50-200mm WR Sharpness

Flugelbinder · 05-26-2015, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by trevorg

...The F70-210mm 4-5.6 sounds interesting.

I've just traded a 55-300 (wasn't very happy with my copy) for a 70-210 and a 35-70. Although my version of the 70-210 is the Takumar, I have to say it's sharper wide open than the 55-300 when stopped down. If you're considering it, don't look back.

6BQ5 · 05-26-2015, 06:13 AM

I remember my 50-200mm zoom that came with my K-30. For small prints, like 4"x6", it is probably acceptable. After that the lens' low IQ is clearly visible. Images are soft and milky. I don't think my experience is unique. After selling the lens I got a FA 100-300 f/4.7-5.8. That lens needs to be stopped down to f/6.3 at the wide end, f/9 at the tele end - minimum. This may not let much light inside but I also want some depth of field too. I find this lens to be very sharp. Totally satisfied with the IQ. The construction is a little weak but maybe that is the compromise.

trevorg · 05-26-2015, 11:19 PM

Thanks guys. 55-300mm it is. Anything else and I'll be thinking "what if" every time I take a shot.

**Des** · 05-27-2015, 03:50 PM - **1 Like**

I'm sure you'll enjoy it Trevor.

300mm gives a field of view equivalent to 450mm on a film camera. If someone had said in the days of film that you could get a lightweight, affordable zoom that produces good images at 450mm, it would have seemed like a dream come true.

You are in Tassie aren't you? Limitless great photographic subjects there. Post some of your photos when you get a chance.

GeneV · 06-01-2015, 05:32 AM

Agree on the 55-300. A fast wide-normal and this lens, and you have an amazing versatile pair. I'm into birds these days, and being able to grab a body with this lens means having a birding tool around just about any time. I use the DA*300 for a serious shoot, and the 50-200 still finds a place when space is a premium, but more times than not, I'm grabbing the 55-300.

trevorg · 06-04-2015, 12:08 AM

Just ordered one, brand new and the HD. Umm-ed and arrr-ed about the 55-300 over the tamron 70-300 for a while but I figure even if the IQ isn't even that different, I'll appreciate the build quality and resale value should be better for Pentax. Plan to take it bushwalking along with my 21mm.

05-26-2015, 11:19 PM	#18
trevorg Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 46 Original Poster	Thanks guys. 55-300mm it is. Anything else and I'll be thinking "what if" every time I take a shot. Last edited by trevorg; 05-26-2015 at 11:39 PM. Reason: Accident

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA 50-200mm WR vs F 80-200mm	stillshot2	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	03-21-2015 05:31 AM
For Sale - Sold: K7 Body, 18-55mm WR, 50-200mm WR	amalongi	Sold Items	3	08-12-2011 06:06 AM

05-26-2015, 06:13 AM	#16
Flugelbinder Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Toronto - missing the ocean Posts: 466	Originally posted by trevorg ...The F70-210mm 4-5.6 sounds interesting. I've just traded a 55-300 (wasn't very happy with my copy) for a 70-210 and a 35-70. Although my version of the 70-210 is the Takumar, I have to say it's sharper wide open than the 55-300 when stopped down. If you're considering it, don't look back.

05-26-2015, 06:13 AM	#17
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	I remember my 50-200mm zoom that came with my K-30. For small prints, like 4"x6", it is probably acceptable. After that the lens' low IQ is clearly visible. Images are soft and milky. I don't think my experience is unique. After selling the lens I got a FA 100-300 f/4.7-5.8. That lens needs to be stopped down to f/6.3 at the wide end, f/9 at the tele end - minimum. This may not let much light inside but I also want some depth of field too. I find this lens to be very sharp. Totally satisfied with the IQ. The construction is a little weak but maybe that is the compromise.

05-27-2015, 03:50 PM - 1 Like	#19
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	I'm sure you'll enjoy it Trevor. 300mm gives a field of view equivalent to 450mm on a film camera. If someone had said in the days of film that you could get a lightweight, affordable zoom that produces good images at 450mm, it would have seemed like a dream come true. You are in Tassie aren't you? Limitless great photographic subjects there. Post some of your photos when you get a chance.

06-01-2015, 05:32 AM	#20
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Agree on the 55-300. A fast wide-normal and this lens, and you have an amazing versatile pair. I'm into birds these days, and being able to grab a body with this lens means having a birding tool around just about any time. I use the DA*300 for a serious shoot, and the 50-200 still finds a place when space is a premium, but more times than not, I'm grabbing the 55-300.

06-04-2015, 12:08 AM	#21
trevorg Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 46 Original Poster	Just ordered one, brand new and the HD. Umm-ed and arrr-ed about the 55-300 over the tamron 70-300 for a while but I figure even if the IQ isn't even that different, I'll appreciate the build quality and resale value should be better for Pentax. Plan to take it bushwalking along with my 21mm.