Advice and/or input for the DA 50-200 WR

Jean Poitiers · 02-19-2012, 04:24 AM

Bonjour,

Need some advice here ...

I have and really like my DA 18-55 WR for my K-5, ... thus, I think that I will soon supplement it with a DA 50-200 WR. (NB: DA 18-135 WR is a bit "too rich" for my tastes/budget, as much as I would like to have it ...) Has anyone used this lens extensively and what do you realy think about it ?

I'd like the extra range (beyond 135mm) and I do tend to shoot a lot in the 100 to 200 range. Please note that I have read the PF in-depth review plus the users' reviews as well, thus I have a good idea of the "limitations" of this lens.

There's a 50€ instant in-store rebate until the end of March at Phox Photo in France, plus I have another additional rebate voucher which would reduce the retail price by +30% ... thus I think that I'll go for it (also because this price would be less than I could get it someday out of the States, etc.)

Any input would be appreciated ... merci d'avance, J Frog

Last edited by Jean Poitiers; 02-19-2012 at 06:00 AM.

Mareket · 02-19-2012, 04:51 AM

All I know is that it's shunned and everyone favours the 55-300. From what I hear I'd HIGHLY recommend stumping up the extra cash for the 55-300. It's not a huge amount extra to pay, but you're getting better build, better IQ, 100 extra mm and I'm assuming it'll be faster at 100-200 than the 50-200.

Plus you'd save more with that 30% discount if it's a more expensive lens :P

Though it isn't weather resistant, which may or may not make or break the deal for you. The 50-200 is probably lighter as well.

Then again you say you can't afford the 18-135, which isn't that much more expensive than the 55-300, so I'd go with the 50-200. You'll like the light weight and weather sealing, and assuming you shoot at around f/8, it'll most likely be optically great too.

I personally love the styling of the DA WR lenses ^_^ maybe try them out if you can? see which feels better.

causey · 02-19-2012, 06:02 AM

I bought a DA 50-200 about two years ago. Didn't like it--but I liked the kit lens. I thought the 50-200 was too soft, and I sold it. A year later I got my K-x with the DA L 50-200. Same conclusion--sold it again. The DA 55-300 is much better than the 50-200, and optically better than the kit lens, which is decent compared to the 50-200.

elho_cid · 02-19-2012, 06:11 AM

Get 50-200 if you want a light and small telephoto that could be expendable.
I bought it as I didn't expect it to be stellar. It was not. But it is as good as the F70-210/4-5.6 and more practical.

mano · 02-19-2012, 06:49 AM

The DA 50-200 is a decent lens for the price. Mine always seemed to me to be significantly better than a friend's budget Sigma 70-300 for example.

The 55-300 is better, and like anybody else it seems, I eventually exchanged my 50-200 for one.
So, if you really need WR or the longer lens just doesn't fit the budget, you could do worse than the 50-200.

creampuff · 02-19-2012, 09:38 AM - **1 Like**

I actually think the DA 50-200mm WR is the perfect travel telephoto. A lot more compact and lighter than the DA 55-300mm and if you get a good copy it can really deliver nice images. Focus is quicker than the DA 55-300mm and camera shake isn't that much an issue when shooting up to 200mm plus it has WR. That's why I still keep the DA 50-200mm WR even though I have the DA 55-300mm.

Jean Poitiers · 02-19-2012, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

I actually think the DA 50-200mm WR is the perfect travel telephoto. A lot more compact and lighter than the DA 55-300mm and if you get a good copy it can really deliver nice images. Focus is quicker than the DA 55-300mm and camera shake isn't that much an issue when shooting up to 200mm plus it has WR. That's why I still keep the DA 50-200mm WR even though I have the DA 55-300mm.

Bonjour creampuff,

Thanks and my thinking was that a new DA 50-200 WR would be a "travel type" telephoto ... a bit to replace my Sigma DC 18-200 that I never use now. I don't think that I will miss the lower end focal range since I plan to carry the DA 18-55 WR in my case, as well as maybe my DA 35/2.4 or my A 50/1.7. The 18-55 will obviously be for closer subjects ... plus it has some good close focus capacity.

