[trevorg]

Hi guys,


I'm looking at getting a compact telephoto for wildlife and the 50-200mm looks like a good value lens. The other option is the 55-300mm WR which reviews a lot better but is a bit expensive for me.
Just about all the reviews for the 50-200mm say its soft wide open which I can see in sample photos. But what is the sharpness like stopped down? How does it compare to the 55-300mm at the sharpest aperture settings? I'd be comfortable buying the lens knowing that it will be sharp at f8 for example, but if it's still soft then I guess not.

[transam879]

I have owned both and I like the 55-300 much better. It is larger than the 50-200 but gives you improved sharpness and longer range. You can find the 55-300 DA L and the DA version used for less than $200, which is a great value for this lens. The WR version is pricier if you would like WR and HD coatings, but optically all three at essentially the same. I can't recall the 50-200 performance at f8 as I didn't own it long after getting it with a kit several years ago and selling it to upgrade to the 55-300. For wildlife, you'd appreciate the extra 100mm range, autofocus isn't the fastest, but then again you'd have to spend several hundred dollars more to get a premium 300mm lens.

[BigMackCam]

I have the 50-200 ED WR, and I don't think it's the right lens for you...

(1) 200mm just isn't enough reach for a lot of smaller wildlife
(2) my copy doesn't get sharp until F7.1 - 8.0, which means you need a lot of natural light - even for completely static subjects
(3) even at F8.0, it's just not that sharp

See attached photos of a blackbird, taken just now in my garden at 200mm, F8.0. The bird was about 50 feet from me. Weather conditions - cloudy and dull (hey, it's England!). The first photo shows the size of the bird in the frame, the second is a full size crop to show sharpness. Because of the low light, I needed to set ISO at 400. In the crop, I've used Lightroom to increase exposure, add a tiny bit of sharpness and reduce both colour and luminance noise a little.

My recommendation would be - go for the longest, fastest lens you can afford, whether zoom or prime, but 300mm+. The used market would make good sense.

[kh1234567890]

I have both, the DA50-200 WR and the old SMC non WR DA55-300. The DA50-200 is much smaller and lighter, this matters to me when travelling.

IQ-wise there is really not that much difference at any f-stop, if you get a good copy. It basically depends if you need the extra reach of the DA55-300 and if its bigger size and weight do not bother you.

Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda50200mmf456edwr
Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda55300mmf458ed

[Claudiu]

55-300 is one of the best consumer tele zoom lens (consumer, not PRO, but sharp enough); I don’t have 50-200, but I am satisfied with 55-300. And WR is always a plus.

[trevorg]

Alright, now I'm 90% convinced that the 50-200mm isn't the lens I want! Thanks for the advice.


How about the Tamron 28-300mm? I can't find many reviews for the Pentax version, has anyone compared it to the 55-300?

[Reed]

How about Tamron 70-200/2.8 for my opinion it is the best choice for the money and IQ.

[BigMackCam]

Alright, now I'm 90% convinced that the 50-200mm isn't the lens I want! Thanks for the advice.


How about the Tamron 28-300mm? I can't find many reviews for the Pentax version, has anyone compared it to the 55-300?

I can't comment on the Tamron 28-300mm as I've never used one. I have the Pentax 18-270mm though (which is Pentax's version of the Tamron 18-270), and it's pretty good - not absolutely outstanding, but good, and definitely better than the 50-200mm! The extra reach isn't huge, but certainly helpful.

See below a comparison of the 50-200mm at 200mm (on the left) vs the 18-270mm at 270mm (on the right) - no sharpening or other post-processing...

[Jannis]

Alright, now I'm 90% convinced that the 50-200mm isn't the lens I want! Thanks for the advice.


How about the Tamron 28-300mm? I can't find many reviews for the Pentax version, has anyone compared it to the 55-300?

It is not as easy answer.

I had both that lenses in same time and done some test. (BTE, my 50-200 need af adjustment) And I found absolutelly comparable results in terms of IQ on comparable FL and aperture. The next thing is - If I want sharp pictures from 300mm - I must stup down past 8 (11). And I need handheld faster shutter (so it leads to higher ISO...).
And, even in my test shots (from tripod, etc..) I found, that shots from 300mm FL is almost as detailed as upscaled photos from both lenses at 200mm!

Take in account size, AF hunting and slow AF of 55-300, price... So I kept 50-200.

There are others with same observations - but there are others with oposite experience - So, I think, that you must take in account very huge sample variation!

[kh1234567890]

So, I think, that you must take in account very huge sample variation!

That is the main problem with the DA50-200.

