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

pentaxkat · 07-09-2008, 07:34 PM

It is interesting to see from the shots posted that they look a lot more contrasty (although with PP its always hard to judge) and sharper than my 100-300mm F (not hard, its a pretty cheap soft lens).

However, the bokeh on my F seems much nicer (less harsh more creamy, not that I'm a particular bokeh expert or anything). In fact, the bokeh on my 100-300mm F is almost as nice as my M* (but obviously in a completely different league of sharpness). For certain shots, in good light, it really can produce some nice results.

Maybe I got a good copy of what is normally regarded as a dog lens.

Whats the size of the 55-300mm like?

audiobomber · 07-09-2008, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by devs66

The Sigma's and the Tamron's I agree, but the DA 50-200 is still a little sharper, and a little faster

Faster? No way, the 55-300mm is 4.5 at 200mm. Sharper? I'd like to see the proof. From anything I've read, the Tamron 70-300mm Di is sharper than the DA 50-200mm. I know for a fact the 55-300mm is sharper than the Tamron.

**Michaelina2** · 07-10-2008, 10:59 AM

Not to hijack this thread, but you are welcome to visit my emerging Photo-Blog for examples of nature theme images captured using the K20D with DA 50-200 and DA 55-300 (plus other) lenses. You will find some long shots and some 'macro' type close-ups. Each image has its basic EXIF settings noted.

Warning...

The blog is quite a 'work in progress' and I'm very low on the learning curve. Also, I am a sucker for dramatic action. Successful nature shots are mostly luck. Its rare to have the perfect setting (speed, light angle, subject behavior, etc.). As such, I may have pre-set the camera and lens in anticipation of one type of subject only to be presented with another. As you can see, I took the shot and did the best I could to deal with the faults using PP, later.

Comments are always welcome...

k100d · 07-10-2008, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Faster? No way, the 55-300mm is 4.5 at 200mm. Sharper? I'd like to see the proof. From anything I've read, the Tamron 70-300mm Di is sharper than the DA 50-200mm. I know for a fact the 55-300mm is sharper than the Tamron.

would you be so helpful as to identify the aperture at each step of the focal range on the 55-300?

audiobomber · 07-10-2008, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by k100d

would you be so helpful as to identify the aperture at each step of the focal range on the 55-300?

I just did this roughly by looking at the focal lengths marked on the barrel:
55-125 = 4.0
125-200 = 4.5
200-275 = 5.6
above 275 = 5.8

k100d · 07-10-2008, 01:44 PM

thanks audiobomber! 4.5 to 5.6 is a big jump!
but the 200mm at 4.5 is quite impressive

SpecialK · 07-10-2008, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by jamesm007

Just going to chime in as another very happy DA55-300mm owner of about a month now. Before this I had two copies of the Tamron and the Sigma 70-300 APO, the Sigma was great for CA/PF and up to 200mm but left a lot to be desired between 200-300mm. This Pentax is superb I can not ask for more, that should say a lot. There is one thing I could ask for and do wish it had sometimes and that's macro. But its performance is so superior to my copies of the other lens I just dont care. To this day I still am not sure which is the best to recommend for a budget telephoto the Tamron 70-300, or Sigma APO version, but I know what lens is best for a bit more. Now I know the primes are even better, but I like zoom lens and having a sharp usable wide open 55-300mm make me want to say thanks Pentax and who ever did this one.

My experience is much like this one. I have a Pentax 50-200 and Sigma 70-300 DG APO macro. Between those two, the Pentax is a bit more contrasty and slightly better IQ. If you want to see my comparison of them, here you go:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/4768-lens-comp...-70-300-a.html

However, the Pentax 55-300 is much superior than either one for IQ. It does not have the quasi-macro mode that I used all of about 2 times with the Sigma, and I doubt I'll be shooting subject closer than it lengthy minimum focus distance of just under 5 ft.

Even if I never offset the cost by selling the other lenses I am still happy with the purchase.

Rick_S · 07-12-2008, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Gerrys

Beautiful shots! I've been trying to buy this lens but no one seems to have it in stock. Where is Henry's? and may I ask what price you paid.
Thanks and happy shooting
GS

I am very happy to see the results. I got mine from 17th Street Photo via Amazon. I paid $299, which seems to be an amazing price.

Serpiente · 07-21-2008, 04:14 PM

How does the Pentax smc DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 ED compete with the DA 50-200 except for the vocal lenght?

I have the DA 50-200.. I can use 100mm more, but I am not happy with the auto focus speed of it and it misses fast moving objects a lot of times.. is the 55-300 faster?

greetings!

