HD 55-300 vs DA 55-300

**csa** · 03-13-2015, 08:09 AM

Outside of the WR on the HD model, would I see any difference in image quality between the DA vs HD?

I'm happy with my DA 55-300, but was curious if I should "upgrade" to the HD.

SpecialK · 03-13-2015, 08:13 AM

I would guess possibly in some situations that induce flare.

AquaDome · 03-13-2015, 08:28 AM

If you're OK with the red ring and higher price, HD is the one to buy.

**csa** · 03-13-2015, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by AquaDome

If you're OK with the red ring and higher price, HD is the one to buy.

I could care less, the color of the ring; I'm just wondering if I would benefit with image quality, by upgrading my DA.

GaryH · 03-13-2015, 09:07 AM

I have owned both. The HD has a bluer cast like the other HD lenses have. The SMC has a greener cast like most SMC lenses. I bought the HD for its WR and really no other reason over the SMC.

**jatrax** · 03-13-2015, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by csa

I could care less, the color of the ring; I'm just wondering if I would benefit with image quality, by upgrading my DA.

Optically identical. Coatings should improve flare in some situations. Worth an upgrade? No. If you had neither I would go with the HD for the coatings and the WR but not worth it as an upgrade IMHO.

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-13-2015, 09:28 AM

My personal in-exhaustive testing of both of them (yep, I own both of them), is that I like the HD version a bit better and the WR is the plus I was looking for. Knowing all of that, would I have upgraded - no, glad that I did - yes, what would I buy now - the HD version.

**csa** · 03-13-2015, 09:32 AM

Thanks so much for your informative posts! This is the information I was looking for! Based on what all of you have experienced, I'll stay happy with my DA.

**NZ_Ross** · 03-13-2015, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by csa

Thanks so much for your informative posts! This is the information I was looking for! Based on what all of you have experienced, I'll stay happy with my DA.

I have had both also - I upgraded my DA to the HD just for the WR. No other reason. I was very happy with the images the DA gave me, and equally happy with the HD. Unless you really want WR then your decision is good

**csa** · 03-13-2015, 08:34 PM

Thank you for your opinion, also! I really don't need W/R, so I'm glad to know I can use my money for some other lens!

The members here are great; helping others with making decisions is top notch!

Nicolas06 · 03-14-2015, 05:21 AM

For me it depend how you value money and the result.

The HD lense is a tiny bit better for contrast and better a flare resistance. It will show on critical cases. But really amost nobody would buy the new version for that and most reviewer would say at least for the DA ltd that you should take the one with the best price.

It is WR so that can be of interrest to you too...

But then then the DAL version can be find used for less than half of the HD WR version. For producing in practice the same photos. In France an used DAL can be find for 170€ while a new HD DA is almost 400€.

The Pentax even HD is not like the high end version of such telezoom of Canon where you are still limited by f/5.6 but get really great optical quality. 55-300 is good, not great. The pentax equivalent is the Canon is more the 60-250 that cost 3 time more than the HD (7 time more than DAL) but at least there real visible difference in quality, light gathering and unfortunately in size/weigth too.

From my experience if you have a K3 and a 50-135 and crop to get 300mm the shoots look better than what the 55-300 give... I just brought an old F135 f/2.8 used for less than an HD55-300. I might miss the wide part, but the F135 f/2.8 may produce overall higher quality shoot while providing similar reach thanks to many pixels provided by current cameras. And well for the wide part, a DA50 f/1.8 would get you covered.

All in all that smaller/lighter, higher quality and you still keep the zoom capability just you get a 50-100mm and a 135-270mm. It would extend to 200-400 if you later add the TC.

Heie · 03-14-2015, 06:41 AM - **1 Like**

If only someone put in the time to conduct an extremely thorough review and comparison of the DA 55-300 variants...

-Heie

kh1234567890 · 03-14-2015, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

But then then the DAL version can be find used for less than half of the HD WR version

But you don't get quick shift with the DAL version, this is very useful with telephotos.

Nicolas06 · 03-14-2015, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

But you don't get quick shift with the DAL version, this is very useful with telephotos.

That's true... I guess that part of why people pay 2 time more for similar optical quality.

kh1234567890 · 03-14-2015, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

That's true... I guess that part of why people pay 2 time more for similar optical quality.

As long as you never try to take a shot of an animal in a tree ...

