DA 55-300mm (Happy Happy - Joy Joy)

cupic · 11-03-2008, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by nulla

Great shots from the stand

Nice horse.

Neil

Nice Horse WTF

Im visiting Florida state soon as

cheers

Alcyon · 11-04-2008, 10:47 AM

Here's a crooped from my new 55-300... i love it already !

Je veux voir aussi on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

PentHassyKon · 11-18-2008, 10:06 PM

Looks like this a good lens compared to the 50-200

Has anyone had a chance to compare it to the 18-250?

audiobomber · 11-18-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by PentHassyKon

Looks like this a good lens compared to the 50-200

Has anyone had a chance to compare it to the 18-250?

I have both. They are both sharp and both have nice colour. I wouild say the 55-300mm is sharper above 150mm.

I don't like the way the DA 18-250mm renders an image when shooting over water (e.g. a swimming duck). I don't know what causes this.

The 55-300mm is a much longer lens. The 18-250mm is an internal focus lens, so it loses range at focussing distances less than infinity. At full zoom and a distance of thirty feet, it has the same fov as the 55-300 set at 200 mm.

The 18-250mm creeps, the 55-300mm doesn't.

The 55-300mm is significantly faster. It's F4.5 up to 210mm. IIRC, the 18-250 goes to 5.6 at just 70mm.

PentHassyKon · 11-18-2008, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

.......
The 55-300mm is a much longer lens. The 18-250mm is an internal focus lens, so it loses range at focussing distances less than infinity. At full zoom and a distance of thirty feet, it has the same fov as the 55-300 set at 200 mm.
....
The 55-300mm is significantly faster. It's F4.5 up to 210mm. IIRC, the 18-250 goes to 5.6 at just 70mm.

thanks for the reply audiobomber...
I'm not sure I understand the part about losing range. Do you mean when the 18-250mm is used at 250mm and at a distance of 30 ft that it acts/looks like a 200mm?

The last statement you make about f stop speed is good to know. I had asked this in a previous thread and didn't get any responses. f4.5 @ 210 vs f5.6 @ 70 can make a difference.

My debate is since I don't currently have a DSLR is whether to purchase with the kit lens or not and to get the 18-250 instead. I guess ~$70 for the 18-55 (when purchased with body) isn't bad but it could go into purchasing the 18-250 or, I could purchase the kit lens and the 55-300 with it which would roughly be equivalent in cost to just the 18-250.

aaargh....
decisions, decisions.

BTW, now that you have both lenses are you considering keeping only one of them instead? which one do you use more often?

**Michaelina2** · 11-19-2008, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by PentHassyKon

aaargh....
decisions, decisions.

Cheers...

No... the decision is easy. Pair a K20D w/ DA 55-300 and DA 35 Ltd.

Have fun learning how to get the most out of each. In no time, you will be dazzling your subjects and peers.

No need to buy anything else as your bases are covered for many a year.

my .02 cent$...

audiobomber · 11-19-2008, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by PentHassyKon

thanks for the reply audiobomber...
I'm not sure I understand the part about losing range. Do you mean when the 18-250mm is used at 250mm and at a distance of 30 ft that it acts/looks like a 200mm?

Yes, exactly. And if you set the 18-250 at 250mm, at a distance of one mile it has the same FOV as the 55-300 set for 230mm. It loses range as you get closer. At 9 feet, 250mm looks like 160mm.

Originally posted by PentHassyKon

My debate is since I don't currently have a DSLR is whether to purchase with the kit lens or not and to get the 18-250 instead. I guess ~$70 for the 18-55 (when purchased with body) isn't bad but it could go into purchasing the 18-250 or, I could purchase the kit lens and the 55-300 with it which would roughly be equivalent in cost to just the 18-250.

Going either way would be a valid choice. I like to photograph wildlife, so I need 300mm as an absolute minimum. But for others the right answer would be the 18-250mm.

I use the 16-45mm as my standard zoom and the 55-300mm for tele. I use the 18-250 for those few times when I can't or don't want to change lenses. The 18-250 is always mounted on my K100DS, because it allows me to shoot snaps without worrying about FL. My wife uses it because she has no interest in changing lenses. I've only mounted the 18-250 on the K20D once in the past few months, because I prefer the IQ of my two-zoom set. I have a definite preference for the 55-300mm because of its range and colour depth, and the 16-45mm simply does everything better. I prefer the IQ of the 18-250 to the 18-55 (not the II). But...

It depends on what you shoot, where you're going with your lens purchases and how long it will take to get there. An 18-250mm would keep many people happy for a long time. I would choose the 18-55 and 55-300 because most of my shooting is at the long end. Either way, you will want a prime for best quality and low-light shooting.

Kesha · 04-26-2010, 09:46 PM

I have this lens, very good and nice.