I, rather my wife I should say, has a DA 55-300 on her K-r, and it's a very good lenses, but a bit too large and no WR. The WR is really an important aspect for me ... real deal breaker. Yes, the 55-300 will probably have better IQ, etc. but it's not for the wet/dirty environments that I sometimes frequent.

Hopefully, I will get a good copy and find my "bonheur" ... Allez et merci encore - J Frog

Last edited by Jean Poitiers; 02-19-2012 at 11:12 AM.

Jean Poitiers · 02-19-2012, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by mano

The DA 50-200 is a decent lens for the price. Mine always seemed to me to be significantly better than a friend's budget Sigma 70-300 for example.

The 55-300 is better, and like anybody else it seems, I eventually exchanged my 50-200 for one.
So, if you really need WR or the longer lens just doesn't fit the budget, you could do worse than the 50-200.

Thanks for your input mano ... as I just wrote the WR aspect is important for me.

Seems like I'm going in the "opposite" direction (as usual) ... from a "wife procured" 55-300 to a 50-200 WR.

Salut, J

Jean Poitiers · 02-19-2012, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Mareket

All I know is that it's shunned and everyone favours the 55-300. ... .

Merci Mareket,

This is why I wrote this post because this lens seems to be so shunned ... OK, for the reviews are not stellar nor perfect, but I hope that it will be up to my exceptions for this category of WR. Thanks again for your input, and yes the DA 55-300 is really good ... just ask my wife who has been squatting it forever. Enough said ...

Allez et merci encore, J

gazonk · 02-19-2012, 11:09 AM

My daughter has the 50-200 (original non-WR metal mount version) and I've borrowed it quite often until I recently got the 55-300. The 55-300 is obviously one step up, but it's also quite a bit heavier and more expensive. For the price and given the small size and low weight, the DA50-200 is a very decent lens IMHO.

Mareket · 02-19-2012, 11:35 AM

There's always the 60-250 f/4... :P

But yeah, it's small, light, WR and optically 'good enough', The WR is a big deal for you, and there isn't another light WR tele zoom available, so go for it, regardless of optical quality.

Jean Poitiers · 02-19-2012, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Mareket

There's always the 60-250 f/4... :P

But yeah, it's small, light, WR and optically 'good enough', The WR is a big deal for you, and there isn't another light WR tele zoom available, so go for it, regardless of optical quality.

The DA* 60-250 f/4 ... Oui, I could buy that (lists at "only" a 1200€ w/4 year warranty)

Then again it would trigger "WWIII" inside the household ... plus my instant death and/or divorce, all at the same time!

Thanks again, I'll probably go for it ... the DA 50-200 WR that is to say ... Merci encore - J

Marc Sabatella · 02-19-2012, 04:48 PM

I've yet to see a side by side comparison between the 50-200 and 55-300 that gives me any reason to believe the difference in opitcal quality is enough to make up for the rather large difference in size and weight, or of course the WR.

Mareket · 02-20-2012, 08:49 AM

I think the extra reach of the 55-300 is why people take it instead of the 50-200, even if it's heavier, non WR and not optically dissimilar. If you need that reach you don't really have a choice do you?

And there's a certain stigma held against kit lenses, even though Pentax's are absolutely fantastic. Some people want to appear like more advanced photographers by having a bigger lens, a role which the 55-300 can fill quite handily.

Jean Poitiers · 02-20-2012, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I've yet to see a side by side comparison between the 50-200 and 55-300 that gives me any reason to believe the difference in opitcal quality is enough to make up for the rather large difference in size and weight, or of course the WR.

Thanks for your input ... greatly appreciated.

Salut, J

02-19-2012, 04:24 AM	#1
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Advice and/or input for the DA 50-200 WR *Bonjour,* Need some advice here ... I have and really like my DA 18-55 WR for my K-5, ... thus, I think that I will soon supplement it with a DA 50-200 WR. (NB: DA 18-135 WR is a bit "too rich" for my tastes/budget, as much as I would like to have it ...) Has anyone used this lens extensively and what do you realy think about it ? I'd like the extra range (beyond 135mm) and I do tend to shoot a lot in the 100 to 200 range. Please note that I have read the PF in-depth review plus the users' reviews as well, thus I have a good idea of the "limitations" of this lens. There's a 50€ instant in-store rebate until the end of March at Phox Photo in France, plus I have another additional rebate voucher which would reduce the retail price by +30% ... thus I think that I'll go for it (also because this price would be less than I could get it someday out of the States, etc.) Any input would be appreciated ... *merci d'avance, J Frog* Last edited by Jean Poitiers; 02-19-2012 at 06:00 AM.