03-13-2015, 08:09 AM	#1
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	HD 55-300 vs DA 55-300 Outside of the WR on the HD model, would I see any difference in image quality between the DA vs HD? I'm happy with my DA 55-300, but was curious if I should "upgrade" to the HD.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA 55-300 vs sigma 170-500 vs 300 f/4 A*	Venom3300	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	08-14-2014 12:35 PM
For Sale - Sold: HD PENTAX-DA 1:4-5.8 55-300mm ED WR 55-300 (price reduced)	transam879	Sold Items	6	07-15-2014 06:05 PM
Pentax DA 55-300 WR vs Tamron 28-300	TzalamChadash	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	05-06-2014 07:48 PM
pentax DA L 55-300 vs DA 55-300	piskota	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	11-06-2013 05:49 PM
What's the difference? 55-300 DA vs 55-300 DA L	tenthumbs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	05-25-2012 07:59 PM

03-13-2015, 08:13 AM	#2
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	I would guess possibly in some situations that induce flare.

03-13-2015, 08:28 AM	#3
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	If you're OK with the red ring and higher price, HD is the one to buy.

03-13-2015, 08:35 AM	#4
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by AquaDome If you're OK with the red ring and higher price, HD is the one to buy. I could care less, the color of the ring; I'm just wondering if I would benefit with image quality, by upgrading my DA.

03-13-2015, 09:07 AM	#5
GaryH Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Philadelphia, Pa Photos: Gallery Posts: 764	I have owned both. The HD has a bluer cast like the other HD lenses have. The SMC has a greener cast like most SMC lenses. I bought the HD for its WR and really no other reason over the SMC.

03-13-2015, 09:15 AM	#6
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by csa I could care less, the color of the ring; I'm just wondering if I would benefit with image quality, by upgrading my DA. Optically identical. Coatings should improve flare in some situations. Worth an upgrade? No. If you had neither I would go with the HD for the coatings and the WR but not worth it as an upgrade IMHO.

03-13-2015, 09:28 AM	#7
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	My personal in-exhaustive testing of both of them (yep, I own both of them), is that I like the HD version a bit better and the WR is the plus I was looking for. Knowing all of that, would I have upgraded - no, glad that I did - yes, what would I buy now - the HD version.

03-13-2015, 09:32 AM	#8
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Thanks so much for your informative posts! This is the information I was looking for! Based on what all of you have experienced, I'll stay happy with my DA.

03-13-2015, 05:47 PM	#9
NZ_Ross Kiwi Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Timaru Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,225	Originally posted by csa Thanks so much for your informative posts! This is the information I was looking for! Based on what all of you have experienced, I'll stay happy with my DA. I have had both also - I upgraded my DA to the HD just for the WR. No other reason. I was very happy with the images the DA gave me, and equally happy with the HD. Unless you really want WR then your decision is good

03-13-2015, 08:34 PM	#10
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Thank you for your opinion, also! I really don't need W/R, so I'm glad to know I can use my money for some other lens! The members here are great; helping others with making decisions is top notch!

03-14-2015, 05:21 AM	#11
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	For me it depend how you value money and the result. The HD lense is a tiny bit better for contrast and better a flare resistance. It will show on critical cases. But really amost nobody would buy the new version for that and most reviewer would say at least for the DA ltd that you should take the one with the best price. It is WR so that can be of interrest to you too... But then then the DAL version can be find used for less than half of the HD WR version. For producing in practice the same photos. In France an used DAL can be find for 170€ while a new HD DA is almost 400€. The Pentax even HD is not like the high end version of such telezoom of Canon where you are still limited by f/5.6 but get really great optical quality. 55-300 is good, not great. The pentax equivalent is the Canon is more the 60-250 that cost 3 time more than the HD (7 time more than DAL) but at least there real visible difference in quality, light gathering and unfortunately in size/weigth too. From my experience if you have a K3 and a 50-135 and crop to get 300mm the shoots look better than what the 55-300 give... I just brought an old F135 f/2.8 used for less than an HD55-300. I might miss the wide part, but the F135 f/2.8 may produce overall higher quality shoot while providing similar reach thanks to many pixels provided by current cameras. And well for the wide part, a DA50 f/1.8 would get you covered. All in all that smaller/lighter, higher quality and you still keep the zoom capability just you get a 50-100mm and a 135-270mm. It would extend to 200-400 if you later add the TC.

03-14-2015, 06:41 AM - 1 Like	#12
Heie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 968	If only someone put in the time to conduct an extremely thorough review and comparison of the DA 55-300 variants... -Heie

03-14-2015, 08:43 AM	#13
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by Nicolas06 But then then the DAL version can be find used for less than half of the HD WR version But you don't get quick shift with the DAL version, this is very useful with telephotos.

03-14-2015, 12:15 PM	#14
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by kh1234567890 But you don't get quick shift with the DAL version, this is very useful with telephotos. That's true... I guess that part of why people pay 2 time more for similar optical quality.

03-14-2015, 04:32 PM	#15
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by Nicolas06 That's true... I guess that part of why people pay 2 time more for similar optical quality. As long as you never try to take a shot of an animal in a tree ...