Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-01-2019, 05:24 AM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 7
Telezoom for travelling (50-135 replacement?)

Hello,
I am going through a dilemma while revamping my lens selection for travelling (hiking mostly) and could appreciate some opinion/insights from the crowd.

At this moment I have a dual body setup with K10D and K20D, I definitely don't wand to add a 3rd body Originally I was shooting with the set 18-55, which I later upgraded to 16-45. On the second body I have 50-135, on some trips replaced with A80-200 (plasticy, but super light and OKish when stopped down). I am doing a revamp to hopefully reduce the weight a bit and improve image quality.

I have recently bought a K-70, which will replace the K10 on my neck. I do a lot of hiking and therefore weight is important to me. I noticed that even if I have an additional lens in my backpack, I rarely use it.

I analyzed my keepers and best pictures and realized that most of them are on the wide end (landscapes). Some landscapes or travel portraits at 50mm with the 50-135 and some close-ups of fauna/flora at 135mm which required further cropping and I definitely feel that a longer range would be nice. I don't really do sports or macro.

On the wide end I have decided to go with 15mm Limited, which is on its way - sharp, light, speed of use on a bright day (F8 and click around), it's perfect for my usage. On the longer I see a number of options among which i struggle.

1. Keep 50-135 and maybe add a teleconverter for occasional need of range.
+ it is a great glass. I like its performance, low aperture and its nicely built
- wobbly focus, SDM motor failed once in 10 years, TC will add weight (100-300g?)
Main questions - which TC then? Any 2x? Pentax 1.7x? Kenko/Tamron? I would not need AF with the TC, i expect not to use it that often. Will the IQ degrade considerably? (e.g. will it get worse than 55-300?)

2. Sell 50-135 and replace it with 60-250
+ it is a fantastic glass, even more so for landscapes, apparently. Used 60-250 is reasonably priced, so for exchange i would pay maybe 200EUR, which is OK.
- while it covers the long range, I would lack 10mm on the short end, which I actually use a lot. It adds weight (350g), it's a bit less fast, risk of SDM failure.
Main questions - has anyone compared wide end FOV between the two? I saw in the comparison of the 60-250 vs 55-300 that the amplification on 250mm is lower for the 60-250, but the question is, how does it look on the wide end? WIill it make a difference for me coming from the 50-135?

3. Sell 50-135 and replace it with 55-300 (WR but not PLM, I might run it on K20D)

+ weight reduction (-200g), great range, cost
- going from great glass to good glass, loosing 5mm on the wide end
Main questions - again, FOV, will it make a major difference? And similarly important - will I notice a major drop in IQ?

4. option (3) but add 40mm Limited
+ In combination with the 55-300 this would still reduce weight a tiny bit, wide end sharp and fast and even a bit wider than 50
- I would have to think of changing the lens (otherwise I won't do it) and decide always upfront which one to use (40 vs 55-300). One of them might be underutilized.

5. Sell 50-135 and get 40mm Limited + FA 100-300. Compared to (4)
+ further reduction of weight, cost
- image quality of 100-300 is probably weaker, it's slower. It has nice bokeh so probably would be just used for closeups, and most of the time I would run around with the 15 and 40 limited and change only in need of a closeup.


These were the most light-weight setups with reasonable IQ that I could come up with. Do you see any other? Maybe a sigma 50-150 + TC?

Looking forward to your inputs!

06-01-2019, 06:02 AM   #2
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
Hi there.

First of all - if you're hiking, why not save weight and just stick with one body? Lens changes are unlikely to be needed in a massive hurry....

I would go for option 1. The DA*50-135 works brilliantly with the HD1.4xTC. Like a native lens. I would seriously consider it over an older model.

Option 2: I recently re-acquired a DA*60-250 in an attempt to find some love for it. My attempts have so far been unsuccessful, but I haven't given up hope

Option 3: I've had the SMC and HD versions of the 55-300. Neither are bad, but they're not a patch on DA* glass. I'd consider the PLM on your K-70....

Option 4 and 5: Nup.

Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 06-01-2019 at 06:20 AM. Reason: typo
06-01-2019, 06:10 AM - 3 Likes   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
rogerstg's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,168
Outdoors with plenty of light to use the 55-300 in it's sweet spots; go with that lens. That's what I've done, though I keep my 50-135 for it's low light performance, especially indoors. I'd get the PLM though, for its focus speed, and ditch the second body to save more weight. Keep the 55-300 on the body by default because the opportunity of distant shots are often fleeting, while there's usually time to swap lenses for wider angles (landscape, portrait, etc). I'm often reminded of this when I don't follow my own advice.
06-01-2019, 06:11 AM   #4
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Albums
Posts: 30
I'd say option 1, or possibly 2, but I don't have any personal experience with the 60-250. That was in plans to purchase before life got in the way.

55-300 is great for what it is, but you will absolutely notice a difference in IQ. I used to take my 55-300 PLM to the zoo until I got the 50-135. Even with the significant loss in reach, that became my new zoo lens, among other things like shooting concerts and a couple weddings, that the PLM simply wouldn't have done well, if at all.

06-01-2019, 06:25 AM   #5
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,563
Welcome to the forums

be sure to check the user reviews and in depth reviews of the various lenses under " lenses " above.

_______________________


remember on the question of acquiring one of the limiteds - once you have one, you may very well want more

like the old potato chip ad " betcha you can't eat only one "

the limiteds do they live up to the reputation and why - Page 17 - PentaxForums.com

_________________________________________

regarding the 40mm limited, if stretching the budget, consider the " best [ ] lens in its class " the 40mm XS

Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 vs 40mm XS vs 40mm Limited Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

__________________________________________________________


https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-da-14x-aw-af-rear-converter/intr....html?src=lrdb

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-14x-aw-rear-converter.html

Last edited by aslyfox; 06-01-2019 at 06:32 AM.
06-01-2019, 06:38 AM - 5 Likes   #6
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I have comparison images taken with the DA*60-250, DA 55-300 PLM and the 1.4, which I did because the 1.4 TC magnifies the image allowing the observation of differences to be more pronounced.

HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE - Show us what it can do, what it CAN'T! - Page 20 - PentaxForums.com

However the 55-300 PLM on it's own is quite sharp. My conclusion was the 55-300 PLM without the TC was as good as the DA*60-250 with it.

DA*60-250 with TC


DA 55-300 without the TC


Personally for hiking, both my wife and I take the DA 55-300 PLM everywhere, Me with my DA 18-135 , Her with her tamron 17-50.

Little squirrels says "What's not to like?'
I post this one to point out, absolute sharpness does not alway lead to the best rendering of an image. If this image is infact softer than it would have been taken with a DA* it doesn't matter, because the rendering suits the subject.


As someone pointed out, if you aren't doing a direct side by side comparison you probably don't care. And the 55-300 PLM is a fraction the size of a lens like the 50-135 for less weight and easier packing. And a fraction the cost.

I have more images dependant on having the 55-300 with me, that I wouldn't have with a heavier lens, than I have taken with better lenses where I actually appreciate the higher IQ. The lens is a hikers dream.

It's not that it's a DA*, it's not and no one should imply it is, but if your OK with ƒ6.3 max in the long end, it will get you good results.
Part of the DA* lenses is their larger apertures, and in most daylight situations they just aren't needed. And where I go, I seriously don't recommend hiking in the dark, in any case.

Last edited by normhead; 06-01-2019 at 07:02 AM.
06-01-2019, 07:11 AM - 1 Like   #7
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
I also hike a bunch with camera gear, my setup is a combination between the da limited primes, two da zooms (16-85 and 55-300 plm), and the macro wr 100. I usually take 2-3 lenses from my kit, sometimes just one to save as much weight as possible.

+1 to normhead's recommendation for the 55-300
Either the new plm if you'll stick with the k70 alone, or the older versions so that they're cheaper and compatible with your k10d... the plm's collapsible design really helps make the lens easier to fit in the insert I have for my hiking backpack. I can't see myself hiking with the 60-250, I've had it and it's a wonderful lens but too heavy for hiking. I find 300 mm for landscapes is sometimes useful, for example



06-01-2019, 07:17 AM   #8
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,563
QuoteOriginally posted by aaacb Quote
. . . the macro wr 100. . . .
I was thinking about mentioning one of the 100mm F2.8 macros

the focal length is nice, you do get 1:1 macro if you want and there isn't a big difference ( WR + shape of blades ) between the oldest F, FA, D FA and D FA WR models except prices of course

Last edited by aslyfox; 06-01-2019 at 07:23 AM.
06-01-2019, 07:19 AM   #9
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by aaacb Quote
I also hike a bunch with camera gear, my setup is a combination between the da limited primes, two da zooms (16-85 and 55-300 plm), and the macro wr 100. I usually take 2-3 lenses from my kit, sometimes just one to save as much weight as possible.

