Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**csa** · 04-25-2015, 10:56 AM

Here's another vote for the Pentax 55-300! I really love mine!

jeallen01 · 04-25-2015, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by todd

my first telezoom was tam70-300, then tam18-250 and have been happy with both bc I am not picky and only shoot them for fun. I have nice primes on the shorter end where I care more. I have shot both the above lenses quite a bit though, so when I came across some results through the FA80-320 that impressed me, I picked up a used copy for cheap and to my eye, the IQ really has something over the tammy's, and doesn't perform any worse otherwise...

The FA 80-320 I have never impressed me on film bodies, and less so on the GX-10! Also, and well reported, it often suffers from an extremely loose front section when extended. Mine was so bad I didn't even dare to try to sell it on - would not wish that on anyone!

shhh · 04-25-2015, 01:05 PM

Thanks guys, I've settled on an a1 condition siggy apo. If its not quite what I'm after then at the price I've paid I can sell it on.

MikeD · 04-25-2015, 02:15 PM

If you have the $ the DA* 60-250 will blow the socks off the others, it's not even close, It's IQ compares to the high end Nikon 70-200 2.8s I've shot all but the Pentax 55-300. The downside $1200+, it's big, not as big as the 2.8s but much bigger than the Tammy or Sigma.

jeallen01 · 04-25-2015, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by MikeD

If you have the $ the DA* 60-250 will blow the socks off the others, it's not even close, It's IQ compares to the high end Nikon 70-200 2.8s I've shot all but the Pentax 55-300. The downside $1200+, it's big, not as big as the 2.8s but much bigger than the Tammy or Sigma.

$1200 V the £100 that the OP could afford - no contest

A Sigma 70-300 APO went for £100 today - about right!

wildman · 04-25-2015, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by MikeD

The downside $1200+

Speaking only for myself I don't need any 1200 buck lens.

**crewl1** · 04-25-2015, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by wildman

Speaking only for myself I don't need any 1200 buck lens.

Not many of us needs a $1200 lens but...

hal55 · 04-26-2015, 02:52 AM

I own the Sigma 70-300, it's capable, not brilliant, but can get the job done and often will surprise with it's quality. Yes I'd like something better, but for the money it's a no brainer.

Hal55

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Covering mid range, prime vs zoom	nonstopnick	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	03-13-2015 01:27 AM
best FF mid-range zoom?	windhorse	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	49	02-11-2015 11:49 AM
Sharpest, fastest zoom lens with good range?	Spyhopper	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	01-28-2015 03:34 PM
Mid/Long Range Zoom	Swarf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	03-22-2014 03:09 AM
For Sale - Sold: Mint mid-range M telephoto collector set	MJL	Sold Items	1	09-15-2011 01:43 PM

04-25-2015, 10:56 AM	#16
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	Here's another vote for the Pentax 55-300! I really love mine!

04-25-2015, 11:28 AM	#17
jeallen01 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,697	Originally posted by todd my first telezoom was tam70-300, then tam18-250 and have been happy with both bc I am not picky and only shoot them for fun. I have nice primes on the shorter end where I care more. I have shot both the above lenses quite a bit though, so when I came across some results through the FA80-320 that impressed me, I picked up a used copy for cheap and to my eye, the IQ really has something over the tammy's, and doesn't perform any worse otherwise... The FA 80-320 I have never impressed me on film bodies, and less so on the GX-10! Also, and well reported, it often suffers from an extremely loose front section when extended. Mine was so bad I didn't even dare to try to sell it on - would not wish that on anyone!

04-25-2015, 01:05 PM	#18
shhh Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 66 Original Poster	Thanks guys, I've settled on an a1 condition siggy apo. If its not quite what I'm after then at the price I've paid I can sell it on.

04-25-2015, 02:15 PM	#19
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	If you have the $ the DA* 60-250 will blow the socks off the others, it's not even close, It's IQ compares to the high end Nikon 70-200 2.8s I've shot all but the Pentax 55-300. The downside $1200+, it's big, not as big as the 2.8s but much bigger than the Tammy or Sigma.

04-25-2015, 02:24 PM	#20
jeallen01 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,697	Originally posted by MikeD If you have the $ the DA* 60-250 will blow the socks off the others, it's not even close, It's IQ compares to the high end Nikon 70-200 2.8s I've shot all but the Pentax 55-300. The downside $1200+, it's big, not as big as the 2.8s but much bigger than the Tammy or Sigma. $1200 V the £100 that the OP could afford - no contest A Sigma 70-300 APO went for £100 today - about right!

04-25-2015, 05:08 PM	#21
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by MikeD The downside $1200+ Speaking only for myself I don't need any 1200 buck lens.

04-25-2015, 05:12 PM	#22
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by wildman Speaking only for myself I don't need any 1200 buck lens. Not many of us needs a $1200 lens but...

04-26-2015, 02:52 AM	#23
hal55 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 66	I own the Sigma 70-300, it's capable, not brilliant, but can get the job done and often will surprise with it's quality. Yes I'd like something better, but for the money it's a no brainer. Hal55

sharpest affordable mid range telephoto

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!