both, the camera and the heavy lens, motionless like a brick, all without using a heavy and cumbersome tripod. The camera was atop the hood of my truck and some pictures were taken from the roof of the truck. I even took some pictures with the camera sitting on an old rusty mailbox. </strong></h3>

<p> <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8pt972LIVFM/Tb-ZoB_lLkI/AAAAAAAAG0k/MRxwlg68dVQ/s1600/IMGP1228.jpg"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8pt972LIVFM/Tb-ZoB_lLkI/AAAAAAAAG0k/MRxwlg68dVQ/s320/IMGP1228.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="212" /></a><br>

<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Rff4rhPIljg/Tb-ZyNHhieI/AAAAAAAAG0o/euHI8zE0GNI/s1600/IMGP1232.jpg"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Rff4rhPIljg/Tb-ZyNHhieI/AAAAAAAAG0o/euHI8zE0GNI/s320/IMGP1232.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="212" /></a><br>

<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5Za4UNCykp0/Tb-Z8M1PeSI/AAAAAAAAG0s/HZ7GM3gaJ9M/s1600/_IGP1418.jpg"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5Za4UNCykp0/Tb-Z8M1PeSI/AAAAAAAAG0s/HZ7GM3gaJ9M/s320/_IGP1418.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="212" /></a><br /> <br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kg9F_tiyE00/Tb-aDiBSx_I/AAAAAAAAG00/4Ay_JkLRHfA/s1600/_IGP1299.jpg"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kg9F_tiyE00/Tb-aDiBSx_I/AAAAAAAAG00/4Ay_JkLRHfA/s320/_IGP1299.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="212" /></a><br>

<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VMGOpe2nPdo/Tb-aGwq290I/AAAAAAAAG04/Ifb6mdyDCdI/s1600/_IGP1384.jpg"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VMGOpe2nPdo/Tb-aGwq290I/AAAAAAAAG04/Ifb6mdyDCdI/s320/_IGP1384.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="212" /></a> <br>

<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_0JMqaCwuOk/Tb-j2zzkfMI/AAAAAAAAG1Y/Oleyss6mtZQ/s1600/_IGP1288.jpg"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_0JMqaCwuOk/Tb-j2zzkfMI/AAAAAAAAG1Y/Oleyss6mtZQ/s320/_IGP1288.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="212" /></a><br>

<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JoG_pNoVBO8/Tb-aQuGn0nI/AAAAAAAAG1A/5apbRyTO6ic/s1600/_IGP1386.jpg"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JoG_pNoVBO8/Tb-aQuGn0nI/AAAAAAAAG1A/5apbRyTO6ic/s320/_IGP1386.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="212" /></a></p>

<p><br /> </p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Very nice! I particularly like the second to last one.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I agree with Matt's selection--and your enthusiasm regarding the lens. </p>

[kfrog]

<p>Well done. Love the photos. May have to rent that lens some day.</p>

[jean_b.]

<p>Thanks for posting Yvon. I have no long focal length lenses for my K-7 and have been toying with getting either the Tokina 400mm as a "training lens" of sorts to see how I like a long focal length, or just biting the bullet and getting a DA 300mm. What about the DA 300 makes you like it so much more than the Tokina (say, $1000 more ;-)?</p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>have been toying with getting either the Tokina 400mm as a "training lens" of sorts</blockquote>

<p>Jean, I think that's an excellent low-risk way to determine whether you'll be using a long lens sufficiently enough to warrant a higher purchase later. Lenses 300mm and greater tend to be for more specialized applications, usually sports and wildlife.</p>

<p>Many moons ago I had that Tokina for about a year. It was OK, worth the purchase and resale prices. More importantly it allowed me to develop my bird photography skills to where I needed a better lens. Besides a greater hole in your pocket, a better lens (such as the DA 300mm) will offer you greater sharpness, AF, often weather resistance, and faster performance all the way around. If you get the Tokina, allow yourself a season or two of use to gauge your satisfaction. Just learning proper lens support, balance, and body logistics with a super-telephoto takes a while.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I had that Tokina too and agree w/ME entirely.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Sorry, Yvon, for my 2 cts. the images don't prove much as to the IQ of the lens... According to <photozone> it's not the best AF 300mm on the market. For the money one gets better, like my Canon EF f/4L IS. Absence of a quality dedicated TC made me quit Pentax. They have a great DSLR in the K-5. But where are the lenses..?</p>

