Pentax 55-300 (version 1) +1.4X vs Tokina 4.5-5.6 100-400 for Wildlife travel (2024)

Site Supporter

Pentax 55-300 (version 1) +1.4X vs Tokina 4.5-5.6 100-400 for Wildlife travel

Hi All.

Sorry, I meant to say 80-400 Tokina, not 100-400
I have nature pending travel plans, but family health issues have me in a situation where I am lacking time to fully compare these two lenses, the Pentax 55-300 version 1 and Tokina 80-400 version 1. I usually use a 150-450 for my bird photography, but I have to travel light for this trip and it is just too large to consider. 95% of my photography in this trip will be underwater. I have both the lenses noted and have had the 55-300 for years, but use it rarely recently. I picked up the Tokina 80-400 a few months ago, but haven't had a chance to fully compare them. I will be photographing birds, especially flamingos, lizards, and what ever else I can. This will be on a K3M3.

My thoughts

The Tokina gets me to 400mm without a TC. It has a min focus of 2.5 m. It is the heavier lens, but lengthwise it is actually a little shorter than the 100-300. For bird photography it would seem to be the better choice, buy wondering if 2.5 meters is too far.

The Pentax requires a TC to get to 400mm. Minimum focus is 1.5 m.

My main criteria is image quality.

amateur dirt farmer

one of the things I've read several times here is that the DA55-300 lens does not pair well with any TC, especially at the far end ...

if you're looking to get a decent shot at 400mm, you should be shopping for a prime at that focal length ...

Loyal Site Supporter

I haven't the used the Tokina, but seeing your review of it (Tokina AT-X 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 Lens Reviews - Tokina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database) I can understand why it would be your preferred option for IQ.

The 55-300 with TC would be roughly 420mm f8 wide open. My experience with the DA L version of that lens is that it wants stopping down for best resolution. Even wide open with the TC it would need very good light, and may require high ISO.

You haven't mentioned where you are going. I would say that much depends on what conditions you are likely to encounter, including how close you may be to the wildlife. A longish MFD can be frustrating when the subjects may be close - like butterflies and other insects or small lizards - but if you are talking about water birds (you mention flamingoes) it would scarcely matter. That would point to the Tokina for shore birds/water birds. On the other hand, those are the conditions where you are more likely to be able to use the 55-300 with TC. And since you have to travel light, you would be thankful for the weight saved.

The truth is you are probably not going to get Nat Geo wildlife shots with either lens and if that is not really the point of the trip (if it were you'd be taking the 150-450, even if it meant leaving behind changes of clothes and other inessentials!), I'd say go with the lighter lens. It's not the 150-450, but it's not bad for what it is (assuming you have a good copy, as I did), especially if you can get close to the subject. Samples with the DA L.

Try to stop down if you can. Don't bother trying to use the TC with it other than in ideal conditions.

This being PF, I have to throw in a "neither of the above" option. Have you thought of getting the DA 55-300mm f4.5-6.3 PLM? It's has a bit better resolution (especially wide open), shorter MFD (1m v 1.6m), is about the same weight but more compact when retracted, has better bokeh and transitions and has way better AF (fast and quiet). It can be used with the TC in very good light. It's a lens you would never regret having in your bag.

Last edited by Des; 5 Days Ago at 03:27 PM.

Site Supporter

The min focus distance is not too bad 2.5 meters is after all about 8-9 feet. Unless you are using an internally focused 400 prime, I would be shocked that it could focus that close. And what birds are you shooting any way, hummingbirds? If you are looking to shoot birds while out on a dive trip, these birds are large enough that you don’t need to be within 2.5 meters.

As to the pairing of the 55-300 and a TC, even the K3-3 might just have trouble focusing with the native aperture of the combo.

Loyal Site Supporter

First I'm confused. I think what you are saying is that the majority of the shots with some OTHER lens will be underwater and will be the majority of the shots of the trip. Is that right?