Some studio work with this lens:

Kesha · 04-26-2010, 09:48 PM

Outdoor :

Kesha · 04-26-2010, 09:50 PM

K10D Infrared + DA 55-300

Blue · 04-26-2010, 10:45 PM

Nice series Kesha. This one is particularly striking!

Originally posted by Kesha

K10D Infrared + DA 55-300

Kesha · 04-26-2010, 11:49 PM

This is @300mm/F10.

@120mm/F11

My conclusion as Sigma 70-300 and Tamron 70-300's former user, after used this lens with many condition: hot, rain, indoor studio, infrared (no hot spot in K10D IR), waterfall, beach and Islands etc vs the IQ vs the price, this lens is SUPER HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

pechos1 · 04-27-2010, 02:18 AM

First let me tell you Kesha that your picture are really great !
My problem is that i use essentially my cam to take pictures of motorbikes and i feel that my tamron 70-300 is really limited to take this kind of pictures. Very often the bikes are not neat even with hight speed setting.
So my question is that if any body used his 55-300 pentax to take mecanical sport pictures.

Ps: excuse my english

GeneV · 04-27-2010, 02:38 AM

Nothing helps a lens and a photographer like lovely ladies.

On the serious side, it is good to see controlled and studio shoots with this lens to know what it can really do. I tend to use it for action or wildlife outdoors, and I forget the effect of movement, high ISO, being cranked out to its max and outdoor haze in evaluating the results.

Kesha · 04-27-2010, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by pechos1

First let me tell you Kesha that your picture are really great !
My problem is that i use essentially my cam to take pictures of motorbikes and i feel that my tamron 70-300 is really limited to take this kind of pictures. Very often the bikes are not neat even with hight speed setting.
So my question is that if any body used his 55-300 pentax to take mecanical sport pictures.

Ps: excuse my english

I don't know, pechos, I never shot speeding motorbike.
Maybe the better body like K7 will do AF very quick and accurate.

11-04-2008, 10:47 AM	#62
Alcyon New Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Reunion island Posts: 2	Here's a crooped from my new 55-300... i love it already ! Je veux voir aussi on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Last edited by Alcyon; 11-05-2008 at 07:13 AM.

11-19-2008, 05:23 AM	#66
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,302	Originally posted by PentHassyKon aaargh.... decisions, decisions. Cheers... No... the decision is easy. Pair a K20D w/ DA 55-300 and DA 35 Ltd. Have fun learning how to get the most out of each. In no time, you will be dazzling your subjects and peers. No need to buy anything else as your bases are covered for many a year. my .02 cent$... Last edited by Michaelina2; 11-19-2008 at 11:47 AM. Reason: typo

04-26-2010, 11:49 PM	#72
Kesha Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Jakarta Posts: 52	This is @300mm/F10. @120mm/F11 My conclusion as Sigma 70-300 and Tamron 70-300's former user, after used this lens with many condition: hot, rain, indoor studio, infrared (no hot spot in K10D IR), waterfall, beach and Islands etc vs the IQ vs the price, this lens is SUPER HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Last edited by Kesha; 04-26-2010 at 11:59 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
News Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year!	Adam	Site Suggestions and Help	75	12-26-2014 12:27 AM
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy Holidays...	benjikan	General Talk	8	12-25-2009 11:10 PM
Happy happy joy joy	pingflood	General Talk	3	06-13-2009 07:19 PM
Joy	Rense	Monthly Photo Contests	0	04-16-2009 04:16 AM
Happy New Year Sigma 300mm f/2.8	TomE	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	01-01-2009 08:32 PM

11-03-2008, 04:07 AM	#61
cupic Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Australia-NSW Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,824	Originally posted by nulla Great shots from the stand Nice horse. Neil Nice Horse WTF Im visiting Florida state soon as cheers

11-18-2008, 10:06 PM	#63
PentHassyKon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: SoCal Posts: 415	Looks like this a good lens compared to the 50-200 Has anyone had a chance to compare it to the 18-250?

11-18-2008, 10:19 PM	#64
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by PentHassyKon Looks like this a good lens compared to the 50-200 Has anyone had a chance to compare it to the 18-250? I have both. They are both sharp and both have nice colour. I wouild say the 55-300mm is sharper above 150mm. I don't like the way the DA 18-250mm renders an image when shooting over water (e.g. a swimming duck). I don't know what causes this. The 55-300mm is a much longer lens. The 18-250mm is an internal focus lens, so it loses range at focussing distances less than infinity. At full zoom and a distance of thirty feet, it has the same fov as the 55-300 set at 200 mm. The 18-250mm creeps, the 55-300mm doesn't. The 55-300mm is significantly faster. It's F4.5 up to 210mm. IIRC, the 18-250 goes to 5.6 at just 70mm.

