Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 1, 2007, 1:28 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

Hi All.

What is your opinion of this lens.

Worthwhile or a complete pile of junk??



I have seen this one advertised, it is a lot of money, but you thoughts would be appreciated.


Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 1, 2007, 4:33 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

from what i've seen posted and read about, all of these are very adequate lenses. even the M42s.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2007, 4:57 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
Hi All.

What is your opinion of this lens.

Worthwhile or a complete pile of junk??



I have seen this one advertised, it is a lot of money, but you thoughts would be appreciated.


Darren
KEH always used to have a couple of manual 300mmF4 at around $140-$200. Just looking at it and none there. After the delaying of DA* , even manual primes have gone up. AF prime has zero for some time (9 months). And we are talking about the largest outfit likely worldwide.
For EU that is even worse as I can see.

Daniel , Toronto

danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2007, 5:16 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
Worthwhile or a complete pile of junk??
it is a lot of money,
Darren
what model are you talking about? i'm not sure if i've ever seen a pentax prime that was not good., cost , tho, is a different story.

roy


robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2007, 7:03 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Peacekeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,024
Default

I have a M42 mount Takumar 300mm f/4 and I reckon it is awesome, just a little on the heavy side. :G
Peacekeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2007, 7:46 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Is it the M* f4, the A* f4, the F* f4.5 or the FA* f 4.5?. Of course all are outstanding, but the M* should be the least expensive and the F* the most. How much is "a lot of money" in this case?

I recently let down a favourableoffer for an A*, since I think I'll go for a AF1.7 converter for my A* 200 mm instead. Was that stupid or wise, Tom or someone else who can compare?

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2007, 8:39 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
thePrisoner6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 23
Default

I bought the SMC Pentax-A* 300mm a few weeks ago from a local camera store (used display case). We LOVE it. Very sharp and I've done reasonably well getting it in focus. My k100d focus "beep" seems to be accurate. I haven't tried it out with film on my wife's ME super yet.


I've done a few moon shots and distant birds. Next.... the beach :-)
thePrisoner6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2007, 9:03 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

There is one version of the 300 lens that is not designated with a green star, the K300. I'm not sure how different it is from the M*300 - it sounds like it would still be a sharp lens, though maybe not quite as good as the green star versions. I certainly wouldn't pay as much for it as I would for the other models.

I have the A*300 and love it, use it all the time. Just be aware that minimum focusing distance is something like 15 feet (not a macro lens). It's by far the best lens that I currently own!
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2007, 11:59 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

It looks to be a standard PK mount. Says SMC Pentax 1:4 300mm on the front.

Looks like a sliding lens hood as well.


Currently at £100 plus postage


Darren


Edit: Just heard back from the seller - not a star lens - serial number 6544331


Just really need to know if it is worthe bidding on and what sort of value I should go to. Also is this a lens I would be happy to own?
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2007, 1:13 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

bilybianca wrote:
Quote:
I recently let down a favourableoffer for an A*, since I think I'll go for a AF1.7 converter for my A* 200 mm instead. Was that stupid or wise, Tom or someone else who can compare?

Kjell

Hi Kjell,

I don't own the A*300/4 anymore, so I can't do a direct comparison, but I do have an A*200/2.8 and the FA*300/4.5. I am obviously a big fan of the F 1.7x AFA. Here are my impressions of the two, and some thoughts from what I remember about the A*300/4.

The FA*300 is a tad sharper than the A*200 with the 1.7x AFA. The difference is noticeable, but not majorIMO. I also considered the FA*300 a tad sharper than the A*300. The difference between the A*300 and the A*200 +AFA would be even less. The FA* color rendition is warmer than the A*200/AFA combo, and to my eye, more natural, but with PP, the difference, while significant, would not be a factor for me. The FA* controls PF and CA better than the A*200/AFA combo, but it's also better than the A*300, so the difference between the A*300 - A*200/AFA would be less.

All these observations are with the lenses wide open. All differences become kind of nitpicky when stopped down a bit. On the plus side, the A*200/AFA combo has a longer effective FL and focuses closer than the FA*300 by about 2 ft.

I think that your opting for the A*200 + PF 1.7x AFA is a clear winner. The versatility of having a fast 200 in addition to a 340 with limited AF capability trumps the 1/2 stop difference in speed, and the ability of the A*200 to focus to @ 6 ft is a definite plus. As Harriet noted, the A*300 will only focus to 13 - 15 ft.

Please realise that I'm not knocking the A*300 -- it's an exemplary lens. If I had the choice right now (and I'm glad that I don't), I'd opt for the A*200 and the PF 1.7x AFA. With the prices that the A*300 has been getting, I'd be looking for a Tamron SP 300/2.8 LD IF Adaptall IIinstead for about the same $$. The extra stop in max aperture allows stacking TCs and many already come with either an Adaptall II 1.4x and/or an Adaptall II 2x included. Mine came with the 1.4x, and as you've seen, this gives me many options -- MF 300mm/2.8, MF 420mm/4 with just the 1.4x, AF 510mm/4.8 with just the 1.7x, AF 714mm/6.7 with both stacked -- but it is BIG.

However BIG is relative. I was out shooting and ran into a guy shooting a C 20D with a 600/4 -- now that's BIG :-), not to mention the huge Gitzo CF tripod and the Wimberly gimbal he needed to manage it -- and that's not even considering the expense. . .I don't think that I'll ever go that far. . .

Realise also that I don't do formal lens tests -- I'd much rather just shoot the lens and draw my conclusions from use in the field. It's very subjective, and not very scientific at all, but it works for me. . .

Scott

snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:13 PM.