Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-14-2013, 10:44 AM   #1
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
02-14-2013, 11:12 AM   #2
Senior Member
CRPhoto's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 254
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
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,325
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
Veteran Member
hongzhibin1987's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 441
I would say 55-300 is better.

02-14-2013, 05:04 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: central Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by hongzhibin1987 Quote
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
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,327
QuoteOriginally posted by hongzhibin1987 Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 109
Original Poster
Thanks everyone.
02-17-2013, 07:00 PM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 84
QuoteOriginally posted by Mlcinema Quote
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
Veteran Member
hongzhibin1987's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 441
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 109
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleRed Quote
If you like I can post some DA 50-200 non WR that I thought were pretty good.

Sure. Thank you.
02-22-2013, 02:50 PM   #11
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 84
]
QuoteOriginally posted by Mlcinema Quote
Sure. Thank you.
Here are a few with DA 50-200 non WR......
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K200D  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K200D  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K200D  Photo 
02-22-2013, 03:09 PM   #12
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.
02-22-2013, 08:06 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 109
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleRed Quote
]

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

Looking good to me. Thank you.
02-22-2013, 11:40 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
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
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 wasnīt 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 iīd say it performs as expected. It wont blow you away, and it wonīt let you down because it will get that picture you couldnīt get without it, althoe not crispsharp in color/contrast/sharpnes.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50-200mm, da, da 50-200mm f/4-5.6, f/4-5.6, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top