50-200 and DxO - any experience?

**amalongi** · 01-03-2011, 04:37 AM

I am still searching for additional reach beyond my 16-45. Picked up an F 35-70 but found that just a bit short as well. Not willing to give up the 16 wide-end for the 18-135 yet and don't want a bag full of lenses - this is a travel kit. So, I have been looking a bit more closely at the 50-200. It is the perfect size for me and has just about all of the additional reach I will ever need. 55-300 is a bit bit of overkill both in terms of size and reach - I will not use the 200-300 end. This is going to be a VERY OCCASIONAL lens - when traveling I will use it for architectural details, interesting signage, etc...

I am, however, a bit leery of the quality reputation of the 50-200. I recently began using DxO Optics Pro and am very impressed with what it can do. So......my question is is anyone using the 50-200 and processing with DxO and what do you think of the results? Any help and guidance would be appreciated.

kbryant · 01-03-2011, 05:00 AM

Have you considered 50-135mm?

HGMonaro · 01-03-2011, 05:06 AM

I don't do anything with DxO but I picked up the 50-200 for the same reasons you cite. I also have a 16-45. I've found it to be fine for the intended task and generally quite impressed by it for it's price.

**amalongi** · 01-03-2011, 05:23 AM

50-135 is too big for the intended purpose.

causey · 01-03-2011, 06:22 AM

I tried two copies of the 50-200mm before deciding to go with the 55-300mm. The 50-200mm is fairly sharp (the 55-300mm is sharper), but suffers with respect to micro-contrast. DxO PP can make images look muddy in case the lens used to take them did not differentiate finer degrees of contrast. For comparison: DxO-ed, pics taken with the 18-55mm kit lens looked better than those taken with the 50-200mm. The 55-300mm is in another league, IMO. (I have the DA L version of the 55-300mm, but my copy is very sharp--but I've seen some not-so-sharp copies...)

**amalongi** · 01-03-2011, 07:21 AM

Thanks for that - good to know.

UnknownVT · 01-03-2011, 08:26 PM

PopPhoto.com has done a review of the 50-200 Zoom as the Samsung clone:

On the K-x, wide open:

ISO3200, f/4, 1/100; 50mm

ISO2500, f/4, 1/100; 50mm

On 6Mp K100D, all wide-open at their respective focal lengths -

138mm; f/4.5; 1/125 sec; ISO1600

180mm; f/5.6; 1/50sec; ISO1600

125mm; f/4.5; 1/50sec; ISO1600

160mm; f/5.6; 1/40 sec; ISO1600

tibbitts · 01-04-2011, 08:35 PM

I'm starting to accept that it really doesn't matter what reputation a lens has; it just matters how your particular copy performs. The only way the reputation matters if you can try 10 copies and pick the best of the lot, in which case whether one design is theoretically superior would matter.

There are probably some truly clunky designs, and there may be no good copies of those lenses, but they're in the minority.

Having never had more than 200mm (300 with a 1.5x converter) on 35mm, I thought the 50-200 would be all I'd ever want, but now I carry the relatively heavy 100-300 (the "bad" model) around in addition, and find it very useful. I tried a copy of the 55-300, but it seriously underperformed both the 100-300 and 50-200. I'm sure that was just the copy I got, and maybe sometime I'll try some additional copies.

Paul

01-03-2011, 04:37 AM	#1
amalongi Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 167	50-200 and DxO - any experience? I am still searching for additional reach beyond my 16-45. Picked up an F 35-70 but found that just a bit short as well. Not willing to give up the 16 wide-end for the 18-135 yet and don't want a bag full of lenses - this is a travel kit. So, I have been looking a bit more closely at the 50-200. It is the perfect size for me and has just about all of the additional reach I will ever need. 55-300 is a bit bit of overkill both in terms of size and reach - I will not use the 200-300 end. This is going to be a VERY OCCASIONAL lens - when traveling I will use it for architectural details, interesting signage, etc... I am, however, a bit leery of the quality reputation of the 50-200. I recently began using DxO Optics Pro and am very impressed with what it can do. So......my question is is anyone using the 50-200 and processing with DxO and what do you think of the results? Any help and guidance would be appreciated.

01-03-2011, 06:22 AM	#5
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	I tried two copies of the 50-200mm before deciding to go with the 55-300mm. The 50-200mm is fairly sharp (the 55-300mm is sharper), but suffers with respect to micro-contrast. DxO PP can make images look muddy in case the lens used to take them did not differentiate finer degrees of contrast. For comparison: DxO-ed, pics taken with the 18-55mm kit lens looked better than those taken with the 50-200mm. The 55-300mm is in another league, IMO. (I have the DA L version of the 55-300mm, but my copy is very sharp--but I've seen some not-so-sharp copies...) Last edited by causey; 01-03-2011 at 07:24 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DXO are giving 30% off DXO Optics Pro until Dec 25	rawr	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	11-11-2010 01:22 PM
Manfrotto 190XPROB and Vanguard SBH 200 Head Experience	stl09	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	9	01-03-2010 05:25 AM
Chinon 200, 135, 35 (M42) - Experience?	KjetilH	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	10-01-2009 10:36 AM
Any experience with the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8?	Derridale	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	06-03-2008 04:15 PM
Anyone have any DXO experience?	anthropas	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	0	07-17-2007 02:13 PM

01-03-2011, 05:00 AM	#2
kbryant New Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 18	Have you considered 50-135mm?

01-03-2011, 05:06 AM	#3
HGMonaro Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melb. Aust Posts: 840	I don't do anything with DxO but I picked up the 50-200 for the same reasons you cite. I also have a 16-45. I've found it to be fine for the intended task and generally quite impressed by it for it's price.

01-03-2011, 05:23 AM	#4
amalongi Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 167 Original Poster	50-135 is too big for the intended purpose.

01-03-2011, 07:21 AM	#6
amalongi Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 167 Original Poster	Thanks for that - good to know.

01-03-2011, 08:26 PM	#7
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	PopPhoto.com has done a review of the 50-200 Zoom as the Samsung clone: On the K-x, wide open: ISO3200, f/4, 1/100; 50mm ISO2500, f/4, 1/100; 50mm On 6Mp K100D, all wide-open at their respective focal lengths - 138mm; f/4.5; 1/125 sec; ISO1600 180mm; f/5.6; 1/50sec; ISO1600 125mm; f/4.5; 1/50sec; ISO1600 160mm; f/5.6; 1/40 sec; ISO1600

01-04-2011, 08:35 PM	#8
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	I'm starting to accept that it really doesn't matter what reputation a lens has; it just matters how your particular copy performs. The only way the reputation matters if you can try 10 copies and pick the best of the lot, in which case whether one design is theoretically superior would matter. There are probably some truly clunky designs, and there may be no good copies of those lenses, but they're in the minority. Having never had more than 200mm (300 with a 1.5x converter) on 35mm, I thought the 50-200 would be all I'd ever want, but now I carry the relatively heavy 100-300 (the "bad" model) around in addition, and find it very useful. I tried a copy of the 55-300, but it seriously underperformed both the 100-300 and 50-200. I'm sure that was just the copy I got, and maybe sometime I'll try some additional copies. Paul