[audiobomber]

The DA 55-300 is perhaps two inches longer than the DA 18-250. I saw no noticeable difference in image quality, though I did not study pixels at high crop percentages in depth.

I have a DA 18-250 and 55-300. The 55-300 wins for better flare resistance, colour & contrast, vignetting, fringing and CA. It's a half stop to stop faster across the range. Both lenses tend to hunt once in a while when they shouldn't. The 18-250 has dismal AF performance in low light, and sometimes can't find anything to focus on where other lenses will. There is a noticeable difference in sharpness in my copies at the long end, in favour of the 55-300mm. The 55-300 also goes a lot further, because the 18-250 is an internal focus lens, meaning it loses range as it focusses below infinity. When zoomed to the 250mm position and 30 feet subject distance, it's down to a 200 mm fov.

Both perform as they should with my K-7 but the 18-250 stutters a wee bit with my K-10 running on version 1 firmware. (Yes I am aware of updates)

I still prefer the 18-250 to a 55-300 myself. It's arguable "wide-ishness" easily makes up for the loss on the long end. But they can be a bit pricey.

My 18-250 stutters as well, and sometimes stalls before focus is reached. I have to double tap the shutter to ensure it's finished. The other serious annoyance with this zoom is creep. It will not stay in position unless it's locked at 18mm or you have your hand on the barrel. Build quality of both lenses is marginal compared to the 18-135mm that I use now (I gave the 18-250 to my wife).

Of course the 55-300mm is not an all-rounder, it is a telephoto lens. I suggest the OP keep his kit lens and add a 55-300 for now. IMO a superzoom is something to get after you have other bases covered.

[audiobomber]

I should note that I can't actually bring myself to follow my own advice in my previous post.

I think not following that advice is a wise move.

[audiobomber]

If I'm only going to Take 1 lens and I know isn't rain in the forecast, I take the da 21, perfect for hiking. If I'm going to take 2, I add the 43mm. If there is rain coming then the 18-135 is my best choice. I'd be OK traveling with just the 18-135 as I love the weather seal I g and I don't think I'll get too many great shots at the longer focal lengths on a large range tele/zoom (that's based on my experience with the Olympus 18-180 which is a similar purpose lens)

Has anyone mentioned the 17-70?

Good point. I would have bought the 17-70mm a long time ago if it was WR, but the OP doesn't need WR. Nice lens.

Is this tag necessary? I end up reading it every time before I realize what it is.

[k1000]

The other serious annoyance with this zoom is creep. It will not stay in position unless it's locked at 18mm or you have your hand on the barrel.

I'm alright with zoom creep. To me, buying a lens with good optics is the main criteria i look at, the rest of "bad points" are just minor stuff.
At the end of the day, you'll be delighted to you see what beautiful pictures you've taken and you won't even remember how badly you've cursed the lens.

.... IMO a superzoom is something to get after you have other bases covered.

Other bases covered? O_O

Good point. I would have bought the 17-70mm a long time ago if it was WR, but the OP doesn't need WR. Nice lens.

True true. I won't be needing WR. Will be travelling in city areas.

[GeneV]

I'm not sure I want to test and find out, but I wonder just how much better worse the DA17-70 would be at surviving a rain than the WR lenses. In any case, this is not terribly important to me, either. I don't own a superzoom, so the 17-70 would be the first choice among the lenses I own for one zoom only travel.

With my prime setup, I seldom need a longer reach than my DA70. That is probably why I'm not that willing to spend a lot of bag real estate (not more than occupied by the 50-200) on the longer lenses.

[Francis]

I have a DA17-70. I used it in China, under pouring rain. I had made the mistake of thinking that lenses were WR by default, so happily took my K7 and took several photos with that lens.
Probably did this for about half an hour. The lens didn't really get "that" wet. It survived that trip and is in general still ok, though on the shelf waiting to be sold. I have an 18-250 now as a general travel zoom, as well as a Sigma 10-20.

[jimr-pdx]

I am quite happy with 16-45, 50-200 combo for hi IQ yet compact zooms. I also have an 18-200 sigma for days when I cannot carry as much, prefer over 18-250 for size, weight & no creep of note. If I had to pick, the 18-200 would go.