Pentax Lens Review and Specification Database

Return to the Forum · Database Index · Third-Party Lenses

Advanced Search

Pentax Lens Review Database » Pentax K-Mount Bayonet Lenses » DA Series Zooms

SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED

Reviews	Views
29	18935

Recommended By	Average Price	Average Rating
86% of reviewers	$171.52	7.5

supersize

Description:

This compact lens features an extra-low dispersion (ED) glass element.

Weight	Length	Filter Diameter	Min. Focus	Max. Magnification
255 g	7.85 cm	52 mm	110 cm	0.24x
Diagonal FOV (APS-C)	Horizontal FOV (APS-C)	Max. Aperture	Min. Aperture	Optical Construction
31.5-8.1 degrees	27-6.9 degrees	f/4-5.6	f/22-32	11 elements, 10 groups, 6 blades

Weight with hood: 285g
For more information and images, please visit this page: http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/...00mm_Lens.html

Author

volosong
Pentaxian

Registered: September 2006
Location: Laurentia
Posts: 537

Review Date: Mon January 8, 2007

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $220.00 | Rating: 7

Pros:	compact, excellent optics, perfect companion to the kit lens
Cons:	slow, as most 'consumer' zooms are

I purchased this lens in September of 2005, and it has become one of the lenses in my compact travel kit (along with the kit lens). It is a perfect cousin to the kit lens and it is obvious they have the same heritage when viewed side-by-side.

Optical quality is outstanding. Construction quality is also pretty good. I have never heard or read one bad word about the DA50-200/4-5.6 ED lens. Didn't have the opportunity to take advantage of any of the rebates for this lens, but feel the purchase price was well worth the cost. Best thing about DA lenses is their clutch focusing ability, that allows manual focusing when in autofocus mode.

It is also possible to mate the 50-200 to the low-cost Tamron AF 1.4x teleconverter with very negligible degradation of image quality. With the kit lens and the Tamron converter you cover from 18mm to 200mm in just two lenses (or is that two and a half lenses?).

For a consumer zoom, there are few better and many worse.

Highly Recommended. Given a 7 rating because it is somewhat slow in its maximum aperture, but that is to be expected of a consumer zoom.

Click here to Send this user a Private Message

ccallana
Pentaxian

Registered: September 2006
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 319

Review Date: Mon January 15, 2007

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $180.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	Great optics for price, lightweight
Cons:	Slow (aperture)

This lens is a great deal normally, an awesome deal if you can get the rebate! A perfect companion to the kit lens, but even better optically I believe. I have never seen a complaint about the 50-200's IQ. It's light enough to take everywhere and a very useful range. It extends quite a bit at the 200mm end, and the apertures are nothing to brag about - but this lens is a great value. Recommended for anyone looking for a little extra length from their kit lens.

SpecialK
Pentaxian

Registered: December 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 1803

Review Date: Sat February 10, 2007

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $170.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	Compact with good IQ
Cons:	Moderate speed, not a close focuser

This was the last lens I purchased. I bought it because rebates were on and it was a cheap LBA fix. I also wanted to phase out the Sigma 70-300 if possible.

It is a bit sharper than the Sigma, and is also about 1/2 the bulk. The trade off is that the minimum focus distance is not particularly close and there is no "macro" mode.

It is compact and light, and does not become the center of attention when zoomed out and close focused like the Sigma. The included plastic lens hood clicks into place, and has a removable (and lose-able) access hatch that allows you to get a finger on a rotating filter if so desired.

Recommened as anyone's first zoom unless you are into low-light sports due toi the average f4-5.6 speed.

Great bang for the buck even at full price, but the rebate made it a no-brainer.

philmorley
Pentaxian

Registered: March 2007
Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia
Posts: 472

Review Date: Thu April 19, 2007

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $150.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	size, weight, price
Cons:	slow

I have the samsung version (AU$190) which by all accounts is the same lens. I sold the sigma 70-200 not long after buying this as there was so little difference in image quality (there are some differences esp that you no longer f2.8 but this much nicer to carry all day - popphoto tests shows very comparable to sigma 70-200 and that is pretty much what I find).

doesn't have that 'magic' of some pentax lenses but it's small, its light, its cheap, its sharp.

