[bsamcash]

Some of you may remember that I was waiting for a SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR I ordered from Adorama during Black Friday which UPS had lost. Well it arrived Monday evening, and Tuesday (yesterday) I finally had a chance to take it out for a test ride.

Before we get started, let me tell you that my experience with longer lenses is very limited; I used to own the SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED, and currently have a Tamron AF (IF) 28-105mm F4-5.6, neither of which impressed me. I have since got rid of the DA 55-300, but I've held on to the Tamron because I scored it for only 30USD, so it's no loss. Also, I just never use longer focal lengths. So knowing this sparse background of mine, take my opinions with a grain of salt.

First the bad: This lens can be soft. The longer the focal length and the larger the aperture, the softer the final image. This is to be expected from this class of telephoto lens. But what did take me by surprise is how sharply [inverse pun?] the sharpness falls as you leave the center. At 200/5.6, the center is slightly fuzzy, but the borders are just ugly--unusable for prints larger than 4x6.

Also, while this lens has fabulous color contrast, it lacks micro contrast. Images have great tones, but they lack the pop I've come to expect from using primes. I find this particularly troubling with highlights. For a lens at least partially marketed for nature/outdoor scenes, it does not handle bright skies well. I'm not sure if this is a consequence of the coating or the optical formula.

I know this makes the lens sound poor, but I start with the bad for a reason: I want you to leave this post feeling the astonishment I feel.

Did I say this lens was soft? I lied. It is sharp! It can be soft if you press it. From 50mm to 135mm it is sharp at any aperture, and gets sharper as you stop down. Above that it is sharp from f8. At 200/11 it is sharp from the center to the far edges, only getting soft at the corners.

The colors are breathtaking, especially the magentas. This is a lens for Bryce Canyon. It handles reds and magentas better than my limiteds. Greens are deep and saturated, and only blues suffer a little (but are recoverable).

Distortion is surprisingly low. I'm not sure what I was expecting for a 4x zoom, but it has very low barrel and a pleasing amount of pincushion (I usually prefer a little pinch in the center). I honestly find it hard to see any distortion until I hit the lens correction.

But what I enjoy mostly about this lens is the build quality! My only other weather sealed lens is the SMC Pentax-DA L 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR, so maybe I just have low standards when it comes to build. The plastic feels very high quality and the texture matches my K-5IIs and grip--not to mention balancing well--and the dampening of the zoom ring feels so good for a budget zoom! But what I love most of all is the Quick Shift! The focus ring is so smooth for an autofocus budget zoom! And I use it!

But enough of my rambling. Here are some images from my first outing with the lens.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[aldorp]

I too recently got the 50-200mm WR lens and got to shoot a Christmas party yesterday. This was my take on the lens with my K-3.

200mm – wide open, yeah it is soft, even at center, close one stop at least to get decent pictures
150mm or closer – Big improvement when used over wide open over 200mm
50 – 100mm – Wide open seems to be sharp enough at the center. Close one stop and things get interesting.

Colors were really nice (color profile “normal”) and the bokeh better than expected. I was generally happy with the pictures, they were casual event pictures and they were perfectly suited for posting to Facebook. Focusing was not ultra fast on my Pentax K-3 but sufficiently snappy that I rarely missed a moment.

I do own several sharp lenses like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and Pentax 50mm F1.4 and I was NOT expecting this lens to match those. It did not, but the colors were very nice and center sharpness was sufficient at most ranges wide open and if I closed one or two stops it was much better.

I got this lens because I wanted was to have second lens with my small camera bag. The first lens is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 so this lens complements the Tamron really well. The small size, weather sealing and good colors made it an ideal choice.

I also have the Pentax 18 – 135mm f3.5-5.6 WR and the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6. The Pentax 18 – 135mm f3.5-5.6 WR did not add enough since I already covered the 17 – 50mm range with the Tamron (and that lens eats the Pentax 18 – 135mm f3.5-5.6 WR for breakfast). The Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 was a fine option too but too big for my camera bag (and fairly big in general).

[c.a.m]

So I got my DA 50-200mm WR . . .

Thanks for your review and images. I have the same lens and I think I agree with your observations.

I already covered the 17 – 50mm range with the Tamron (and that lens eats the Pentax 18 – 135mm f3.5-5.6 WR for breakfast).

I would agree with most of your comments, and find the DA 50-200 to be quite good for its price, compactness, and FL range.

However, I guess the Tamron's breakfast consists of the 17-50mm range. A fundamental trade-off with lenses is the optical and image quality vs FL range. Restricted FL zooms and single-FL primes generally produce higher IQ but, obviously, at the expense of FL coverage. So, breakfast may go the Tamron, but lunch belongs to the 18-135, yes? And dinner is eaten by the 50-200 in the 135-200mm range.

- Craig

[bsamcash]

the bokeh better than expected

Agreed. The bokeh is extremely smooth and creamy.

Thanks for your review and images

Thanks for your review and images

Anytime!