[boriscleto]

I can't see walkinga round with a heavier lens or a heavier prime. The idea is that I'm going out on a hike or excursion with kids and want one lens to handle "most" of the day. That's why the 55-300 seems so attractive.

That's exactly why I use the 55-300. Check out my PPG or Flickr stream. Most of the photos are taken with the 55-300. See if there are any "quality control" issues.

[tibbitts]

That's exactly why I use the 55-300. Check out my PPG or Flickr stream. Most of the photos are taken with the 55-300. See if there are any "quality control" issues.

Five out of five isn't statistically significant in terms of the number of units produced; it's just one person's experience, just as your satisfaction with (I'm guessing) one out of one copy is one person's experience. Some people routinely crop their images. Some people shoot animals or other subjects that only occupy only the center portion of the frame. In those cases, I too would have had no issues with any of my 55-300s. And the 55-300 is significantly preferable in other ways vs. the 70-300.

[DSims]

That's exactly why I use the 55-300. Check out my PPG or Flickr stream. Most of the photos are taken with the 55-300. See if there are any "quality control" issues.

It's true that the DA55-300 gives quite a nice range of Focal Lengths in one lens. The 55mm wide end is nice to have (compared to the 70-300, which has lesser IQ anyway).

---------- Post added 05-01-14 at 05:27 PM ----------

Those primes are way beyond my budget. My wife will divorce me if I get any of those... :-)

So if you spend $1000 on one lens the marriage is over, but if you get two lenses for your $1000 you're a happy couple?

I didn't think the lenses I mentioned were out of reason when you were contemplating a Sigma that costs $800, or a $600 TC! The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is $770, and used *200 and *300 lenses have sold in the $700-1000 range as well.

---------- Post added 05-01-14 at 05:50 PM ----------

the 18-80 range shown for 2014 might be something to compete with the sigma 24-70/2.8 or tam 28-75/2.8

the 120-350+ range shown might be interesting in terms of a teel zoom

Those are interesting lenses. I'll be afraid to see the price tag, however!

what do you think about putting the new WR teleconverter on the 18-135, instead of getting a telezoom? would that still be too short in any event? not make sense for apertures of the 18-135?

The TC should be expected to work poorly with those apertures.


The lenses I mentioned weigh 2 to 2.5 times as much as you're used to. Most people don't mind once they see the IQ.

But if you're intent on keeping the weight down, you'll have to sacrifice some IQ. Nevertheless, the DA55-300 is pretty good, so it will work unless (or until) you decide you want something more.

[TzalamChadash]

It's true that the DA55-300 gives quite a nice range of Focal Lengths in one lens. The 55mm wide end is nice to have (compared to the 70-300, which has lesser IQ anyway).

---------- Post added 05-01-14 at 05:27 PM ----------



So if you spend $1000 on one lens the marriage is over, but if you get two lenses for your $1000 you're a happy couple?

I didn't think the lenses I mentioned were out of reason when you were contemplating a Sigma that costs $800, or a $600 TC! The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is $770, and used *200 and *300 lenses have sold in the $700-1000 range as well.

---------- Post added 05-01-14 at 05:50 PM ----------



Those are interesting lenses. I'll be afraid to see the price tag, however!



The TC should be expected to work poorly with those apertures.


The lenses I mentioned weigh 2 to 2.5 times as much as you're used to. Most people don't mind once they see the IQ.

But if you're intent on keeping the weight down, you'll have to sacrifice some IQ. Nevertheless, the DA55-300 is pretty good, so it will work unless (or until) you decide you want something more.

In the world of marriage of a casual user of the equipment, two lenses each between 400-500 usd (after rebates, discounts whatever) are an easier sell than a lens for a grand and up.

The DA 55-300 seems to be the choice consensus here over the two tamrons (28-300 and the lower cost 70-300).

[DSims]

In the world of marriage of a casual user of the equipment, two lenses each between 400-500 usd (after rebates, discounts whatever) are an easier sell than a lens for a grand and up.

The DA 55-300 seems to be the choice consensus here over the two tamrons (28-300 and the lower cost 70-300).

I understand this - I was almost teasing because of it. But it's still too bad logic doesn't prevail here. Your bank account still knows it's the same amount of money. As long as you have a good relationship, and it doesn't go this way in every aspect of your lives (i.e. where appearance is more important than reality) it should be fine.

[TzalamChadash]

I am getting the Pentax DA 55-300 WR. It seems that this is the best choice amongst the consumer telezooms. Thanks for all of your advice. Was very helpful.
I am going to wait with a faster indoor lens and see what the DA 50/1.8 can do over time.
The other night I tried taking pictures of a night stage performance in a dark park. Stage was well lit however. I had the 50/1.8 on the camera - k50.
No opportunity to really get much closer. It seems that telezoom even with slower apertures and letting camera do the heavy lifting would work better than a fast prime and then cropping. At least that's how it seemed sitting next to my friend with a cannon and a telezoom :-)
Great learning experience though and cemented my decision to get the telezoom now.

[DSims]

The other night I tried taking pictures of a night stage performance in a dark park. Stage was well lit however. I had the 50/1.8 on the camera - k50.
No opportunity to really get much closer. It seems that telezoom even with slower apertures and letting camera do the heavy lifting would work better than a fast prime and then cropping. At least that's how it seemed sitting next to my friend with a cannon and a telezoom :-)

The FA77 or an 85/1.4 is usually the best choice for me in such situations, although I can't tell just how far away you were. But you can see from my profile I have a choice of other lenses you might think would be better (notably the DA*50-135/2.8), but I still use the FA*85 (or the FA77 I had before it) for stage performances in dark settings, whether indoors or out.

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is still probably a good option here - giving good IQ and value - if you can't use an FA77 or an 85 (which could even include the affordable Samyang 85/1.4 Manual Focus lenses).