Anyone using the DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED WR?

Mlcinema · 02-14-2013, 10:44 AM

Hello All,

Anyone out there using the Pentax DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED WR? How are the images? Sharp? Color? Etc?

Any other brand better? (does not have to be the same focal length, but close 18-250, 55-300 etc.) Same price range.

Thank you.

Last edited by Mlcinema; 02-14-2013 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Adding another brand and focal length

CRPhoto · 02-14-2013, 11:12 AM

I have one. I really enjoy that lens, it's really small, sealed, images are sharp enought, good colors, cheap. Great for traveling along with the 18-55wr. A very light and durable kit.

Na Horuk · 02-14-2013, 11:21 AM

Check out lens reviews, especially this one: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-50-200mm-F4-5.6-WR-Wea...Zoom-Lens.html
The DA 50-200mm isn't a super great lens, its a kit lens (the WR version has better build, metal mount and stuff, but optically its the same as the DA L), but it is convenient, especially if you have a WR camera. People often praise 70-200mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron.

hongzhibin1987 · 02-14-2013, 02:33 PM

I would say 55-300 is better.

timo · 02-14-2013, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by hongzhibin1987

I would say 55-300 is better.

After adjusting my K5 for misfocus on the 50-200 I decided there isn't much between them, and the 50-200 is a lot lighter. Stopping down the 55-300 to optimum aperture makes a very slow lens for handheld use at 300 - I find I hardly ever use it beyond 200 anyway for that reason.

kh1234567890 · 02-14-2013, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by hongzhibin1987

I would say 55-300 is better.

I have both the 50-200 WR and the 55-300. As CRPhoto said, the 50-200 WR is better for travelling, being smaller, shorter, lighter and is WR. It can be difficult to be inconspicuous with the 55-300 since fully zoomed and with the hood on it is some 230mm long.

IQ wise there is not that much difference, the 55-300 being marginally better at the long end. The 50-200 can be a bit soft near the frame edges when wide open at 200mm.

These are what Flickr thinks are my 'most interesting' shots taken with each of these lenses. I can't argue with that

Mlcinema · 02-16-2013, 08:38 PM

Thanks everyone.

UncleRed · 02-17-2013, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Mlcinema

Thanks everyone.

If you like I can post some DA 50-200 non WR that I thought were pretty good.

hongzhibin1987 · 02-17-2013, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

I have both the 50-200 WR and the 55-300. As CRPhoto said, the 50-200 WR is better for travelling, being smaller, shorter, lighter and is WR. It can be difficult to be inconspicuous with the 55-300 since fully zoomed and with the hood on it is some 230mm long.

IQ wise there is not that much difference, the 55-300 being marginally better at the long end. The 50-200 can be a bit soft near the frame edges when wide open at 200mm.

These are what Flickr thinks are my 'most interesting' shots taken with each of these lenses. I can't argue with that

Nice pictures! Really like the first one. GJ.
Another reason why I "dont" like 50-200 is it's kind ugly

Mlcinema · 02-19-2013, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by UncleRed

If you like I can post some DA 50-200 non WR that I thought were pretty good.

Sure. Thank you.

UncleRed · 02-22-2013, 02:50 PM

]

Originally posted by Mlcinema

Sure. Thank you.

Here are a few with DA 50-200 non WR......

JohntheThird · 02-22-2013, 03:09 PM

If it is any value to you, I recently did a side by side comparison with Sigma 18-200 II HSM. The 50-200 is significantly sharper and has less CA at same focal length, aperture, ISO etc... Right now the only favour the Sigma has is that it can go down to 18mm. Thats 11x zoom versus 4x of the 50-200. I guess that is the trade off.

Mlcinema · 02-22-2013, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by UncleRed

]

Here are a few with DA 50-200 non WR......

Looking good to me. Thank you.

m42man · 02-22-2013, 11:40 PM

I have one, and like its compactness, its quality feel and, generally, its optical performance. However, like a lot of lenses nowadays, you have to make sure you get a good copy: all too often you'll find one which exhibits decentring. To check for this, make sure you get good sharpness across the image, from corner to corner, and at various focal lengths. Buy from a reputable dealer with a good returns policy!

Vanheden · 02-24-2013, 04:47 AM

I got one. On the plus side it is small and LIGHT. You can realy have it in your bag and not notice it. I find it great for traveling along with the 18-55 kit lens. It makes really a light kit to carry around and you cover almost everything with it.

On the downside, it not very good at taking shots in the range of "infinity". When i zoom in on those pictures it mostly "yeah... no. that wasn´t nice at all, looks like i shot it with a compact camera". On closer range it performs well, i have no complains there. But everything needs a bit of work, or just pressing the magic button in LR

If you are looking for a WR companion and dont want to spend as much as the DA*60-250 i´d say it performs as expected. It wont blow you away, and it won´t let you down because it will get that picture you couldn´t get without it, althoe not crispsharp in color/contrast/sharpnes.