A quick test I did ages ago :

DA50-200
DA55-300

Whichever one you go for, set up the AF calibration at infinity. And get a version with quick shift, well worth the extra cash.

[Bophoto]

Look at the F70-210/4-5.6 and i think you liked it more than the new cheap lenses. It´s weak point is the long end, but in other ceases it´s good.
SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 Reviews - F Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[tibbitts]

My experience with multiple copies of both lenses is that sample variation is a huge problem, particularly with regards to centering and getting uniform sharpness across the frame at all focal length settings. Not just with Pentax but with other brands as well. I'm convinced that a lot of users don't pixel peep at the edges/corners with these lenses, partly because their subjects are near the center (vs. mine, which tend to span the frame.) If you can use f8 (short-end) to f11(longer end) at least, I don't think you'll see a lot of variation between brands or models if you compare equally good copies. Generally there will be more variation between good and bad copies of any one model, than between equally good copies of different models.

[trevorg]

These replies have really useful information for me. I'm amazed at how much experience some of you have with all these lenses.

I was worried sample variation was the cause of same of the bad reviews. I'm reluctant to buy a lens knowing there's a fair chance I will get a bad copy; functionally fine but optically inferior. I like to buy from B&H and I live in Australia so it's a pain to have to send stuff back. I had to send a Tamron 28-75mm back for exchange because the aperture didn't work and the back-and-forth postage ended up costing me ~$100.

Question about shooting at long focal length, as I've never done this, can I take a sharp shot handheld, say at 250mm f8 ISO800 in good daylight light?

The F70-210mm 4-5.6 sounds interesting.

[trevorg]

Has anyone done a comparison between the Sigma 70-300mm APO and the Pentax HD 55-300mm? The reviews for the Sigma on B&H say it's pretty good and it is half the price of the Pentax. WR isn't really a concern for me.

[Des]

Question about shooting at long focal length, as I've never done this, can I take a sharp shot handheld, say at 250mm f8 ISO800 in good daylight light?

Yes, I have often done that with my Tamron 18-250. This shot is f6.7, 1/500th second, 100 ISO, taken with K-30. Could have gone to f8 with 400 ISO..


The rule of thumb, as a starting point, for the shutter speed is 1/focal length, or faster - e.g. at least 1/250th second with a lens at 250mm. Faster for a moving subject. With practice, and with Shake Reduction, you may be able to drop the shutter speed to say 1/180th second, or maybe slower, but this is a good start.

With the K-30 you can float the ISO a bit higher without getting too much noise. Easily 800, even 1600. You can go higher (up to 6400) if you shoot RAW and use good software to reduce the noise. Higher ISO gives you more versatility with narrower aperture and/or slower shutter speed.

The longer the lens, the more light they tend to need. Shooting birds in the shade with my 400 f5.6 often takes me to 6400 ISO once I dial in a shutter speed of 1/320th second or even 1/250th. With the 55-300, which is still f5.8 at the long end, in the same conditions I might get 3200 ISO 1/200th second. (But I'd still prefer the 400, because it's a much better lens and is good wide open.)

---------- Post added 05-26-15 at 10:30 PM ----------

Has anyone done a comparison between the Sigma 70-300mm APO and the Pentax HD 55-300mm?

You pay a lot for WR with the HD 55-300. Honestly, unless you are shooting in the rain a lot, if your budget is tight get the DA or DA-L version used for half the price. The optics are the same.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DAL-55-300mm-F4-5.8-Zoom-Lens.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-55-300mm-F4-5.8-Zoom-Lens.html
They are great value at about $A200. (If you are worried about whether it's a good copy, test it or at least get the seller to provide some sample photos taken with the lens.)

Here's a DA-L in the PF marketplace for $US115.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/295302-sal...-55-300-l.html
Even adding say $US25 for shipping would be about $US140, ie about $A180. Add a hood for $5 from ebay.

That's about the same price as a new Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro. It's heavier, and the reviews aren't as good:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-apo-dg-macro.html
But you would get the security of a warranty.

Here's the results of a comparative test:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/57560-teste...-70-300-a.html
Better numbers with the 55-300.

I've got the DA-L version of the 55-300 and it's a very good lens. For a consumer level zoom, you probably won't do better. (Premium tele zooms like the Sigma 100-300 f4 or the Pentax DA*60-250 cost a LOT more and weigh more. Really long zooms like the Sigma 150-500 or the 50-500 weigh almost 2kg.)

For birds and small wildlife, 300mm is a big advantage over 200mm, because you often need to crop anyway.