[gm4life]

The revised non-PLM HD 55-300mm is a very nice lens for the money. Pretty sharp and pretty flexible, no it isn't a 300 F4 * that I have but it isn't meant to be. For 300 USD it is a relative bargain.

[BrianR]

$0 closer...

At some point you need to shake your money maker to bring in disposable cash, or aim for something less costly. Shovel some lawns or mow some laneways or harass tourists with some of your photography for sale, or chase them around with your bagpipes until coins fall out of them...

Or aim at the 55-300mm options. Thinking long term is great, but if it's a super-looooooong term plan to get a higher quality telephoto, the short, medium, and just plain long term might be spent in endless agony.

[bertwert]

Well just doing some more thought...

If I look at a recent post I made (here), the 50-200 has given me a sharp enough (for me) image and I almost always use f/8 when shooting. I mostly yearn for a longer lens. Therefore I don't think I need the f/4 or extreme sharpness of the DA* 300 so I think a 55-300 is probably better for me at this point and it is less than half the price. Just which one...? Main advantages of both WR ones; the PLM - faster/silent AF and electronic aperture (if the K-50 actuator bites the dust) or the non-PLM - faster (almost 1/2 stop) and cheaper. Decisions, decisions...

[Des]

I think a 55-300 is probably better for me at this point and it is less than half the price. Just which one...? Main advantages of both WR ones; the PLM - faster/silent AF and electronic aperture (if the K-50 actuator bites the dust) or the non-PLM - faster (almost 1/2 stop) and cheaper. Decisions, decisions..

I have the DA-L and the PLM versions. Obviously the PLM is a much nicer lens: quiet and fast AF, folds up small, QS, WR, quality build. But just on optical quality, there isn't much between them. Subjective impression is that, although 1/3 stop or so slower, the PLM is better wide open. It certainly has better bokeh. I rarely use the DA-L wide open at 300 anyway, so the slightly slower aperture on the PLM is not a big deal for me. If anything I feel little hesitation about shooting at 300mm f6.3 with the PLM, which I do with the DA-L.

At f8 (which is where I have always tried to be with the DA-L) there is very little difference in optical quality between the two. For a <$150 lens, the DA-L amazing.

All things equal, get the PLM. No question. But if money is tight, and you mostly stop down anyway, the WR version of the screw driven 55-300 is still a good buy if you can get one for significantly less.

[bertwert]

Now that I can afford a DA* 300, if I find one used, I am questioning if that is the one I want again... Arghh... why so hard?

[Driline]

Now that I can afford a DA* 300, if I find one used, I am questioning if that is the one I want again... Arghh... why so hard?

Because what you should really get is a used F*300 for ~$700. They have really come down in price and offer pixie dust galore. I know because I had one before I sold out to Fuji. Damn you Fuji

[luftfluss]

Now that I can afford a DA* 300, if I find one used, I am questioning if that is the one I want again... Arghh... why so hard?

What is it about the DA* 300 that is causing you to hesitate? That it's a big ticket item?

[bertwert]

Because what you should really get is a used F*300 for ~$700. They have really come down in price and offer pixie dust galore. I know because I had one before I sold out to Fuji. Damn you Fuji

Same price as a used DA*, I've decided I would prefer the DA* over the F*.

What is it about the DA* 300 that is causing you to hesitate? That it's a big ticket item?

Yep, pretty much... it'll be my most expensive piece of equipment so I'm hesitating if it's right for me. What I really need to do is test one.

[BrianR]

If you fly out to Ontario, you could come and give mine a whirl. The plane ticket might put a damper on your lens fund though.

Reselling is always an option if you somehow find it's not for you.

[bertwert]

Reselling is always an option if you somehow find it's not for you.

Of course, I just didn't want to buy without even touching one first. But I'll probably do that, especially if I see one for a good price.

[Des]

Yep, pretty much... it'll be my most expensive piece of equipment so I'm hesitating if it's right for me. What I really need to do is test one.

Yes, and it will make you want to get the expensive DA teleconverter as well.

Much as I love my FA*300, for casual walkarounds the 55-300 is signficantly lighter and more versatile. I'd say replace the DA-L 50-200 with one of the DA 55-300 lenses first (preferably one of the WR ones), and look at getting either a 300 prime or one of the long zooms later, if you find that you are bumping up against 300mm all the time. By which time you will probably be looking at replacing the K-50 with another body, so it's worth leaving some money in the bank towards that. I find the K-3 a big improvement over the K-30 for birds and other wildlife, because the AF is much better, metering is better, shutter is quieter, and there is more scope for cropping; and it works a treat with the Rogue Safari flash extender (K-30 didn't).

[BrianR]

Of course, I just didn't want to buy without even touching one first. But I'll probably do that, especially if I see one for a good price.

I understand the hesitation - mine was purchased sight unseen. I don't think I'd even seen one behind a display case before I pulled the trigger on a refurb model from The Camera Store. It was a big chunk of change for me, but no regrets on my part. I expect to enjoy it for many years

[luftfluss]

Yep, pretty much... it'll be my most expensive piece of equipment so I'm hesitating if it's right for me. What I really need to do is test one.

I understand: even a used DA* 300 is twice as much as I've ever spent on a single piece of photographic equipment.

I guess you could consider the DA* 300 to be "longer" than the 55-300 because it's sharper and therefore more amenable to cropping. And if the DA* 300 is as sharp wide open as the 55-300 is at f/8 (I have no idea if this is accurate), then you could consider the DA* 300 to be 2 stops faster rather than 1.

Or you could sell your K-50, buy a K-3 + 55-300(PLM?) and have more pixels and better AF to play with.

Sometimes money creates as many problems as it solves.

[bertwert]

I guess you could consider the DA* 300 to be "longer" than the 55-300 because it's sharper and therefore more amenable to cropping. And if the DA* 300 is as sharp wide open as the 55-300 is at f/8 (I have no idea if this is accurate), then you could consider the DA* 300 to be 2 stops faster rather than 1.

That's my logic.

Or you could sell your K-50, buy a K-3 + 55-300(PLM?) and have more pixels and better AF to play with. Sometimes money creates as many problems as it solves.

Stop talking!

I have considered that, but I think I'll get the 300, then a used K-3(ii) next year, then maybe a 1.4x... I don't know... but you're suggestion there is a serious one I've thought off...

[luftfluss]

I have considered that, but I think I'll get the 300, then a used K-3(ii) next year, then maybe a 1.4x... I don't know... but you're suggestion there is a serious one I've thought off...

Sounds like a good long-term plan.