11-18-2008, 10:56 PM	#65
PentHassyKon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: SoCal Posts: 415	Originally posted by audiobomber ....... The 55-300mm is a much longer lens. The 18-250mm is an internal focus lens, so it loses range at focussing distances less than infinity. At full zoom and a distance of thirty feet, it has the same fov as the 55-300 set at 200 mm. .... The 55-300mm is significantly faster. It's F4.5 up to 210mm. IIRC, the 18-250 goes to 5.6 at just 70mm. thanks for the reply audiobomber... I'm not sure I understand the part about losing range. Do you mean when the 18-250mm is used at 250mm and at a distance of 30 ft that it acts/looks like a 200mm? The last statement you make about f stop speed is good to know. I had asked this in a previous thread and didn't get any responses. f4.5 @ 210 vs f5.6 @ 70 can make a difference. My debate is since I don't currently have a DSLR is whether to purchase with the kit lens or not and to get the 18-250 instead. I guess ~$70 for the 18-55 (when purchased with body) isn't bad but it could go into purchasing the 18-250 or, I could purchase the kit lens and the 55-300 with it which would roughly be equivalent in cost to just the 18-250. aaargh.... decisions, decisions. BTW, now that you have both lenses are you considering keeping only one of them instead? which one do you use more often?

11-19-2008, 06:06 AM	#67
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by PentHassyKon thanks for the reply audiobomber... I'm not sure I understand the part about losing range. Do you mean when the 18-250mm is used at 250mm and at a distance of 30 ft that it acts/looks like a 200mm? Yes, exactly. And if you set the 18-250 at 250mm, at a distance of one mile it has the same FOV as the 55-300 set for 230mm. It loses range as you get closer. At 9 feet, 250mm looks like 160mm. Originally posted by PentHassyKon My debate is since I don't currently have a DSLR is whether to purchase with the kit lens or not and to get the 18-250 instead. I guess ~$70 for the 18-55 (when purchased with body) isn't bad but it could go into purchasing the 18-250 or, I could purchase the kit lens and the 55-300 with it which would roughly be equivalent in cost to just the 18-250. Going either way would be a valid choice. I like to photograph wildlife, so I need 300mm as an absolute minimum. But for others the right answer would be the 18-250mm. I use the 16-45mm as my standard zoom and the 55-300mm for tele. I use the 18-250 for those few times when I can't or don't want to change lenses. The 18-250 is always mounted on my K100DS, because it allows me to shoot snaps without worrying about FL. My wife uses it because she has no interest in changing lenses. I've only mounted the 18-250 on the K20D once in the past few months, because I prefer the IQ of my two-zoom set. I have a definite preference for the 55-300mm because of its range and colour depth, and the 16-45mm simply does everything better. I prefer the IQ of the 18-250 to the 18-55 (not the II). But... It depends on what you shoot, where you're going with your lens purchases and how long it will take to get there. An 18-250mm would keep many people happy for a long time. I would choose the 18-55 and 55-300 because most of my shooting is at the long end. Either way, you will want a prime for best quality and low-light shooting.

04-26-2010, 09:46 PM	#68
Kesha Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Jakarta Posts: 52	I have this lens, very good and nice. Some studio work with this lens:

04-26-2010, 09:48 PM	#69
Kesha Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Jakarta Posts: 52	Outdoor :

04-26-2010, 09:50 PM	#70
Kesha Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Jakarta Posts: 52	K10D Infrared + DA 55-300

04-26-2010, 10:45 PM	#71
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Nice series Kesha. This one is particularly striking! Originally posted by Kesha K10D Infrared + DA 55-300

04-27-2010, 02:18 AM	#73
pechos1 Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: LYON Posts: 3	First let me tell you Kesha that your picture are really great ! My problem is that i use essentially my cam to take pictures of motorbikes and i feel that my tamron 70-300 is really limited to take this kind of pictures. Very often the bikes are not neat even with hight speed setting. So my question is that if any body used his 55-300 pentax to take mecanical sport pictures. Ps: excuse my english

04-27-2010, 02:38 AM	#74
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Nothing helps a lens and a photographer like lovely ladies. On the serious side, it is good to see controlled and studio shoots with this lens to know what it can really do. I tend to use it for action or wildlife outdoors, and I forget the effect of movement, high ISO, being cranked out to its max and outdoor haze in evaluating the results.

04-27-2010, 04:22 AM	#75
Kesha Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Jakarta Posts: 52	Originally posted by pechos1 First let me tell you Kesha that your picture are really great ! My problem is that i use essentially my cam to take pictures of motorbikes and i feel that my tamron 70-300 is really limited to take this kind of pictures. Very often the bikes are not neat even with hight speed setting. So my question is that if any body used his 55-300 pentax to take mecanical sport pictures. Ps: excuse my english I don't know, pechos, I never shot speeding motorbike. Maybe the better body like K7 will do AF very quick and accurate.