Available Light
New Member

Registered: February 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Posts: 4

Review Date: Fri April 20, 2007

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $170.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	Very sharp for a zoom, small and light weight, great value
Cons:	Slow compared to f2.8 primes

I highly recommend this lens to include in everyone's kit. Pentax's second best bargain, next to the FA 50mm f1/4.

Shaprness 9
Bokeh 7
Color 8
Handling 9
Build 7
Distortion 8
Aberations 8
Value 9

One of my two most used lenses. Very inexpensive and versatile for the money.

Tbear
Pentaxian

Registered: August 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 258

Review Date: Tue August 21, 2007

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $180.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	Light weight, small size, exceptional value
Cons:	slow, a little soft at edges, some CA

Versatile, solid performer, particularly for the money. Works very nicely with the AF540FGZ flash. Make sure to use in good light or with flash as it is a somewhat slow lens.

rvannatta
Pentaxian

Registered: August 2007
Location: Apiary, Oregon
Posts: 332

Review Date: Wed August 29, 2007

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros:	small, light
Cons:	slow

I usually have a wide angle zoom mounted on my camera, and I am carrying this lens as the rattle around in the bag telephoto for those occasions when you suddenly need one.

It's small size and light weight (and low cost) make it suitable for this usage. I own numerous telephotos, both primes and zooms, and if I am packing my bag for a telephoto shoot, this lens doesn't go. I have an FA 80-320, an FA 24-90, and an A 300 F2.8 prime so there are a lot of things that I don't need it for. But it fits in the bottom of my bag just fine, and I have scrambled it out of there a few times when the occasion struck.

I often carry camera equipment around 'just in case' and you can't take everything particularly since the K10 itself is so robust, but this is one that you can carry around, and if a UFO lands across the field you will have something besides a wide angle with which to record the event.

I don't see it ever being my lens of choice for telephoto work. That is what Primes are for (and zooms stronger than 200mm), but if you need a telephoto on a budget
or need one small enough to carry in your pocket this is a good choice.

jsherman999
Pentaxian

Registered: December 2007
Posts: 3719

Review Date: Sat January 5, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros:	Small, versatile
Cons:	slower, cheaper contruction

This was the first long zoom I had with my k100d (2-lens kit with the 18-55.)

Having only used point & shoot's prior to getting the k100d, boy did I have fun with this lens. Couldn't believe the sharpness of the photos, etc.

Since then I've acquired a couple more zooms and primes, and this one doesn't get used as much any more.

It's pretty small/light - barely bigger than the 18-55, so when I need to go light I'll take this (makes my Tamron 18-250 seem like an anvil on my camera.) Also, for me, it's easier to hold a lighter lens steady - camera shake is much less of a problem with this lens at 200mm than my tamron or even the FA J 75-300mm.

Highly recommended to get as part of a kit with the 18-55.

jsherman999
Pentaxian

Registered: December 2007
Posts: 3719

Review Date: Sat January 5, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros:	Small, versatile
Cons:	slower, cheaper contruction

myrdinn
New Member

Registered: January 2008
Location: belgium
Posts: 5

Review Date: Sat January 12, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? No | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $150.00 | Rating: 3

Pros:	cheap
Cons:	everything else

Maybe I was unlucky by receiving a bad sample but I'm absolutely not happy with this lens. It is almost impossible to make a good sharp picture with it. The corners are always unsharp and even in the center the pictureres are a bit hazy (ok, with an aperture f=16 or 22 they are acceptable, at least in the centre). Apart from that the distortions of the straight lines are considerable. So I totally agree with the review on www.photozone.de: this lens is cheap but that's the only good thing I can tell about it. I don't use it anymore, stored it in my garage and replaced it by a second hand old low budget Pentax lens: the 70-200 mm. That works fine.

clawhammer
Site Supporter

Registered: September 2007
Location: Salt Lake valley, Utah
Posts: 874

Review Date: Tue February 5, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $180.00 | Rating: 7

Pros:	Size, performance (for the price
Cons:	slow aperture, light construction

Good, as far as the sub-800 dollar zooms go. Construction is definitely on the cheap side, but my copy seems to be a rather good performer. I've been pleasantly surprised by the sharpness of this lens. It's not all that great for portraits if you're trying to through the background out of focus because of it's large aperture. my 200 2.5 does that far better, but it ain't autofocus. All in all it makes for a great beginning telephoto zoom lens.

