[Barry Hall]

Pentax makes 2 versions of the 55-300 tele, the 21720 at 15.5 0z. in weight and the 21897 at 3 grams lighter. According to pentax both are identical in construction, elements, function , except the lighter has more plastic, hence the less weight. I have heard that while less weight with same function is a good thing, (also about $150 less) if the plastic in the 21897 is in the mount (plastic on metal) it could be troubblesome over time and one observer suggested there is one less auto function? Soo whats the scoop, why pay an additional $150 for the 21720? Pentax tec support could not say one has an advantage over the other. thanks

[derekkite]

I believe the one with the metal mount comes with a hood as well.

[boriscleto]

The DA L (the plastic version) does not come with a lens hood (less than $10 on eBay), and does not have quick shift focusing or a distance scale. Some will tell you that is critical, I don't use it myself (the hood is critical). There is also the fact that Pentax does not sell the DA L other than as part of a kit. All DA L lenses not sold as part of a kit are white box and don't have a warranty.

The Lens Sample Archive has photos from both...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-sample-photo-archive/153150-pentax-d...d-samples.html

[Barry Hall]

thanks for info. While the guarantee is important, adorama (at least) provides the same as pentax at $150 less than DA. So its seems to me are the hood, quick shift (whatever that does) distance scale and metal part vs plastic really worth $150? Seems to me real question is how much less durable is the lens with plastic part(s), thanks

[tcbubbleleo]

I am surprised the Pentax tech support doesn't know the quick shift/metal mount differences, anyway I have an DA-L for sale now, if interested pm me

[colonel00]

While I am no expert, I live the DA 55-300 especially for the quick shift and the distance scale. One of the first things you will realize is the 55-300 can hunt when focusing at times and it is great to be able to use the quick shift to get it close first. This reduces focus times in mediocre light. Also, I have made some efforts to get shots of the moon and it would be next to impossible with this lens without the quick shift and the distance scale.

[jatrax]

So its seems to me are the hood, quick shift (whatever that does) distance scale and metal part vs plastic really worth $150? Seems to me real question is how much less durable is the lens with plastic part(s), thanks

I have the DAL version, came with my k-x and it is just fine. I added an aftermarket hood, as Boriscleto says that is important. I don't think the plastic mount is an issue at all, plastic to metal is often a smoother fit anyway. I do miss the quick shift though and if I were buying again I would get the DA version just for the quick shift. Quick shift is present on most of the newer lenses and allows you to focus manually while still in auto-focus. So you can AF a subject to get close and then manually focus to adjust as needed. Or just manually focus while you are still in AF mode. Worth it to me, YMMV.

[GibbyTheMole]

So its seems to me are the hood, quick shift (whatever that does) distance scale and metal part vs plastic really worth $150?

Not to me, it isn't. There's also a workaround for the lacking quickshift feature on the DA-L... You can turn the focus ring while pressing the lens release button. It's a snug fit, so the lens shouldn't just fall off or anything.

I also think I paid around $4 for the exact same hood that comes with the DA version (minus the Pentax logo) on eBay.

[colonel00]

I do have to agree that for $150 more it may not be worth it. I got my DA from the bootic sale when it was 30% off so that made the decision very easy. Keep an eye on the marketplace and you will find a DA being sold cheap.

[TER-OR]

Replacement hoods are inexpensive for this lens. I had to replace a broken one a while ago, that's a factor.

[Barry Hall]

thanks all for insight. Since I plan on having my K5 and lenses a long time, and since I plan on shooting wild life in flight during the summer in the smokies I have decided to go with the DA. Hopefully I can keep the spread to arround + $100. I know if I would miss just one shot of wildlife in flight, because of not having the quick release fearture, I would regret not getting the DA. thanks again

[calculator01]

I enjoy my DA-L, but if I could do it again, I would get the DA version for quick shift. It is worth the $150 alone. However, I got the DA-L for $150 with my K-R, so it was a no-brainer to buy the kit.

Plastic mount? No worries.
No hood? It's $10.
Distance scale? Not missed

[Na Horuk]

What camera are you going to use this lens on? On my DSLR I would use the DA-L. On my K-01, I would prefer a lens with quickshift.
Plastic mount is no worries, hood can be bought cheaply online (usually from China, shipping can take a couple months, but its super cheap)
Usually I want distance scales on my lenses, but I'm not sure its a necessity on this one. Simply because you will be taking photos of things far away (so you can't measure with a ruler), and the distance scales don't really allow zone focusing, because the markings on most modern lenses are so poor

My personal recommendation is to buy the DA L and order a hood (make sure it fits, because the DA and DA L lenses might have different filter theads, you should double-check that) and maybe a polarizing filter (added some much-needed punch to my DA L 50-200mm, which supposedly performs similarly to the 55-300mm)

[NitroDC]

I'd go with the regular DA version because quick shift can be a life saver in those short moments where the opportunity is perfect. If you've got your lens at close focus and you need to quickly shoot something at infinity, the 55-300 is going to hunt for hours. It's pretty slow when it comes to autofocus.

[Docrwm]

We have no reports of the mount failing. Plastic mounts on my 3 lenses with then have show no meaningful wear whatsoever. I bought an 18-55 to replace the DAL because of the quickshift and found I never used it. My DAL 55-300 has been a solid workhorse for me without a single issue - sharp, good colors, etc. Is it as good as my 70-200/2.8 - not in many respects but it also cost 2/5ths as much. I have now sold off all my 18-55s because I do not use them but I can honestly say that the image quality of my DAL was as good as the ver. II and better than the WR version, which made me sad for having sold it off. As for hoods, the bayonet replacement hood cost me $8 for the 55-300 off eBay and it has been a solid performer too. The optical formula for the two versions of the 55-300 are identical and the only differences in that regard are going to be lens to lens variation.