[VoiceOfReason]

Should I bother with getting the HD DA 55-300 WR with what I already have? Would it be a waste of money? Here's the lenses I have so far:

Pentax DA 18-135WR
Pentax DA 40xs f/2.8
Pentax F 50 f/1.7
Takumar F 70-210 f/4-5.6 <-- selling
Pentax F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5 <-- selling
Pentax 02 Zoom
Pentax HD 1.4 AW teleconverter
Pentax 1.7 AF adapter
Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6
Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 HSM
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 HSM Art
Sigma 24-70 HSM f/2.8
Sigma 70-300 DL Macro <-- coworker is thinking of buying this one from me
Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

Should I simply save up and either go for the 60-250, 150-450, or wait and see if Sigma or Tamron decide to release the 150-600 in Pentax mount? At 310 dollars, considering what I have, would it be a waste of time for me?

[luftfluss]

I wouldn't, unless you had a hankering for WR.

I've had 2 copies of the 55-300 and have not been especially impressed with it. It's been my experience that a crop from my Tak 200/4 provided me with nearly as much image information as the 55-300 @ 300mm... I imagine that your Tamron 70-200 might be similarly as good.

I don't see the rationale of getting the 60-250 when you already have that Tammy 70-200.

[jatrax]

If you sell the Sigma 70-300 then I would say yes. The 55-300 is so light you carry it anywhere without thinking about it unlike the bigger lenses.

But if you can swing the 60-250 that is an amazing lens. Heavier though. I carry the 60-250 and my wife carries the 55-300. I tell myself I get better images but she has a much lighter load.

[hjoseph7]

You already have the 70-200 Tamron and the 70-300 Sigma so the Pentax would just be redundant.

[jimr-pdx]

For a test drive I'd seek a used DAL model for $150 more or less, see if it suits you. If not you'll get your small investment back quickly as they turn over fairly fast, where you might lose some reselling the DA WR. I have a bargain DAL and it's great compared to so many of its competitors, and the same as the WR optically. It's certainly lighter than your big Sig/Tam beasts, and for me that means I'll carry it much more often.

[UncleVanya]

The way I see it your 70-200 Tamron has you covered but at a weight penalty - does that work with the 1.4x converter?

If you need something longer and lighter the 55-300 is in the same league as the 18-135 - it has limitations but it can be a fine performing lens. I have a DA (not WR) version for sale in the marketplace but I'm conflicted about selling it due to the reach vs. weight. If I didn't have the 60-250 already I probably would not be selling this. In fact I bought it just before I bought the 60-250 in a deal I could not refuse.

If you want to try a 55-300 you might try the DA version - it's cheaper than the WR and still offers quick shift which I think is a big plus on this lens based on the hunting and slow AF it sometimes has. Don't get me wrong the lens works without quickshift but there are times it helps a lot.

In the end I'm not sure what I would do in your shoes.

[VoiceOfReason]

The Tamron works flawlessly with the 1.4.

Mainly, I'd like WR, but a bit longer. I am thinking I may need to save up for the 150-450, but I want to see it hit~1800 or less first. Then I may think about filling in the shorter end of WR with higher quality stuff. I'm simply tempted by the price of it at 310 right now.

[freerider]

I think it depends on whether you'll actually use the lens. You certainly have the FL covered with your existing lens collection, but if you really need WR, I think it would be worth it. I've been tempted myself but already have a 60-250mm so I can't justify getting the 55-300mm.

[Adam]

If you can afford it I'd save up for the DA* 60-250mm. The 150-450mm is also good but it's much larger and heavier.

[Imp]

If I were you, i'd be using your teleconvertor with the tammy 70-200. Although that wouldn't be weather proof.

I like the HD DA 55-300 because it is nice and compact, but i find it a bit slow at the long end. But at the short end, it is f/4 until 100mm, so that is nice for portraiture.

---------- Post added 08-02-15 at 03:40 AM ----------

The Tamron works flawlessly with the 1.4.

Whoops... okay then. =)

[Billk]

My nonWR 55-300 got mould in it, and I replaced it with the 300mm F4. After an initial adjustment period, I have never looked back. A lot of people won't consider primes but, once you switch, you start to wonder why you ever thought zooms were better.

[DeadJohn]

What would you use the 55-300 for that your existing lenses don't do well? Is your Sigma 150-500 often too big or heavy to have with you? How does your Sigma 70-300 not meet your needs?

[savoche]

The two things the 55-300 would give you are WR and compactness. If that's important to you, sure, get one.

If size (and price) doesn't matter I'd rather get a 150-450 - or a 60-250 as a compromise. They do both work better with the TC as well.

[mohb]

The two things the 55-300 would give you are WR and compactness. If that's important to you, sure, get one.

Its small and light and WR, and makes it easy to grab a long lens 'just in case' and not wonder why you are lugging around a big lump of glass and metal.

[stormtech]

If you can afford it I'd save up for the DA* 60-250mm. The 150-450mm is also good but it's much larger and heavier.

^^ This.