[Oldseabee]

Hi, I have a Pentax 55-300mm DA lens and have run across an 80-320mm for about $40. Is it worth picking up? Thanks, Jim

[boriscleto]

The 55-300 is a better lens.

[Aaron28]

i do not have the da 55-300 and do not know if it is full frame compatible or to make a comparison......I did get a 80-320 as it was acquired in a relatively inexpensive bundle with a 28-80(I believe, can't remember) to have a simple kit for the K-1 knowing they are full frame....I think it is fine lens for what it is and use it with my K-3ii as well...I enjoy its reach and the weight because my only other option for that length with auto focus is a sigma 150-500

[Kevin B123]

The user base lens reviews are here:
SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 Reviews - FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Wasp]

The 80-320 was not one of the better Pentax efforts, from what I have read on the interwebs. It won't give you anything that you do not already have with the 55-300, but for $40 - why not?

[mikesbike]

If you are thinking of shooting some 35mm film, or getting a K-1 FF body, that lens is quite decent, especially out to about 250mm. Otherwise, for your APS-C camera, the DA 55-300mm is better, so I'd say getting this older FA tele zoom lens would be a waste of time, money, and effort.

[StiffLegged]

I have one, and $40 is okay. Image quality isn't stellar, but it's okay, just. I'd really like a DA 55-300!

[mbukal]

if you are on apsc then 55-300 PLM WR RE, even better than the one mentioned below

here is an example of a Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED + K30



if you are on K1 and have no money then 80-320 silver

here is an example of Pentax-FA 80-320 / 4,5-5,6 silver + K1

[jeallen01]

TBH, my 80-320 was bought on recommendations in magazines, but was a real disappointment because it wasn't sharp on film (MZ-5N) and then developed a TERRIBLE front-section wobble due to (unrepairable!) wear in the mechanism. "Load of junk" IMO.

[Adam]

Hi, I have a Pentax 55-300mm DA lens and have run across an 80-320mm for about $40. Is it worth picking up? Thanks, Jim

The DA 55-300mm lenses are optically and mechanically better...as mentioned above, if you can get the PLM version, it's the best by far.

However, the 80-320mm would make sense if you need a quick-and-dirty telephoto lens for full frame.

[ChristianRock]

if you are on apsc then 55-300 PLM WR RE, even better than the one mentioned below

...but it won't cost 40 bucks

I've looked at 80-320 lenses quite a few times, but never pulled a trigger on one. If a good one popped up for 40 bucks, I might. For disclosure, I haven't bought a 55-300mm either, though I should. The A 70-210mm f4 is my tele of choice, and the Tamron 70-300 LD DI is used if I have to have AF but it's quite a ways off the quality I get from the old manual Pentax lens - it's prime-like sharp except at the extreme focal lengths. The colors of the Tamron are nice enough though, so in a pinch it will do.

[S.M.]

It is a good lens for his price, was the first lens I buyd in 2005, I was in Holland and have only my istDS with the 18-55 that aren't good to wildlife photography so i find that telphoto in a shop and buy for 100 euros and I am very happy and continue to use even if somtimes is to short. It has some cromatic aberration but for the rest is a very good lens.