[Photodana]

Hi guys
I crashed my Sigma EX F4 100-300mm APO some days ago.
As a temporary replacement I got a SMC Pentax 4-5.8 55-300mm DA ED:
I must say I am impressed. A lens that cost a fraction of a pro-lens can do this at F. 4.5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/14473007456/in/photostream/

Regards
Jens Bladt, Denmark

[altopiet]

I also find the focal length around 200mm very good...

[bluenose]

Hi guys
I crashed my Sigma EX F4 100-300mm APO some days ago.
As a temporary replacement I got a SMC Pentax 4-5.8 55-300mm DA ED:
I must say I am impressed. A lens that cost a fraction of a pro-lens can do this at F. 4.5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/14473007456/in/photostream/

Regards
Jens Bladt, Denmark

I have the DA L version, probably the least expensive version, and it has to be one of the best value lens in the Pentax line.

Regards

[mano]

Indeed it is. I got the DA* 300 some years ago but I never seriously considered selling the zoom. It's usually in my pack when I want to travel light and rarely disappoints me.

I only considered exchanging my older model for the WR version - maybe I will when my bank account looks better. And after I get the DA 21 and the tele-converter and...

---

Last edited by mano; 06-28-2014 at 04:37 AM. Reason: Typo...

[GibbyTheMole]

I have the DA L version, probably the least expensive version, and it has to be one of the best value lens in the Pentax line.

Yep. It's an excellent performer and one of my faves. I have the DA-L version, too. If I'm not mistaken, all versions of the 55-300 are optically identical, with only construction differences.

[nparsons13]

I got the HD DA version last winter to use with my old K200D, and since then I've bought a K5 IIs to maximize the lens's best qualities.

[wedge]

Anyone have one of these and the Tamron/Pentax 18-250? I've got the Tammy version of the latter and love it, but it'd be nice to have another 50mm of reach sometimes and I'm wondering if the image quality in their common range (55-250) would be better.

[Des]

Anyone have one of these and the Tamron/Pentax 18-250? I've got the Tammy version of the latter and love it, but it'd be nice to have another 50mm of reach sometimes and I'm wondering if the image quality in their common range (55-250) would be better.

I've got the Tamron 18-250 and the Pentax DA-L 55-300. I haven't used the Pentax enough at the wide end yet to make a fair comparison. At the long end it's definitely a bit sharper, particularly in the edges and corners, even at the same aperture. Less CA too. Having said that, as you know, images from the 18-250 taken in good light do come up quite well, especially after correction in PP.

Other advantages of the 55-300 are:
(1) The 55-300 is about a stop faster across their common range. Big difference in lower light.
(2) At the long end, the 55-300 is good wide open, whereas the 18-250 benefits from stopping down to say f8 at 250mm. Makes the advantage about 2 stops.
(2) Because the 18-250 (unlike the 55-300) is an internal focus lens, the magnification and field of view are equivalent to less than the stated focal length when not focused to infinity. That is, to put it crudely, with the 55-300, 250mm means 250mm, whereas with the 18-250mm, 250mm only means 250mm (if at all) when focused to infinity. Combined with the longer reach, the practical result is that a bird at 5-10m will fill significantly more of the frame with the 55-300 than with the 18-250, so you need to crop less. I find this a major advantage.

The flip side is that the 18-250 has a much shorter minimum focus distance (45cm v 1.4m). Makes a big difference for close ups (flowers, insects, etc). On the other hand, the 55-300 is said to work well with diopters or close focus adapters, such as the Raynox 150 (although I haven't tried this).

On my K-30, I think the AF on the 18-250 might be a little faster, but there is not much in it. However tests of the autofocus of the 55-300 on the K-3 by PF showed it outperformed the DA*60-250. The camera body obviously makes a difference.

I have kept my 18-250 but I don't use it as much since getting the 55-300. The versatility of the 18-250 still makes it a worthwhile choice when a wide range of focal lengths may be required, where speed is not a hgh priority, and where carrying multiple lenses or changing lenses is impractical (e.g. on a hike where weight is at a premium, in dusty conditions, on a boat trip, at a social function).

The price of the 55-300 is so reasonable that it is easy to justify having both.

[Bman]

If you look at any reviews for this lens you'll see it is quite good - sharper than a lot of 300mm zoom lenses from other brands.

Some people might get picky that this lens has somewhat non-circular out of focus bokeh...

DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 on K-30
210mm 1/100s f8 iso1600