YarPcola
Junior Member

Registered: January 2008
Location: Florida gulf coast
Posts: 42

Review Date: Wed February 13, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? No | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $200.00 | Rating: 5

Pros:	Light & inexpensive
Cons:	Corners are fuzzy

I have to agree with myrdinn, I find that the center is sharp, but corners are very soft. Maybe I also got a bad example? After reading all the reviews I was expecting better. I guess it would make nice portraits with the subject in the center, but I mainly shoot landscapes, and I think I'll be looking for something with more uniform sharpness across the field.

sbc
New Member

Registered: March 2008
Posts: 3

Review Date: Tue March 11, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? No | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $255.00 | Rating: 5

Pros:	matching pair with the 18-55 (both 52mm filter size)
Cons:	very soft in the corners

IQ at centre is OK but corners are very soft. This happens at almost very FL. Hopefully the new 55-300 is better.

monochrome
Site Supporter

Registered: March 2008
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 2726

Review Date: Sun April 27, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $155.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	Light; veratile; color; daylight luminance & IQ; vlaue
Cons:	Low light and indoor speed; autofocus speed

I purchased a K10D body-only and this as my kit lens - at the price of the lens it seemed a better deal than the normal kit lens.

This lens stays mounted on the body almost as a dust protector since it is so versatile for the shooting I do - and I learned the hard way that frequently changing lenses also means frequently cleaning the sensor.

When using this lens in bright outdoor sunlight it is nearly as sharp as the best Pentax lenses and more than competent for a consumer/enthusiast. Color transmission is true and saturation is excellent for ordinary everyday consumer use.

I never even try to use it indoors any more due to the f/4 widest aperture setting. In low light, sharpness and color saturation fall off dramatically.

Additionally, due to the comparatively slow autofocus, this lens is not really suitable for fast-action photography.

For the price I paid this is a great value. For more specialized uses I have other lenses.

Aristophanes
Site Supporter

Registered: July 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 277

Review Date: Sun August 10, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $169.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	Lightweight, inexpensive, good range
Cons:	Soft at corners, a bit slow

This is obviously the pair with the 18-55 kit lens. At least it was until the 55-300mm came out. Overall this is a decent lens and good value. If you are in the rain taking photos of your kid's soccer game, this inexpensive tele-zoom will get the job done with little worry and about as much quality as you could expect for the price. It takes good photos.

donutley
Junior Member

Registered: July 2008
Location: Durham, North Carolina
Posts: 30

Review Date: Sun November 16, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $105.00 | Rating: 9

Pros:	Small, well-built, satisfying IQ, bang-for-the-buck
Cons:	None, considering the price

I bought this lens after having used the DA 55-300 (a great lens for the money). I find that the 50-200's size is great for my backpacking/everyday setup. I don't feel that I give that much in IQ--certainly worth the trade-off for such a small, lightweight lens. Not only is the picture quality satisfying, but the feel of the lens--the zoom ring and focus--is super for the money. I would say that for around $100 nowadays on the used market, this is one of the best bargains going--certainly the best bang-for-the-buck lens I have ever had.

Alfisti
Pentaxian

Registered: March 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1480

Review Date: Tue December 2, 2008

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $150.00 | Rating: 7

Pros:	Colour, contrast, size, weight, build, price.
Cons:	Soft corners, slow

For under $200US it performs very well from f8 to f11, not terrible wide open but likes to be stopped down. "Quick-shift" AF to MF feature is excellent, metal mount and just over 200 grams means it's easy to tote and well built. Stronger at 200mm and close focus distances than you would expect.

Sharpness is not particularly strong, it really does like to be stopped down. However sharpness is not everything and the colour and contrast this lens displays is first rate and peroduces better images than the resolution charts may indicate.

Youngster
Site Supporter

Registered: August 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 133

Review Date: Thu January 15, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $200.00 | Rating: 9

Pros:	Light and Compact. Great Price. Good Color.
Cons:	Rather slow.

I've had this lens for a while (as you can see from the price I paid), but even at $200, I thought it was worth it.

