50-200 wr

ChopperCharles · 09-08-2014, 07:39 AM

I have the 55-300 non weather-sealed, but the weather sealed version is crazy money for me right now. Is the 50-200 WR decent enough to consider buying at sub-$200? Or will I be disappointed, having gotten used to my 55-300?

Charles.

Adam · 09-08-2014, 07:44 AM

The 55-300mm is considerably better optically, so I wouldn't downgrade.

**Just1MoreDave** · 09-08-2014, 08:14 AM

I like the 50-200 WR but it's not stunning, just competent. If you already like the 55-300, you will probably use it whenever the weather isn't a problem. So the question is, will that be enough, and will you continue to want the 55-300 WR? It may make more sense to sell your current lens, get the 55-300 WR and use that all the time.

jimr-pdx · 09-08-2014, 09:03 AM

Less sharp but smoother bokeh, the 50-200 is great when size matters. The 55-300 and a towel can make consistently sharper images.

kh1234567890 · 09-08-2014, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Adam

The 55-300mm is considerably better optically, so I wouldn't downgrade.

Not in my experience. There is not a great deal of difference in real life.

DA50-200
DA55-300

timo · 09-08-2014, 04:51 PM

I have the plastic-mount version of both. My 55-300 is a bit iffy at various zoom settings. Mild decentering. In practice I don't think there is all that much difference between the two and the 50-200 is a lot lighter and more pleasant to carry around. Ok, it's the old villain, sample variation, but it's the reality in my case.

SpecialK · 09-08-2014, 05:47 PM

I had a the original 50-200 and 55-300. The 55-300 had a bit better IQ. Eventually I sold both, but now have a Fry's open-box 50-200 WR which seems better than the original. When weeding out my lenses, I kept it over the Tamron 70-200 (size and weight considerations). I'd keep the 55-300 and use a $5-dollar camera condom, or a towel as mentioned.

timo · 09-08-2014, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

I had a the original 50-200 and 55-300. The 55-300 had a bit better IQ. Eventually I sold both, but now have a Fry's open-box 50-200 WR which seems better than the original. When weeding out my lenses, I kept it over the Tamron 70-200 (size and weight considerations). I'd keep the 55-300 and use a $5-dollar camera condom, or a towel as mentioned.

Further to my previous post, I used to have the original 50-200 also, which I bought when it first came out. My current one, which I bought secondhand just recently, only a year old, is significantly better, so I share your experience on this. Also my current DAL55-300, although not that great, is a lot better than my original metal-mount 55-300, which was unusable, despite being declared 'within spec' by the Pentax service wizards in Japan.

I've had a lot of bad luck with zooms, mainly decentering, which is why I use old secondhand primes a lot of the time, despite the inconvenience.

09-08-2014, 07:39 AM	#1
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 958	50-200 wr I have the 55-300 non weather-sealed, but the weather sealed version is crazy money for me right now. Is the 50-200 WR decent enough to consider buying at sub-$200? Or will I be disappointed, having gotten used to my 55-300? Charles.

09-08-2014, 07:44 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	The 55-300mm is considerably better optically, so I wouldn't downgrade. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DAL 50-200 WR and DA 18-55 WR	zbrueningsen	Sold Items	4	08-11-2014 03:22 PM
DA 50-200 WR $99 (In-Store Limited Availability)	K57XR	Pentax Price Watch	2	08-09-2014 06:51 AM
Pentax K-50 with 18-55 WR and 50-200 WR lenses, AF-200FG flash, and $50 Adorama gift	TomTom	Pentax Price Watch	4	05-09-2014 09:10 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 18-55 WR & 50-200 WR	Rmel26	Sold Items	3	03-03-2014 10:33 PM
Optical Formula of DA 50-200 ED vs DA WR 50-200 Lenses?	haziz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	10-21-2013 05:19 PM

09-08-2014, 08:14 AM	#3
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	I like the 50-200 WR but it's not stunning, just competent. If you already like the 55-300, you will probably use it whenever the weather isn't a problem. So the question is, will that be enough, and will you continue to want the 55-300 WR? It may make more sense to sell your current lens, get the 55-300 WR and use that all the time.

09-08-2014, 09:03 AM	#4
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	Less sharp but smoother bokeh, the 50-200 is great when size matters. The 55-300 and a towel can make consistently sharper images.

09-08-2014, 11:28 AM	#5
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by Adam The 55-300mm is considerably better optically, so I wouldn't downgrade. Not in my experience. There is not a great deal of difference in real life. DA50-200 DA55-300

09-08-2014, 04:51 PM	#6
timo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: former Arsenal football stadium Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	I have the plastic-mount version of both. My 55-300 is a bit iffy at various zoom settings. Mild decentering. In practice I don't think there is all that much difference between the two and the 50-200 is a lot lighter and more pleasant to carry around. Ok, it's the old villain, sample variation, but it's the reality in my case.

09-08-2014, 05:47 PM	#7
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	I had a the original 50-200 and 55-300. The 55-300 had a bit better IQ. Eventually I sold both, but now have a Fry's open-box 50-200 WR which seems better than the original. When weeding out my lenses, I kept it over the Tamron 70-200 (size and weight considerations). I'd keep the 55-300 and use a $5-dollar camera condom, or a towel as mentioned.

09-08-2014, 06:36 PM	#8
timo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: former Arsenal football stadium Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	Originally posted by SpecialK I had a the original 50-200 and 55-300. The 55-300 had a bit better IQ. Eventually I sold both, but now have a Fry's open-box 50-200 WR which seems better than the original. When weeding out my lenses, I kept it over the Tamron 70-200 (size and weight considerations). I'd keep the 55-300 and use a $5-dollar camera condom, or a towel as mentioned. Further to my previous post, I used to have the original 50-200 also, which I bought when it first came out. My current one, which I bought secondhand just recently, only a year old, is significantly better, so I share your experience on this. Also my current DAL55-300, although not that great, is a lot better than my original metal-mount 55-300, which was unusable, despite being declared 'within spec' by the Pentax service wizards in Japan. I've had a lot of bad luck with zooms, mainly decentering, which is why I use old secondhand primes a lot of the time, despite the inconvenience.