[felixenfeu]

Everything is in the title.

Anybody owning both or either can help with the cons and pros of each lens? I'm not interested at all in the tamron or sigma 70-300, from the review they didn't seemed so good and the AF looked aweful.

I'm very new to photography, I own currently a K-S2 with the 18-50mm kit lens and a DA f1.8 50mm (Which I love)
So far what I've gathered is :

Tamron pros :

- f2.8 (Is it really necessary on a telephoto?)
- Macro

Does it have better image quality ? How's the AF ?

PLM 55-300 pros :

- AF is very quick and silent
- Weather resistant
- Bigger range


Is mainly to shoot small animals and portrait but the macro option was tempting. Would a simple close-up filter on the 55-300 be enough to play around ?

Is the weather sealing good enough to take pictures in the winter without problems ? Can pentax go lower in temperature than other DSLR on the market?

If there is already a thread about this, please let me know.

Thanks !

[normhead]

Usually lenses like the 55-300 while acceptable on their own, don't play nice with a lot of magnification. I'd be hesitant to go that route/ If you buy it, buy it for what it is. IMHO ƒ4 is necessary on a long lens, it lets you use a TC to extend your reach when needed. ƒ5,6 going to ƒ8 is going to slow your AF down.

200mm is limited for a telephoto. YOu have to plan to put a TC on it, but the Tamron is ƒ2.8 so sit shouldn't be a problem. However, a 200mm lens with the 1.4 is still only ƒ4 but only 280mm.

I'd go with the 55-300, just for convenience.

[jatrax]

Really two different animals here. The 55-300 is a very good, light weight, consumer zoom with modern AF and coatings. The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is also very good but weighs 2.5#. The f/2.8 means it will work better in lower light but also means it is considerably bigger and heavier. The 'macro' is not really true macro as you would get with a real macro lens. Most times when you see 'macro' on a zoom it really means it has a close focusing mode. Still, useful as long as you do not expect it to be real macro. A close up filter on the 55-300 will also work.

If you are just starting I would likely go with the 55-300, it only weighs about 1# a significant difference and is likely to get carried and used more than the Tamron. YMMV.

I had the earlier version of the 55-300, and my wife uses it now, it worked fine though the screwdrive did cause some noise and hunting which you will not get with the PLM version. I passed it on when I bought the DA*60-250.

[Mani]

i own a KS2 and that tamron lens. I also started with a da 50 1.8 for my good old k100ds. I really like the Tamron, but as others already said, its a pain to carry around. Owning a WR lens is nice too, if i didnt own the 18-135 i would have probably opted for the new PLM instead of a big tamron as well. I like the Tamron for portraits tho, much more than the nifty fifty. And even though it is so heavy, the tamron is my most used lens. Check out some pictures: Max H (maxhster) Photos / 500px (i crop a lot)

[Adam]

If you care more about image quality than AF speed or portability, go for the Tamron IMO.

[ramseybuckeye]

Everything is in the title.

Is mainly to shoot small animals and portrait but the macro option was tempting. Would a simple close-up filter on the 55-300 be enough to play around ?

Is the weather sealing good enough to take pictures in the winter without problems ? Can pentax go lower in temperature than other DSLR on the market?

If there is already a thread about this, please let me know.

Thanks !

I have an older non WR vertsion of the 55-300, my son has it now, it's a great lens but the AF was slow, and it's a pretty slow lens. The new WR PLM version is really tempting to me because it's such a versatile lens. I also have the Tamron. The Tamron is a good lens, it's fast, good IQ, AF is pretty fast, but it's not a Macro. Get lucky and you may find a dedicated older manual focus macro for under $100.

I have two WR lenses, the DA* 300, and DA18-135. I use the in the winter with no problem, rain, wet snow, cold, they have seen it all. I've been out in weather around 0 degrees F for short times, and longer durations 1-3 hours in the 20 degree f range, no problems.

If you are shooting animals in the woods, the Tamron will do better in lower light, but the Pentax is longer. And those comparisons can go on and on. If I were you I would make a chart of what you want to do with the lens, your typical shooting conditions, what other lenses you have, then weigh the pros and cons of each for each line.

[Kozlok]

I have the Tamron 70-200 as well as the older 55-300. In the 70-200 range, there is zero doubt the Tamron is better IQ. It is also as heavy as a boat anchor. I only carry it when I already know I will use it, mostly when I'm in my car and not walking around. When traveling and packing a long lens "in case" some telephoto opportunity arises, then the 55-300 is much lighter, and more practical.

The 70-200 is so good, that for most photos, cropping the Tamron image to 300mm equivalent is probably going to give you a better image, assuming you don't want to print it 10 feet wide. But it's really not something you want to carry around in a bag or backpack.