Perhaps I was just lucky, but my sample is quite sharp. Much better than the 18-55. Colors are well saturated and snappy. Focus is fast and sure in good light. (Given the aperature, this is a fair weather lens. People really should try not to use it indoors or when light is poor, that's too much to ask). Even though it is relatively slow at f4 on the short end, I find that it is brighter than some comparable consumer zoom lenses at the same aperature.

This lens goes great with the 18-55 kit lens. It makes for a super compact 2 lens set. It is really light and doesn't protrude any more than the kit lens so it fits in the same bag. This lens shows of the advantages of APC quite well over FF. It is much smaller and lighter than the same lens in a FF format. It is also priced very competitively.

Normally, I'd only give this lens an 8, but recently with the steep drop in price, you can get this lens used for under $100. You cannot find a better piece of autofocus glass at this price range. For less than $100 (or $150 new), it definitely deserves a 9 based on value alone (provided sample variation isn't too far off).

This lens should definitely be in every low-priced kit.

Pentaxviking
New Member

Registered: February 2009
Location: Bodø
Posts: 6

Review Date: Tue February 24, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros:	Its light weight, its cheap and it takes nice pictures
Cons:	Noise is bad

Maybe its not possible to get more lens for the money? I think it is a nice lens that takes nice pictures.

The noise is bad..

In good light the 50-200mm takes really good pictures!!

omega leader
Senior Member

Registered: January 2008
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario Canada
Posts: 131

Review Date: Sat March 7, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $220.00 | Rating: 6

Pros:	Small, lightweight, inexpensive
Cons:	Slow, not very sharp, limited range

We bought this lens for my wife to take on a trip to India, as she didn't want to lug a big lens along. For what it does it does a good job, as of now it is my longest lens.

It focuses quite quickly on a K10D, but is not very good at tracking, the long end lacks contrast and is too slow.

Sadly a crop from my Vivitar S1 105mm Macro is sharper than this lens at 200mm.

This is a good little lens, especially stopped down to f8, it excels where weight is an issue.

millertime
Site Supporter
Marketplace Reseller

Registered: February 2009
Posts: 25

Review Date: Mon March 9, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros:	great kit lens, light
Cons:	slow

I have the DA L version of this lens, and as with the 18-55mm, I'm happy with it for a kit lens. Very light, lots of plastic but a metal mount, but it doesn't feel bad at all. Seems to do alright at 200mm with a steady hand and good lighting.

No editing, from 50ft away, 200mm, just crop/resize
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/...1da8dfa4_o.jpg

No editing, sitting down from 50ft away, 200mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/...e3b356f5_o.jpg
The flowers were about that bright with the light hitting it the way it was.

kidcadaver
New Member

Registered: February 2009
Location: Vancouver, Bamfield, Edmonton
Posts: 9

Review Date: Tue April 21, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $80.00 | Rating: 7

Pros:	Price, color & contrast
Cons:	soft

I bought this lens from here on this forum for ~$100 CDN. I normally shoot on the wider end of the focal length spectrum, but wanted to increase my photographic versatility. This was the logical lens to buy - best bang for the buck.

This lens is definitely soft - to get the sharpest photos one must stop down to around F8. Despite the lack of sharpness, the colors and contrast are really good and make up for it.

If I decide to shoot more in the telephoto range of focal lengths, I would definitely upgrade to a sharper telephoto zoom.

Toolman
New Member

Registered: January 2008
Location: Lockport NY
Posts: 3

Review Date: Tue April 28, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $193.00 | Rating: 9

Pros:	Lightweight. Uses 52 mm. filters. Sharp. Good value.
Cons:	Just a bit slow in aperture.

When I bought my K100D Super it came with the 18-55 mm zoom. A decent lens
but didn't have enough 'reach.' I like to photograph butterflies, birds, and nature
scenes. This 50-200 mm gives me addes distance to my subjects. The lens seems
to be a bit sharper than the kit lens too. I bought it through Amazon.com. I really
wanted to give my business to my local camera shop, but I saved $85 bucks at
Amazon. I think the lens will really improve my photos with less cropping.
Very pleased indeed.

kevinschoenmakers
Loyal Member

Registered: March 2009
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 883

Review Date: Thu April 30, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $175.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	Cheap, decent IQ, great colours
Cons:	Hunts alot in the dark, not that fast

A great piece of glass for it's price. Only real big negative is that it hunts alot and auto-focusses rather poorly in the dark.

