Some shots with the 55-300mm

[Rodney9]

Congratulations on your new lens, It is obviously well worth what you spent, going by these fantastic shots. The mirrored duck is my favourite.

[ennacac]

Those are very nice Don, I really like the Wood Duck and the reflection in the water.

Tom

[thekman620]

vIZnquest wrote:

These are great shots! Definitely makes for a case in helping decide what lens to buy. My great deal lens when I first bought my DS was the Tamron 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 LD Di 1:2 Macro broke. I have been on the fence in buying another one and now with the added flexibility of being 55mm rather than 70mm will be something I could use more as a walk around lens.

Mahalo,

Tom

Thanks Tom. Gee, long time no hear. How you doing?

The 55-300'd make a good walkaround lens, and if you had to, you could put the 18-55 in your pocket for a wide angle if needed...cheers....Don

[thekman620]

Thanks Patty, Rodney and Tom! Your comments are much appreciated....Don

[thekman620]

lesmore49 wrote:

Very nice, sharp pix. I too just recently got a 55-300 Pentax lens and am happy with it.

Thanks lesmore. Yes, it seems a nice lens for the price...cheers...Don

[danielchtong]

thekman620 wrote:

lesmore49 wrote:

Thanks lesmore. Yes, it seems a nice lens for the price...cheers...Don

The lens is slightly heavier than the FAJ 75-300mm and has better magnification of 3.5 which is extremely high when you consider a full blown macro lens can have a factor of 5 only. Min focus distance at 4.5 ft. Price wise it is 3 x that of the FAJ cousin. Seems a very good contender as shown.

Daniel

[interested_observer]

I wish that I could take pictures like that! I guess that I just have not had enough practice. It would be nice to be able to determine how much was the lens and how much was skill and talent.

The image details are absolutely wonderful!!! Very sharp, along with the colors!!

Daniel, thank you for poniting out some differences between the 55-300 vs the 75-300. I picked up, as a stopgap, the 75-300 so that I could have the 300 end available, but have been fairly happy, but I knew that there was better available.

Question - Does anyone have both the 50-200 and the 55-300? How does one compare to the other? Is the 300 a suitable replacement for the 200? My 200, to me - appears to be very good, but I would like to reduce my lens count, while increasing both IQ and reach. I would really like to replace the 50-200 and the 75-300 with just the 55-300. To me, it appears to be really that good!

I read a review the other day, that this was just a lowly consumer grade lens - nothing special. I am thinking that there is something quite good here. Then again, there is the eye along with the skill of the photographer involved here.

Wonderful images!

[danielchtong]

interested_observer wrote:

Daniel, thank you for poniting out some differences between the 55-300 vs the 75-300.

The former is 2.5-3x in price. So understandably, it has some edge. Whether that edge is worth it is something else.

BTW I note that Don did some pp work on the test shots. Until I see actual test comparison shots without pp of some subject and same circumstance, I would not buy the argument that the former is of better optics than the 75-300mm cousin.

Having said that we all agree that Don's skill is not disputed in here.

Daniel

[NonEntity1]

Some very sharp bird pics there Don. I have not seen too much from this lens yet, thanks for sharing them.

Tim

[thekman620]

danielchtong wrote:

interested_observer wrote:

The former is 2.5-3x in price. So understandably, it has some edge. Whether that edge is worth it is something else.

BTW I note that Don did some pp work on the test shots. Until I see actual test comparison shots without pp of some subject and same circumstance, I would not buy the argument that the former is of better optics than the 75-300mm cousin.

Having said that we all agree that Don's skill is not disputed in here.

Daniel

Thanks Daniel,

I used to have a FA100-300 a few years ago, and the IQ was quite good. The one failing I did notice though, was ca's. The coatings were probably not as good as what they use for the DA lenses, as the 1-300 was a film lens, and when you're shooting birds especially against bright skies, the better the coatings, the less ca's. Even my old FA*300 has some ca's, but not as much as the 100-300. That's one of the main reasons I bought this newer DA version - better coatings for the digital world. I also have the 50-200, and before processing, I'd have to say the lenses are about equal for quality at the long end. I just needed more reach. I've never used the 75-300, but have seem some quality photos from this lens. As I said earlier, the newer coatings on the DA lenses probably help a lot for ca's in high contrast photos...cheers...Don