[yvon_bourque2]

<p>Wolf,<br>

I stated above that the small size of the images herein are small and low resolution in order to display on this forum. I don't really care about what photozone say, the world is full of sites that review equipment. Case-in-point, Digitalcamerareview.com say:</p>

<ul>

<li>Excellent, tight construction </li>

<li>DA-series weather sealing and SDM focus drive </li>

<li>Beautiful contrast and color </li>

</ul>

<p>My eyes tell me when I find a lens I like. I see the results in my images taken with the K-5. compared to the Tokina 400mm, it's a great improvement. As for the Canon EF f/4L IS, it may be a great lens, I don't know...but it doesn't fit my K-5:)</p>

[jonathan_rush]

<p>Yep, extraordinary! The one I rented even makes my K100D seem like a great camera. This is my nephew in spring training with the Pirates last year, taken from I think about 30 feet away with only a monopod for support. If he ever sticks with a big league team, this lens will be my first purchase.</p><div></div>

[kfrog]

<p>Nice photo Jonathan. I'm contemplating renting the DA*200mm or the DA*300mm for sports. Have you considered the 200mm? Might be better for getting the lens into ballparks as some ballparks (Minute Maid) limit the length of lens you can bring in.</p>

<p>I have read that it is a better lens overall in some aspects other than the extra reach in focal length of course.</p>

[jonathan_rush]

<p>Yes, I considered the DA*200mm with a multiplier too. Gets real expensive though.</p>

[yvon_bourque2]

<p>I have the DA* 200mm and that is an even better lens than the 300mm. The Bokeh is great and it's also a fast lens. It was rated very highly on all review sites.</p>

[jonathan_rush]

<p>Did you ever use it with a multiplier?</p>

[yvon_bourque2]

<p>Jonathan, Yes I did, a 1.7 multiplier. It is a Sigma, the only think is that you have to manually focus as the two elertronic contacts for the SDM lens is missing on all teleconverters. The 200mm with the extender gave very good results, just not quite as good as the 300mm without a teleconverter.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p><strong><em></em></strong>..."<em>Yes I did, a 1.7 multiplier. It is a Sigma</em>"... <strong><em>Extraordinary..!</em></strong><br>

Could you please take a picture of the gizmo and/or of the box? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one interested here.<br>

Thank You.</p>

[jonathan_rush]

<p>I have a Sakar 2X multiplier that has the autofocus contacts. I've never tested it with a quality lens though. You've got me thinking . . .</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Forget about the Sakar 2x <em>with a quality lens</em>, Jonathan...<br>

Meanwhile the man with a Pentax K-5, 200 & 300mm lenses, plus a <strong>Sigma 1.7</strong> magnifier seems to have fallen silent.<br>

Anybody out there..?</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Perhaps Yvon make a clerical error. Not a big deal. While Pentax made a 1.7x TC, I don't think Sigma does--plus I believe that Sigma TCs work best with Sigma lenses.<br>

But yeah, a cheesy Sakar 2X (just about any 2X in fact) would waste any decent telephoto, depending on how critical the subject is.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[yvon_bourque2]

<p>Indeed, I made a clerical error. The Sigma I have is a 1.4x without the two contacts for the SDM lenses. However, the one I used is actually a ROKUNAR MC 1.7 Pz/AF. It does have the two contacts that were used on the Pz for auto-zooming. It works and the lens does autofocus. However, when I use such powerful telephoto (300mm x 1.7:510mm or 765mm equivalent, I use manual focus along with a Stabilizer of some kind.<br /><br />The photo below is not of my Rokunar 1.7x, it's a photo I found on Google Images...much quicker than taking a picture of mine.</p><div></div>