Better money buys better lenses I'm pretty sure, but if the budget is tight this lens is worth way more than you'll probably be paying for it.

EsBee
Site Supporter

Registered: January 2009
Posts: 362

Review Date: Wed June 24, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros:	Small, light, sharp and affordable
Cons:	wide end

This lens is one of the most versatile of Pentax lenses in my bag. In good to decent light this lens is quite sharp at very useful speeds (f4 to f5.6).

I just got this lens, and took a ton of shots with it on a *ist DS in my backyard in good day light. Most picture came out with stunning detail. This lens seems to be made just for walk-around and street photography.

It stays on my *ist DS more than any other lens.

EDIT: Adjusted the rating to 9 because of the reviews received on several (outdoor) portraits I've done with this lens. May be its just this copy, but when used with fill flash, this lens produced some stunningly sharp outdoor portraits with creamy bokeh in the FL 60-100mm range.

CWyatt
Senior Member

Registered: July 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 267

Review Date: Thu July 16, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? No | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated | Rating: 5

Pros:	Very cheap for decent build quality, Very light and small for its range. Useful range. 52mm filters and cheap and it mataches the DA 18-55 kit zoom. Front element doesn't rotate when focusing.
Cons:	Very soft and fringed at 200mm. Slow maximum apertures. Manual focus ring would be difficult to use.

Note on the 'no' for recommending this lens: I swapped it for a Sigma 70-300mm (non-APO) which I got for the same price and I prefer. The Sigma is bigger and heavier, but much more useable up to 200mm. I still think the Pentax is a decent lens though.

This lens gives OK image quality but at the 200mm end it is really almost unusable, becoming very blurry and with a lot of fringing. I got some good shots in the middle of the zoom range, and sold in 2nd hand for a decent price.

flippedgazelle
Pentaxian

Registered: April 2009
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 1041

Review Date: Wed October 14, 2009

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): None indicated | Rating: 7

Pros:	light, compact, cheap, decent color & contrast, very little PF
Cons:	not terribly sharp even stopped down, a little CA

I have the DA-L version of this lens, which came bundled with the K2000 2 lens kit. The DA-L differs from the standard DA in that it has a plastic mount, no lens hood, and lacks quick-shift capability. I find the general color and contrast generally pleasing, although sharpness is not great, even stopping down 2 stops. The lens is wonderfully small and feels nearly as light as a feather, the zoom ring has a great feel, although the MF ring is a little light for my taste. The K2000 "2 lens kit" was $80 more than the K2000 + 18-55, so I figure this lens costing $80, which is a good deal IMHO.

Pentaxian210
New Member

Registered: September 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 12

Review Date: Thu January 7, 2010

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $100.00 | Rating: 9

Pros:	sharp, clarity, lightweight
Cons:	I don't have any

I recently purchased this lens brand new on Ebay and I could not be more satisfied! I sold my Sigma 28-200 because it was not very good in helping the already struggling K200D to focus in sort of low light/contrast scenes. In addition, the Sigma lens simply did not have the clarity/sharpeness I was looking for. However, since I've acquired the 50-200 DA ED lens, I have been more than happy. My first photoshoot with that lens produced amazing results. Viewing the images @ 100%, every detail of the model's skin was visible...something the Sigma only produced 50% of the time w/ a quick fall off even at apetures 8 or above. I can only imagine the quality of te DA* lenses, but those are out of my budget right now.

GeneV
Site Supporter

Registered: October 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 586

Review Date: Fri January 8, 2010

Would you recommend the lens? Yes | How much did it cost? (U.S. Dollars): $200.00 | Rating: 8

Pros:	Light, cheap and performs reasonably
Cons:	Could be sharper and faster.

It is hard to rate a lens like this. It was the second digital format lens I owned. Its sharpness is acceptable, and I have taken some nice shots with it. Its focus is quick, and it is feather light. It won't knock your socks off when you shoot a newspaper on the wall, but its sharpness is good enough at F/8 that if you are dissatisfied with a shot, it is probably not the fault of the lens. The max aperture at 200mm is slow, at 5.6, but you won't want to use it at that setting, either.

All in all, for the ridiculously cheap price and at the compact size and weight, this lens is far better than it should be. It is an excellent choice to throw in the suitcase for traveling.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:36 AM.