SpecialK · 07-21-2008, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Serpiente

How does the Pentax smc DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 ED compete with the DA 50-200 except for the vocal lenght?

I have the DA 50-200.. I can use 100mm more, but I am not happy with the auto focus speed of it and it misses fast moving objects a lot of times.. is the 55-300 faster?

greetings!

As I mentioned a couple posts up, the 55-300 is superior to the 50-200 in image quality. However, it still hunts just as bad, or worse, and is no quicker focussing.

Blue · 07-21-2008, 07:11 PM

Moon shot, hand held k200d with DA 55-300mm @ 300, 1/180 f5.6, action program, and shake reduction off. This is with no PP other than jpeg conversion and cropping with CS3.

nulla · 07-22-2008, 03:40 AM

Great photo Blue

Serpiente · 07-22-2008, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

As I mentioned a couple posts up, the 55-300 is superior to the 50-200 in image quality. However, it still hunts just as bad, or worse, and is no quicker focussing.

okay.. pity..because I hoped it would be better.. but image quality is more important.. but missing a fast moving object is also annoying!

audiobomber · 07-22-2008, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Serpiente

okay.. pity..because I hoped it would be better.. but image quality is more important.. but missing a fast moving object is also annoying!

Fortunately Pentax allows quick-shift focus. I don't hesitate any more. If the lens starts hunting, I bring it into focus manually.

Note that I'm talking about the few times the lens could not find focus when it should have. I'm not talking about trying to focus on a bird in a tree, where the focus point is confusing.

ChrisA · 07-22-2008, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Serpiente

okay.. pity..because I hoped it would be better.. but image quality is more important.. but missing a fast moving object is also annoying!

If you're worried about its ability to capture fast moving objects, you might find a look at a few of the airshow pictures I took on Sunday interesting.

All but one of them were taken with the DA 55-300, on the K10D.

I had no problems with focus speed. The lens has a 180 degree rotation from close-up to infinity, so to go from one extreme to the other takes a little while. But judging a lens on that basis seems a bit silly to me.

I used it all day, took about 700 photos in often difficult light, and came away delighted with it.

For the price, it's very good I think. Much better than either the FAJ 75-300 or the FA 80-320.

07-09-2008, 07:34 PM	#31
pentaxkat Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK/Canada/wherever work takes me Posts: 95	Anyone compared with F 100-300mm? It is interesting to see from the shots posted that they look a lot more contrasty (although with PP its always hard to judge) and sharper than my 100-300mm F (not hard, its a pretty cheap soft lens). However, the bokeh on my F seems much nicer (less harsh more creamy, not that I'm a particular bokeh expert or anything). In fact, the bokeh on my 100-300mm F is almost as nice as my M* (but obviously in a completely different league of sharpness). For certain shots, in good light, it really can produce some nice results. Maybe I got a good copy of what is normally regarded as a dog lens. Whats the size of the 55-300mm like?

07-10-2008, 10:59 AM	#33
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,300	Walkin' around w/DA 55-300 Not to hijack this thread, but you are welcome to visit my emerging *Photo-Blog* for examples of nature theme images captured using the K20D with DA 50-200 and DA 55-300 (plus other) lenses. You will find some long shots and some 'macro' type close-ups. Each image has its basic EXIF settings noted. Warning... The blog is quite a 'work in progress' and I'm very low on the learning curve. Also, I am a sucker for dramatic action. Successful nature shots are mostly luck. Its rare to have the perfect setting (speed, light angle, subject behavior, etc.). As such, I may have pre-set the camera and lens in anticipation of one type of subject only to be presented with another. As you can see, I took the shot and did the best I could to deal with the faults using PP, later. Comments are always welcome...

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

07-09-2008, 07:57 PM	#32
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by devs66 The Sigma's and the Tamron's I agree, but the DA 50-200 is still a little sharper, and a little faster Faster? No way, the 55-300mm is 4.5 at 200mm. Sharper? I'd like to see the proof. From anything I've read, the Tamron 70-300mm Di is sharper than the DA 50-200mm. I know for a fact the 55-300mm is sharper than the Tamron.

07-10-2008, 12:11 PM	#34
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	Originally posted by audiobomber Faster? No way, the 55-300mm is 4.5 at 200mm. Sharper? I'd like to see the proof. From anything I've read, the Tamron 70-300mm Di is sharper than the DA 50-200mm. I know for a fact the 55-300mm is sharper than the Tamron. would you be so helpful as to identify the aperture at each step of the focal range on the 55-300?