+1 to normhead's recommendation for the 55-300
Either the new plm if you'll stick with the k70 alone, or the older versions so that they're cheaper and compatible with your k10d... the plm's collapsible design really helps make the lens easier to fit in the insert I have for my hiking backpack. I can't see myself hiking with the 60-250, I've had it and it's a wonderful lens but too heavy for hiking. I find 300 mm for landscapes is sometimes useful, for example
I also usually carry the 100 macro with my hiking kit, light weight but awesome IQ. The PLM is a complete re-design with more elements and groups, I personally was never impressed by the earlier versions.
06-01-2019, 07:31 AM - 2 Likes   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,161
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I also usually carry the 100 macro with my hiking kit, light weight but awesome IQ. The PLM is a complete re-design with more elements and groups, I personally was never impressed by the earlier versions.
Let me add the 55-300PLM is really great at near distance shooting - by example @300mm, f/6.3 and 95cm subject distance you can get nice bokeh shots.
06-01-2019, 07:36 AM - 3 Likes   #11
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by acoufap Quote
Let me add the 55-300PLM is really great at near distance shooting - by example @300mm, f/6.3 and 95cm subject distance you can get nice bokeh shots.
And also at longer distances. The new design of the PLM really cleaned up the out of focus areas.



And I have to say with my DA*60-250, if you carry that lens for 15 Km, things are going to get mighty uncomfortable before you get home. I've done it, but it isn't pleasant, and so often I don't even use it. Sore shoulders and back for nothing.
06-01-2019, 09:20 AM - 1 Like   #12
Veteran Member
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 2,171
I support Norm, the 55-300PLM is versatile.
06-01-2019, 09:49 AM - 1 Like   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,161
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And also at longer distances. The new design of the PLM really cleaned up the out of focus areas.



And I have to say with my DA*60-250, if you carry that lens for 15 Km, things are going to get mighty uncomfortable before you get home. I've done it, but it isn't pleasant, and so often I don't even use it. Sore shoulders and back for nothing.
Absolutely right, you can also get nice bokeh at longer distances with the DA55-300PLM. Here's one from last year ...


K-1 • DA55-300PLM@300 • APS-C pp crop


I also hate wearing heavy gear. My back doesn't like this. It's alway a torture if I take too much gear with me and can't go by car or this way ...


Photo Tour by Bike with Burley Travoy and heavy Gear

Last edited by acoufap; 06-01-2019 at 10:02 AM.
06-01-2019, 10:06 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
blackcloudbrew's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cotati, California USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,460
Good comments above. I would add another option. Get and use the DA 18-270. It's really A travel lens. It's not * quality optics but it will produce good images over a wide range of focal lengths.
06-01-2019, 11:30 AM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,509
What Sandy said, as well as others. Losing the fine DA* 50-135mm would mean you give up having the option of the f/2.8 aperture, and even that with very good quality. Nothing wrong with adding a 55-300mm PLM lens also! Another option is adding a DA* 200mm f/2.8 lens, which can also be used effectively with the TC. This would expand your f/2.8 range in a most effective way, and still keep the on-camera weight down.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bit, body, glass, iq, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, questions, range, slr lens, tc, vs, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good quality telezoom on a budget lotech Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 42 10-26-2018 09:53 AM
55-200, 55-200 WR, 55-300, 55-300 PLM, etc, which telezoom I should get? Bui Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 67 06-25-2018 08:15 PM
For Sale - Sold: O-GPS1, 16-50, 50-135, HD 21, FA 50 1.7, A 50 1.4, Tokina 20-35, TC 1.4x, *istDS transam879 Sold Items 13 09-09-2017 11:54 AM
18-135 replacement: DA* 16-50 and 50-135 dcpropilot Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 81 01-02-2015 12:22 AM
For Sale - Sold: K-5, 16-50,50-135,65-250, Sigma 17-50, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8, Flashes virarfast Sold Items 8 04-04-2013 02:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:26 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top