02-19-2012, 04:51 AM	#2
Mareket Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Chester Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 719	All I know is that it's shunned and everyone favours the 55-300. From what I hear I'd HIGHLY recommend stumping up the extra cash for the 55-300. It's not a huge amount extra to pay, but you're getting better build, better IQ, 100 extra mm and I'm assuming it'll be faster at 100-200 than the 50-200. Plus you'd save more with that 30% discount if it's a more expensive lens :P Though it isn't weather resistant, which may or may not make or break the deal for you. The 50-200 is probably lighter as well. Then again you say you can't afford the 18-135, which isn't that much more expensive than the 55-300, so I'd go with the 50-200. You'll like the light weight and weather sealing, and assuming you shoot at around f/8, it'll most likely be optically great too. I personally love the styling of the DA WR lenses ^_^ maybe try them out if you can? see which feels better. Last edited by Mareket; 02-19-2012 at 04:58 AM.

02-19-2012, 10:55 AM	#7
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076 Original Poster	"WR" & travel lens usage ... Originally posted by creampuff I actually think the DA 50-200mm WR is the perfect travel telephoto. A lot more compact and lighter than the DA 55-300mm and if you get a good copy it can really deliver nice images. Focus is quicker than the DA 55-300mm and camera shake isn't that much an issue when shooting up to 200mm plus it has WR. That's why I still keep the DA 50-200mm WR even though I have the DA 55-300mm. Bonjour creampuff, Thanks and my thinking was that a new DA 50-200 WR would be a "travel type" telephoto ... a bit to replace my Sigma DC 18-200 that I never use now. I don't think that I will miss the lower end focal range since I plan to carry the DA 18-55 WR in my case, as well as maybe my DA 35/2.4 or my A 50/1.7. The 18-55 will obviously be for closer subjects ... plus it has some good close focus capacity. I, rather my wife I should say, has a DA 55-300 on her K-r, and it's a very good lenses, but a bit too large and no WR. The WR is really an important aspect for me ... real deal breaker. Yes, the 55-300 will probably have better IQ, etc. but it's not for the wet/dirty environments that I sometimes frequent. Hopefully, I will get a good copy and find my *"bonheur"* ... Allez et merci encore - J Frog Last edited by Jean Poitiers; 02-19-2012 at 11:12 AM.

02-19-2012, 10:59 AM	#8
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076 Original Poster	Merci Originally posted by mano The DA 50-200 is a decent lens for the price. Mine always seemed to me to be significantly better than a friend's budget Sigma 70-300 for example. The 55-300 is better, and like anybody else it seems, I eventually exchanged my 50-200 for one. So, if you really need WR or the longer lens just doesn't fit the budget, you could do worse than the 50-200. Thanks for your input mano ... as I just wrote the WR aspect is important for me. Seems like I'm going in the "opposite" direction (as usual) ... from a "wife procured" 55-300 to a 50-200 WR. Salut, J

02-19-2012, 11:05 AM	#9
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076 Original Poster	The shunned lens .. Originally posted by Mareket All I know is that it's shunned and everyone favours the 55-300. ... . *Merci* Mareket, This is why I wrote this post because this lens seems to be so shunned ... OK, for the reviews are not stellar nor perfect, but I hope that it will be up to my exceptions for this category of WR. Thanks again for your input, and yes the DA 55-300 is really good ... just ask my wife who has been squatting it forever. Enough said ... Allez et merci encore, J Last edited by Jean Poitiers; 02-19-2012 at 11:12 AM.