But, the 55-200 does give nice, pleasing images for a lower weight, and a lower price, and the WR is sometimes just the perfect thing. Pentax WR is really good. Out in hurricaines, snow storms, blizzards, whatever. Just carry a dry towel in a bag and dry off the end of the barrel before zooming back in just to keep the little bits of water from coming into the lens, or to wipe off the mount if you are changing lenses. The biggest limit for the 55-300 is the slower aperture, which means it is less useful in dim light. In bright light, it is less of an issue.

Anyway, some samples from the 55-300 (full resolution on my flickr page, feel free to pixel-peep)


And some from the same time period with the Tamron 70-200.

[schnitzer79]

Usually lenses like the 55-300 while acceptable on their own, don't play nice with a lot of magnification. .

Have to disagree here with you as I have the DA55-300HD WR and pair it with the Raynox(with only costs $30-40) and get decent results,some of which will not be distinguishable from a high quality macro lens.
Heres a link to my Raynox album, most of them taken with the 55-300

Raynox DCR-150 | Flickr

Anyhow, my vote goes for the Tamron, mainly because its still on my buy list and is an excellent low light performer. However if you need WR then theres no question about it

[WPRESTO]

I have the original version of the 55-300 and the currently available version of a Tammy 70~200 (which is at least two updates below the most advanced version - which is not offered in K-mount). The Tammy is sharper, but bulkier/heavier and I found it best on a monopod. The 55-300 is very good up to 200mm, good enough at 300mm, and small/light enough to carry and use hand-held all the time. With a Canon 500D or 250D close-up filter, or a Raynox 150 (less expensive that the Canon 58mm units) the 55-300 is perfectly usable as a long-range macro. Keep the 55-300 @ f8 and all images taken with it will please unless you insist on pixel-peeping or pretending it's a 600mm lens by cropping too deeply.

To be practical and sensible: go for the 55-300 + either a Canon close-up filter or a Raynox 150.
To avoid over-obsessing about not having the sharpest optic: go for the Tammy and spend more for a 77mm Canon 500D close-up filter.

BTW: Do not consider extension tube(s) as an alternative to achromatic close-up filters for a zoom lens. The focus range for a close-up filter is the same regardless of focal length; the focus range with a tube is totally different at each focal length. To put it in other terms: with a close-up filter on a zoom, if you've you've nailed the focus at one focal length, the subject will remain in focus or very close to it if you zoom wider or longer . If you've nailed the focus with a tube, if you change focal length the subject will go wildly out of focus and you'll have to move closer (if you zoom wider) or farther back (if you zoom longer) to achieve focus. It will be likely be impossible to re-achieve focus by just twisting the focus ring.

[Theov39]

Everything is in the title.

Anybody owning both or either can help with the cons and pros of each lens? I'm not interested at all in the tamron or sigma 70-300, from the review they didn't seemed so good and the AF looked aweful.

I'm very new to photography, I own currently a K-S2 with the 18-50mm kit lens and a DA f1.8 50mm (Which I love)
So far what I've gathered is :

Tamron pros :

- f2.8 (Is it really necessary on a telephoto?)
- Macro

Does it have better image quality ? How's the AF ?

PLM 55-300 pros :

- AF is very quick and silent
- Weather resistant
- Bigger range


Is mainly to shoot small animals and portrait but the macro option was tempting. Would a simple close-up filter on the 55-300 be enough to play around ?

Is the weather sealing good enough to take pictures in the winter without problems ? Can pentax go lower in temperature than other DSLR on the market?

If there is already a thread about this, please let me know.

Thanks !

Get the DA55-300 PLM. You will end up using it a lot more then the Tamron. That is a more specialized lens so unless you have a special need for 2.8 the Pentax lens is a better all round choice. I have a DA*300 lens for wildlife photography (big and heavy like the Tamron) but I keep it just for that purpose. For everyday photography I take the Pentax DA 55-300 PLM lens. It's both relatively compact and WR.

[WPRESTO]

ADDENDUM: If you want to see what the 55~300 is capable of doing, go to the "The 300mm plus lens club discuss your long lenses" thread and look at the images posted in the last hour by mohb. Alternatively, just look up mohb and look at his most recent posts.

[talgarik]

Tamron pros :

- f2.8 (Is it really necessary on a telephoto?)
- Macro

Does it have better image quality ? How's the AF ?

PLM 55-300 pros :

- AF is very quick and silent
- Weather resistant
- Bigger range

low weight, WR and range versus heavy weight, superior IQ and fast aperture.
In the last few weeks I have considered a similar question, but my main alternative was the Pentax 60-250mm f4
In the end I have decided to buy the 2 lenses you are considering: they have quite different virtues and complement each other well.

