[Madaboutpix]

The smc DA55-300 is my telephoto workhorse, and has been so ever since I acquired it in 2011. Would even keep it if I could afford a much better 300mm prime, just to have a lightweight, low-profile, dependable-IQ option for travel.

Corner resolution may not be stellar at 300mm, where I have gravitated to stopping it down to F6.3 or F7.1 for zoo shots or family candids, but depending on light and subject I've also got away wide open at F5.8 on occasion. As others have commented, for what it is (a consumer zoom after all), and provided you get a good copy of it, the DA55-300 is a winner.

Check out some of the shots I'm getting from it on my 500px page and you'll probably get a sense of what it can do and why I like it so much.

[ofer4]

I have to agree with Dewman. At 300mm, things get awfully soft. It's often a toss-up between a cropped 200mm and out-of-camera 300mm.

[mgvh]

I have had very good results across the whole range of 55-300 on my K-30. I did have to use micro-focus adjust set to +5, and that's a compromise. The focus does change a bit over the range.
For my lens, I get best results at f8 and even f11 at the 300mm end. Yes, that means it's somewhat slow and needs plenty of light, but it's not all bad to shoot f11 at 300mm in order to get a bit more depth of field.

[csa]

I have to agree with Dewman. At 300mm, things get awfully soft. It's often a toss-up between a cropped 200mm and out-of-camera 300mm.

I have to disagree; almost all of my shots with the 55-300 are done @300, F11; and I find the results pretty darn sharp. I made a comparison between a primary 400 lens, and cropped the 55-300 to come as close to the image of the 400; and it was difficult to tell the difference between the two images.

I'm shooting with a K10D.

[Ikarus]

The 55-300 is my most-used lens, and most shots end up taken at 300mm. No complaints here.

[csa]

That is gorgeous!

[LensBeginner]

Most (but fortunately not all) long zooms are softer at the long end (and some of them are softer at both ends). To make matters worse, most (but fortunately not all) zooms nowadays are variable aperture lenses, which get rather stingy with their apertures at the long end. Finally, the convenience provided by having so many relatively compact long zooms available today (many without tripod mounts) and the blessed invention of shake reduction have all tended to make us a bit lazy about taking "long snapshots" as if they were merely routine.

So, when it comes to the DA 55-to-THREE-HUNDRED f/4-to-FIVE-POINT-EIGHT-(!!!), one needs a LOT of light towards the long end to avoid using it at or close to wide open. [If the light is not bright, either zoom out or put it away.] And, even in bright light (and sometimes ~because~ of the heating effects of bright light), 300mm is certainly long enough to have images affected by unstable atmospherics -- so let's blame the lens, shall we?

I find that, on my copy (a pre-WR version), f/7.1 (minimum) or f/8 seems to be the sweet spot when shooting above 200mm, and, despite SR and despite the fact that there is misleadingly no tripod mount, I try to remember that I am shooting a 300mm tele lens on a cropped APS-C body, and I HAVE to keep the lens and cam v-e-r-y-s-t-e-a-d-y as I squeeze the shutter button.

I love the 55-300 for what it is -- it is a consumer zoom, perhaps, but it is often better than what might be expected of it -- it provides mucho bang for the buck. At 300mm it's not as sharp, especially towards the corners, but at 300mm I'm most often interested in what's smack-dab in the middle of the frame, and the rest is just bokeh anyway.

[However, I also do recognize that there may be unfortunate sample-to-sample differences, especially since it's a mass-produced item, and YMMV.]

This.
Some tripod tests I did recently are making me think that the single most important factor in long-distance pictures is not the lens, nor the aperture, nor the presence of a tc, but atmospheric haze.

[tibbitts]

I've gotten some excellent-by-my-standards results from multiple copies of the 55-300, although like most similar lenses it's better at shorter focal lengths. My issue is consistency. I can get results varying from excellent to awful near the frame edges just by changing between horizontal and vertical orientation, or just by holding the lens differently (with different directional pressure on the front barrel, which is more extended at the long end of the range.) The center is always good, but that last 20% or so toward the edges can be awful. Or not.

So usually I stick to my frequently-purple-fringing 70-300 Tamron, not because it's perfectly consistent at the longer end either, but it's significantly more consistent than the 55-300s. Discounting the purple fringing and other less pleasant color characteristics, it's more or less as sharp as the 55-300s, except at 55-70mm of course (which I definitely miss.) Given a willingness to carry it, my poorly-regarded internal-zooming 100-300F is very consistent - although not extremely inspiring - all across the frame.

[fwcetus]

Some tripod tests I did recently are making me think that the single most important factor in long-distance pictures is not the lens, nor the aperture, nor the presence of a tc, but atmospheric haze.

Yes, haze can be a problem, which can sometimes be partially rectified in PP with a boost in contrast, but atmospheric shimmering due to heating (or cooling) can be worse, since the results due to it cannot be "fixed" in PP.

[timb64]

[LensBeginner]

Yes, haze can be a problem, which can sometimes be partially rectified in PP with a boost in contrast, but atmospheric shimmering due to heating (or cooling) can be worse, since the results due to it cannot be "fixed" in PP.

Yes, I was thinking about ready as well, maybe the word "haze" is improper, let's just say that the atmosphere is the issue, be it for temperature or sheer volume of air involved in the equation :-)

[Scorpio71GR]

My 55-300 is my lightweight hiking zoom. I have a Sigma 50-500 but that thing can kill my back so sometimes the 55-300 is a much better choice. Keep in mind that with any lens the longer the focal length the more any imperfections show up and proper focus and technique become critical. I have found with my copy anything over about 150 feet will not come out very sharp. I shot this turtle from across a river at about 75 feet away. I have the HD WR version but all three versions are optically identical.
300mm f8 1/500 ISO 400 handheld on the K3. Shot in the bright sunlight on a very clear day.





Don't give up on your 55-300 or let people tell you it is junk. Used properly in the right conditions it can give some very nice results.
Michael

[timb64]

[jgnfld]

Probably should have put the linked post here in this thread rather than the other 55-300 thread...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/304151-pent...ml#post3383009

[marcusBMG]

OK so I have done a bit of a test on my K5.
Q1. Is the DA much softer wide open at 300mm?
Q2. Is the DA better at ~250mm compared to 300mm so that there is little advantage to 300mm?

Test subject: the Vardre, a local hill, site of an ancient monument. Long distance = infinity focus or thereabouts. Method: tripod mounted, manually focused using 10x live view, shots taken using 2 second timer to minimise vibration.JPG files exported from original RAW using LR3, same default settings only, just equalisation of exposure or WB if necessary. Image was cropped to reduce file size, then 100% crops using Faststone.

While MF always has the possibilities of error (and on my lens it had probably never been used and was a bit sticky and twitchy) and the long distance the possibility of atmospherics to degrade results and produce inconsistencies, the pics are consistent with my experience of the lens generally and you may judge them for yourself. 300mm first three crops, 260mm next three.last crop is using a tamron 350mm preset lens just for comparison. This is a sharp lens IMO but you can see that the DA is actually pulling more detail at 300mm than the tamron at 350mm.