02-19-2012, 06:02 AM	#3
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	I bought a DA 50-200 about two years ago. Didn't like it--but I liked the kit lens. I thought the 50-200 was too soft, and I sold it. A year later I got my K-x with the DA L 50-200. Same conclusion--sold it again. The DA 55-300 is much better than the 50-200, and optically better than the kit lens, which is decent compared to the 50-200.

02-19-2012, 06:11 AM	#4
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Get 50-200 if you want a light and small telephoto that could be expendable. I bought it as I didn't expect it to be stellar. It was not. But it is as good as the F70-210/4-5.6 and more practical.

02-19-2012, 06:49 AM	#5
mano Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 151	The DA 50-200 is a decent lens for the price. Mine always seemed to me to be significantly better than a friend's budget Sigma 70-300 for example. The 55-300 is better, and like anybody else it seems, I eventually exchanged my 50-200 for one. So, if you really need WR or the longer lens just doesn't fit the budget, you could do worse than the 50-200.

02-19-2012, 09:38 AM - 1 Like	#6
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	I actually think the DA 50-200mm WR is the perfect travel telephoto. A lot more compact and lighter than the DA 55-300mm and if you get a good copy it can really deliver nice images. Focus is quicker than the DA 55-300mm and camera shake isn't that much an issue when shooting up to 200mm plus it has WR. That's why I still keep the DA 50-200mm WR even though I have the DA 55-300mm.

02-19-2012, 11:09 AM	#10
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	My daughter has the 50-200 (original non-WR metal mount version) and I've borrowed it quite often until I recently got the 55-300. The 55-300 is obviously one step up, but it's also quite a bit heavier and more expensive. For the price and given the small size and low weight, the DA50-200 is a very decent lens IMHO.

02-19-2012, 11:35 AM	#11
Mareket Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Chester Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 719	There's always the 60-250 f/4... :P But yeah, it's small, light, WR and optically 'good enough', The WR is a big deal for you, and there isn't another light WR tele zoom available, so go for it, regardless of optical quality.

02-19-2012, 11:58 AM	#12
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076 Original Poster	OK - thanks, but then again ... Originally posted by Mareket There's always the 60-250 f/4... :P But yeah, it's small, light, WR and optically 'good enough', The WR is a big deal for you, and there isn't another light WR tele zoom available, so go for it, regardless of optical quality. The DA* 60-250 f/4 ... Oui, I could buy that (lists at "only" a 1200€ w/4 year warranty) Then again it would trigger "WWIII" inside the household ... plus my instant death and/or divorce, all at the same time! Thanks again, I'll probably go for it ... the DA 50-200 WR that is to say ... Merci encore - J

02-19-2012, 04:48 PM	#13
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I've yet to see a side by side comparison between the 50-200 and 55-300 that gives me any reason to believe the difference in opitcal quality is enough to make up for the rather large difference in size and weight, or of course the WR.

02-20-2012, 08:49 AM	#14
Mareket Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Chester Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 719	I think the extra reach of the 55-300 is why people take it instead of the 50-200, even if it's heavier, non WR and not optically dissimilar. If you need that reach you don't really have a choice do you? And there's a certain stigma held against kit lenses, even though Pentax's are absolutely fantastic. Some people want to appear like more advanced photographers by having a bigger lens, a role which the 55-300 can fill quite handily.

02-20-2012, 01:30 PM	#15
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076 Original Poster	Merci Marc Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I've yet to see a side by side comparison between the 50-200 and 55-300 that gives me any reason to believe the difference in opitcal quality is enough to make up for the rather large difference in size and weight, or of course the WR. Thanks for your input ... greatly appreciated. *Salut, J*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The other LBA (Lens Buying Advice) Tamron/Sigma 70-200, Pentax 50-135, or 60-250?	JinDesu	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-22-2011 10:42 AM
New here...advice, comments on KX and 50/200 lens...	george c	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	01-20-2010 12:25 PM
70-200/2.8 lenses - novice needing advice	adamkean	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	02-05-2009 04:38 PM
Seek advice: $200+ K110D repair - trade-in?	TreeHuggerDoug	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	07-22-2008 10:02 AM
Advice please: Have K10D - Pentax 50-200 + teleconverter or Sigma 70-300 APO DG?	pax1231	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	03-31-2007 08:42 AM