Is mainly to shoot small animals and portrait but the macro option was tempting.

small animals? in the open? well, then consider that the Tamron is more noisy than normally accepted even for a 10 years old lens.

Is the weather sealing good enough to take pictures in the winter without problems ? Can pentax go lower in temperature than other DSLR on the market?

Weather Resistance is a feature that other brands offer only in top of the line bodies.
This is the only feature where nobody can deny that Pentax is better.

[felixenfeu]

Wow, thanks everybody for the answers

To be practical and sensible: go for the 55-300 + either a Canon close-up filter or a Raynox 150.

Have to disagree here with you as I have the DA55-300HD WR and pair it with the Raynox(with only costs $30-40) and get decent results,some of which will not be distinguishable from a high quality macro lens.

Cool. I was thinking about that combo, 55-300 and canon filter. Raynox is a filter too, right?

If you are just starting I would likely go with the 55-300, it only weighs about 1# a significant difference and is likely to get carried and used more than the Tamron. YMMV.

More likely that's what I'll do. It's just the tamron seems to have really better quality overall. The thing I was afraid really was to have the same kind of quality with the 55-330 as the 18-50 kit lens. I really didn't like it and when I go the 50mm it was day and night.

In the end I have decided to buy the 2 lenses you are considering: they have quite different virtues and complement each other well.

If I could, I would haha. I guess the 55-300 makes more sense for now, as it's all around easier to carry and more versatile. I'll eventually end up getting both I guess haha.

I have two WR lenses, the DA* 300, and DA18-135. I use the in the winter with no problem, rain, wet snow, cold, they have seen it all. I've been out in weather around 0 degrees F for short times, and longer durations 1-3 hours in the 20 degree f range, no problems.

Pentax WR is really good. Out in hurricaines, snow storms, blizzards, whatever. Just carry a dry towel in a bag and dry off the end of the barrel before zooming back in just to keep the little bits of water from coming into the lens, or to wipe off the mount if you are changing lenses.

Amazing. It can get much colder than that here but that still gives me a lot of days during which I can shoot outside if it supports 20F range. That's very neat.

If you want to see what the 55~300 is capable of doing, go to the "The 300mm plus lens club discuss your long lenses" thread and look at the images posted in the last hour by mohb.

I will

[WPRESTO]

The Canon 500D and 250D* achromatic close-up filters come in a diversity of sizes, I believe from 58mm to 77mm. They thread into the filter threads of your lens.
The Raynox 150 and 250** achromatic close-up filters are quite small and thread into a special holder that comes with them. There are spring-actuated tabs on each side of this holder that you pinch in between thumb and first finger, then insert into the front of your lens. Release the tabs and the holder grips onto the lens' filter threads to hold the achromatic close-up filter in place. The holder will fit into lenses with filter threads of 52mm to 67mm. Either of the two Raynox units may be purchased individually with holder, or you can get both with a single holder for about $120 which is more expensive than one Canon 58mm close-up lens (about $95 as I recall).

*With any lens of any focal length, focus set to infinity, a Canon 500D will bring the focus to 500mm (0.5 meter) and the 250D will bring the focus to 250mm (0.25 meter). Using the lens' focus ring you can focus still closer, but the focus range is not great.

**With any lens of any FL, the focus distance set to infinity, a Raynox 150 will bring the focus distance to about 8 inches, and the 250 to 4 inches. Again, the lens' focusing ring can bring the focus point closer, but not by very much.

Obviously the longer the FL of the lenses being used, the greater the magnification delivered by either the Canon or Raynox units.

Also obviously, when mounted on a zoom lens, the focus distance remains the same regardless of the zoom setting BUT, the focus distance is measured from the front edge of the lens, not from the camera's sensor, so when a zoom is extended toward telephoto, you generally must move the camera back a bit OR you may be able to achieve focus by turning the focusing ring.

The Raynox have a small diameter and may have mild to severe vignetting on some lenses. This problem is most pronounced on short focal length (= wide angle) lenses, but it may happen at the long end of some zoom lenses.

Both the Canon and Raynox units tend to work best on SFL lenses or zoom lens settings of about 75 to 200mm.

Neither of these can make a lens better than it is without them, that is, they will not improve the IQ of a mediocre or poor lens.To get the best results, use them on the best lens you have

[felixenfeu]

Thank you wpresto.

That's all very good to know.

Neither of these can make a lens better than it is without them

Of course I just wanted some alternative to play a bit with something macro-like before buying a dedicated lens.