07-10-2008, 01:29 PM	#35
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by k100d would you be so helpful as to identify the aperture at each step of the focal range on the 55-300? I just did this roughly by looking at the focal lengths marked on the barrel: 55-125 = 4.0 125-200 = 4.5 200-275 = 5.6 above 275 = 5.8

07-10-2008, 01:44 PM	#36
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	thanks audiobomber! 4.5 to 5.6 is a big jump! but the 200mm at 4.5 is quite impressive

07-10-2008, 06:15 PM	#37
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Originally posted by jamesm007 Just going to chime in as another very happy DA55-300mm owner of about a month now. Before this I had two copies of the Tamron and the Sigma 70-300 APO, the Sigma was great for CA/PF and up to 200mm but left a lot to be desired between 200-300mm. This Pentax is superb I can not ask for more, that should say a lot. There is one thing I could ask for and do wish it had sometimes and that's macro. But its performance is so superior to my copies of the other lens I just dont care. To this day I still am not sure which is the best to recommend for a budget telephoto the Tamron 70-300, or Sigma APO version, but I know what lens is best for a bit more. Now I know the primes are even better, but I like zoom lens and having a sharp usable wide open 55-300mm make me want to say thanks Pentax and who ever did this one. My experience is much like this one. I have a Pentax 50-200 and Sigma 70-300 DG APO macro. Between those two, the Pentax is a bit more contrasty and slightly better IQ. If you want to see my comparison of them, here you go: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/4768-lens-comp...-70-300-a.html However, the Pentax 55-300 is much superior than either one for IQ. It does not have the quasi-macro mode that I used all of about 2 times with the Sigma, and I doubt I'll be shooting subject closer than it lengthy minimum focus distance of just under 5 ft. Even if I never offset the cost by selling the other lenses I am still happy with the purchase.

07-12-2008, 06:49 AM	#38
Rick_S Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Canton, GA Posts: 5	Originally posted by Gerrys Beautiful shots! I've been trying to buy this lens but no one seems to have it in stock. Where is Henry's? and may I ask what price you paid. Thanks and happy shooting GS I am very happy to see the results. I got mine from 17th Street Photo via Amazon. I paid $299, which seems to be an amazing price.

07-21-2008, 04:14 PM	#39
Serpiente Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 154	How does the Pentax smc DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 ED compete with the DA 50-200 except for the vocal lenght? I have the DA 50-200.. I can use 100mm more, but I am not happy with the auto focus speed of it and it misses fast moving objects a lot of times.. is the 55-300 faster? greetings!

07-21-2008, 05:22 PM	#40
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Originally posted by Serpiente How does the Pentax smc DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 ED compete with the DA 50-200 except for the vocal lenght? I have the DA 50-200.. I can use 100mm more, but I am not happy with the auto focus speed of it and it misses fast moving objects a lot of times.. is the 55-300 faster? greetings! As I mentioned a couple posts up, the 55-300 is superior to the 50-200 in image quality. However, it still hunts just as bad, or worse, and is no quicker focussing.

07-21-2008, 07:11 PM	#41
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Moon shot, hand held k200d with DA 55-300mm @ 300, 1/180 f5.6, action program, and shake reduction off. This is with no PP other than jpeg conversion and cropping with CS3.

07-22-2008, 03:40 AM	#42
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Great photo Blue

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2008, 02:48 PM	#43
Serpiente Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 154	Originally posted by SpecialK As I mentioned a couple posts up, the 55-300 is superior to the 50-200 in image quality. However, it still hunts just as bad, or worse, and is no quicker focussing. okay.. pity..because I hoped it would be better.. but image quality is more important.. but missing a fast moving object is also annoying!

07-22-2008, 03:24 PM	#44
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Serpiente okay.. pity..because I hoped it would be better.. but image quality is more important.. but missing a fast moving object is also annoying! Fortunately Pentax allows quick-shift focus. I don't hesitate any more. If the lens starts hunting, I bring it into focus manually. Note that I'm talking about the few times the lens could not find focus when it should have. I'm not talking about trying to focus on a bird in a tree, where the focus point is confusing.

07-22-2008, 03:38 PM	#45
ChrisA Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 393	Originally posted by Serpiente okay.. pity..because I hoped it would be better.. but image quality is more important.. but missing a fast moving object is also annoying! If you're worried about its ability to capture fast moving objects, you might find a look at a few of the airshow pictures I took on Sunday interesting. All but one of them were taken with the DA 55-300, on the K10D. I had no problems with focus speed. The lens has a 180 degree rotation from close-up to infinity, so to go from one extreme to the other takes a little while. But judging a lens on that basis seems a bit silly to me. I used it all day, took about 700 photos in often difficult light, and came away delighted with it. For the price, it's very good I think. Much better than either the FAJ 75-300 or the FA 80-320.