[arsenal_emyrates]

i have a pentax k-r with a 18-55 standard lens and i was wondering and looking for a recommendation . which is better ? Pentax smc DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 or Pentax 55-300mm DAL ED f4-5.8 Lens .

If i get the 18-250 one i can probably sell the 18-55 but are there any drawbacks in the 18-250 that the 55-300 doesn't have ? ...i mean 18-250 covers a really big range from wide 18 to 250 which is telephoto


any suggestions ?

[dgaies]

Having used both, it really depends if you want an all-in on lens like the 18-250 or a two lens kit like the 18-55 and 55-300. The 18-250 is a great lens and I would say the IQ from 18-55mm (on the 18-250) is on par with the kit lens. The IQ of the 55-300 (IMO) is better than the long end of the 18-250, plus you get a little extra reach.

[arsenal_emyrates]

what is the diameter of the 18-250 lens ? and can you mount filters on it? (this is a silly question probably :P )

[dgaies]

what is the diameter of the 18-250 lens ? and can you mount filters on it? (this is a silly question probably :P )

The 18-250 takes 62mm filters.

[ismaelg]

I don't have any experience with the 18-250, but I really like my 55-300. Since you already have the 18-55, and it seems the 18-250 is not going to be a major difference in performance in that range, I'd go with the 55-300 and save over $100 in the deal. Probably more if you go with the DA L 55-300.
If the body and the 18-250 were weather sealed, the story would have been much different.

Thanks,

[bdery]

"Which is better"

It really depends on how you define "better". Optically, the 55-300 is better. The 18-250 probably compares to your kit lens. As a travel tool, you could argue that the 18-250 is better, since it's a jack-of-all-trades. But it's also slower most of the time. So it's really your call.

[al_undy]

Discalaimer: I am currently selling a DA18-250 on marketplace.
That said, comparing these two is a bit like apples and oranges as has been alluded to already. I have both and have been quite happy with them. I have used the 18-250 as a generalist lens and when I need longer telephoto I use the 55-300. The 18-250 IMHO is significantly better than the 15-55DAL and does an admirable job with the wide end. In fact, I have never been disappointed with it. It has taken many beautiful photos of my family and our activities. I find that the DA55-300 is an outstanding lens for telephoto work. For its range, I do not feel that I could better than the DA55-300 without dropping some serious cash and then the improvement may not be worth it.
Joel

[RioRico]

... you already have the 18-55, and it seems the 18-250 is not going to be a major difference in performance in that range, ...

Actually, the 18-250 performs better than the 18-55 from about 35mm on up, and is noticeably faster (f/4.5) at 50-55mm than is the 18-55 (f/5.6).

There is another consideration for the 18-250 vs an 18-55 + 55-300 pair: lens swapping. I and others find that we do much shooting in the 28-80mm range. Swapping lenses at 55mm is more than just inconvenient -- it breaks up that flow. I've tried an 18-55 + manual 60-300 pair and I just don't use it for that very reason. I'll more likely use a 35-70 or 28-80.

The 18-55 and 55-300 are both fine lenses WITHIN THEIR ZONES. The 18-250 just has a more usable zone, especially for street shooting.

Look at it this way: Each lens has its own "window on the world". When we use that lens, we see through its window; we see what can be shot with it, and we tend to bypass what can't. We tend to see closer wider scenes with the 18-55 and further narrower scenes with the 55-300 and its ilk. If I *know* I want a longer reach, a longer view, I use a 100-300 or 170-500 -- and I skip the closer wider shots because I know they're unreachable. Similarly with a 10-17 FE or 10-24 UW -- narrower scenes are just unavailable. Their windows only open just so much and no more.

So the 18-55 lets me see in the 'scapes-to-portraits range, and a 55-300 lets me see in the portraits-to-peaks range -- and the 18-250 gives me ALL of those.

[Brangdon]

If i get the 18-250 one i can probably sell the 18-55

Yup. Although I doubt you'll get much for it.

but are there any drawbacks in the 18-250 that the 55-300 doesn't have ?

I was disappointed with the 18-250 at the long end. I see it as sacrificing some image quality for the convenience of a single lens. The convenience can be important though, if you are either with non-photographer people who won't wait while you mess around changing lenses, or else in a dirty environment and don't want to get dust in the camera.

[gp1806]

Don't sell the kit lens, if you decide to upgrade the K-R you will want the kit lens to sell with the body. An entry level camera sells better with the lens.
I have the 18-250 and the 55-300, they are both nice and serve different functions. Depends on what you are doing. I would not give up the 18-250 because of time, size, and weight constraints during travel, it's just to good for getting the shot when there is no time to switch lenses (like tours).

[cbaytan]

My reco. is get DA 16-45mm and 55-300mm and get rid of kit lens whenever your financial situation permits. Which one comes first? that depends on your photographic needs. If you are not used to change lenses in the field, get a DA 18-250mm lens, it's a great lens for it's range which turns your camera into an unmatched ZLR camera.

[Jewelltrail]

The 18-250mm is one of the best all around lenses you will find covering this kind of range. I have seen rockin images with it, and it is much better than than the 18-55 kit IMO. Get the 18-250mm and you will not look back.