Second - if you are familiar with the 80-400 and it works well for you - why rely on our opinion? I'm not sure many of compared the two lenses directly. Even for those who have - sample variation may cause a reverse of the decision you should make with your copies.

I'm an advocate of the devil you know for a trip you don't have time to prepare for.

Site Supporter

Original Poster

Okay, so more details.

The location is Bonaire (Neatherland Antilles)

As to birds, hummingbirds, Flamingos, parrots, and whatever else I find.

I will be brining also a 100mm DFA f2.8 macro, 15mm f3.5 FA, and likely 24mm f2 FA (for astrophotography).

Site Supporter

I know nothing of the Tokina, I did have the DA 55-300 non WR, as Des mentioned on the DA L, this one also needed to be stopped down, and it had a slow noisy autofocus. With that lens I learned to manually focus close and then hit the AF, faster and less likely to scare birds. In your shoes I would try to get a 55-300PLM, quiet fast focusing, usable wide open, smaller, lighter, and it works well with the DA 1.4 TC providing there is adequate light. Or reconsider your 150-450, after all isn't is a photo trip?

Loyal Site Supporter

I found one review where the two were directly compared. It's from 2010 so the imaging sensor was quite a bit less detailed than today's models:

Tokina AT-X 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 Lens Reviews - Tokina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database John hasn't been around in a while and his photos are gone but the comments remain for what they are worth. Reading his thoughts I would echo what I said earlier: If you don't have time to test the two lenses side by side - you should go with the devil you know - the Tokina. However the 55-300 is certainly lighter. Can you live with 300mm if the 1.4x makes it too hard to focus or too soft? If so the 55-300 is less than half the weight of the 80-400... which itself is half the weight of the D FA 150-450...

---------- Post added 08-07-24 at 12:13 AM ----------

It looks like you have a Q7 - any chance you might pop the DFA 100 on the Q7 and go sniping for birds that way?

Loyal Site Supporter

I would prefer the 400 mm f5.6, purely on these numbers (I don't know the tokina)
The TC works on my old 55-300 WR red , but the fstop of the combo eats away light: that means slow shutter (or high iso) which is not good for moving birds and focus hunting in evening light... I would say TC works with some restrictions, hence not my main preference as single Tele lens.

Bonnaire is relative Sunny, so TC might work in most occasions but not or less in dim light or shade .

PS : I upgraded to the 55-300 PLM variant for faster focussing. worth it.

Site Supporter

Ok, so take the 80-400 since much of your bird shots will be land based. Also since you mention the K3-3, take the TC as well. The K3-3 focuses just fine with a combined lens plus TC open aperture of F8 and its high iso capabilities mean you don’t worry about light. Set the camera up in TAV mode at 1/1000 and F1 and go out to have fun. This is how I shoot the DFA 150-450 plus TC on a K3-3. Works like a charm

Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter

This is a Stellar's Sea Eagle--they are larger than bald eagles--from a Zodiac with the 55-300 PLM at about 20 meters or a bit less...

Nice enough pic--plus it was literally pea soup foggy--but not Nat Geo, obviously. I posted a puffin pic in the July monthly contest as well that was taken at 300mm on the PLM using f6.3, ISO 100, 1/100th sec that is higher resolution, but taken at literally a 20 foot distance.

I have experimented with the TC on the PLM and really cannot find many situations where it provides actually more resolution. More pixels, sure, but no better resolution of fine detail.

Loyal Site Supporter

100mm DFA f2.8 macro is OK. But for flamingos there, you will never get close. Rangers are watching, too, that you don't get too close. A 600mm tele lens is what you need there. A sturdy monopod. Getting both the photo gear and the SCUBA gear on the plane is tough. Saw flamingos both at Goto Meer (Washington Slagbaai National Park) and down south, but don't set your hopes too high in the south, because of the distance to subject. And in the "whatever else" category fall the iguanas. Bring boiled eggs.