02-14-2013, 10:44 AM	#1
Mlcinema Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 109	Anyone using the DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED WR? Hello All, Anyone out there using the Pentax DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED WR? How are the images? Sharp? Color? Etc? Any other brand better? (does not have to be the same focal length, but close 18-250, 55-300 etc.) Same price range. Thank you. Last edited by Mlcinema; 02-14-2013 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Adding another brand and focal length

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax DA 50-200 f/4-5.6 ED WR samples	kh1234567890	Lens Sample Photo Archive	29	12-27-2015 09:02 AM
For Sale - Sold: DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED & DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL II	indytax	Sold Items	3	09-03-2012 07:34 PM
Pentax DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED (Used) or Sigma 50-200mm F4-5.6 DC OS HSM (New)	toaruna	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	06-27-2012 04:45 AM
Pentax SMCP/DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED WR	napawino	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	07-24-2009 11:48 PM

02-14-2013, 11:12 AM	#2
CRPhoto Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: San Jose, Costa Rica Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 260	I have one. I really enjoy that lens, it's really small, sealed, images are sharp enought, good colors, cheap. Great for traveling along with the 18-55wr. A very light and durable kit.

02-14-2013, 11:21 AM	#3
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Check out lens reviews, especially this one: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-50-200mm-F4-5.6-WR-Wea...Zoom-Lens.html The DA 50-200mm isn't a super great lens, its a kit lens (the WR version has better build, metal mount and stuff, but optically its the same as the DA L), but it is convenient, especially if you have a WR camera. People often praise 70-200mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron.

02-14-2013, 02:33 PM	#4
hongzhibin1987 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 464	I would say 55-300 is better.

02-14-2013, 05:04 PM	#5
timo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: former Arsenal football stadium Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	Originally posted by hongzhibin1987 I would say 55-300 is better. After adjusting my K5 for misfocus on the 50-200 I decided there isn't much between them, and the 50-200 is a lot lighter. Stopping down the 55-300 to optimum aperture makes a very slow lens for handheld use at 300 - I find I hardly ever use it beyond 200 anyway for that reason.

02-14-2013, 05:25 PM	#6
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by hongzhibin1987 I would say 55-300 is better. I have both the 50-200 WR and the 55-300. As CRPhoto said, the 50-200 WR is better for travelling, being smaller, shorter, lighter and is WR. It can be difficult to be inconspicuous with the 55-300 since fully zoomed and with the hood on it is some 230mm long. IQ wise there is not that much difference, the 55-300 being marginally better at the long end. The 50-200 can be a bit soft near the frame edges when wide open at 200mm. These are what Flickr thinks are my 'most interesting' shots taken with each of these lenses. I can't argue with that

02-16-2013, 08:38 PM	#7
Mlcinema Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 109 Original Poster	Thanks everyone.

02-17-2013, 07:00 PM	#8
UncleRed Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Michigan Posts: 84	Originally posted by Mlcinema Thanks everyone. If you like I can post some DA 50-200 non WR that I thought were pretty good.

02-17-2013, 09:06 PM	#9
hongzhibin1987 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 464	Originally posted by kh1234567890 I have both the 50-200 WR and the 55-300. As CRPhoto said, the 50-200 WR is better for travelling, being smaller, shorter, lighter and is WR. It can be difficult to be inconspicuous with the 55-300 since fully zoomed and with the hood on it is some 230mm long. IQ wise there is not that much difference, the 55-300 being marginally better at the long end. The 50-200 can be a bit soft near the frame edges when wide open at 200mm. These are what Flickr thinks are my 'most interesting' shots taken with each of these lenses. I can't argue with that Nice pictures! Really like the first one. GJ. Another reason why I "dont" like 50-200 is it's kind ugly

02-19-2013, 12:10 PM	#10
Mlcinema Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 109 Original Poster	Originally posted by UncleRed If you like I can post some DA 50-200 non WR that I thought were pretty good. Sure. Thank you.

02-22-2013, 03:09 PM	#12
JohntheThird Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 94	If it is any value to you, I recently did a side by side comparison with Sigma 18-200 II HSM. The 50-200 is significantly sharper and has less CA at same focal length, aperture, ISO etc... Right now the only favour the Sigma has is that it can go down to 18mm. Thats 11x zoom versus 4x of the 50-200. I guess that is the trade off.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-22-2013, 08:06 PM	#13
Mlcinema Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 109 Original Poster	Originally posted by UncleRed ] Here are a few with DA 50-200 non WR...... Looking good to me. Thank you.

02-22-2013, 11:40 PM	#14
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 623	I have one, and like its compactness, its quality feel and, generally, its optical performance. However, like a lot of lenses nowadays, you have to make sure you get a good copy: all too often you'll find one which exhibits decentring. To check for this, make sure you get good sharpness across the image, from corner to corner, and at various focal lengths. Buy from a reputable dealer with a good returns policy!

02-24-2013, 04:47 AM	#15
Vanheden Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Vaasa Posts: 23	I got one. On the plus side it is small and LIGHT. You can realy have it in your bag and not notice it. I find it great for traveling along with the 18-55 kit lens. It makes really a light kit to carry around and you cover almost everything with it. On the downside, it not very good at taking shots in the range of "infinity". When i zoom in on those pictures it mostly "yeah... no. that wasn´t nice at all, looks like i shot it with a compact camera". On closer range it performs well, i have no complains there. But everything needs a bit of work, or just pressing the magic button in LR If you are looking for a WR companion and dont want to spend as much as the DA*60-250 i´d say it performs as expected. It wont blow you away, and it won´t let you down because it will get that picture you couldn´t get without it, althoe not crispsharp in color/contrast/sharpnes.