[aslyfox]

As others have said, the 50-200 add little to your kit.

Instead, a dedicated macro lens would give a big boost to your flora photos. Super zoom macro lenses rarely provide high quality or high magnification. Something like the DFA 100/2.8 dramatically expand the range of close-up shot you can take.

dedicated macro lenses tend to be good sharp lenses whether used for macro work or not

the longer the focal length of the lens, the further back you can be from your " target " to get 1:1

so a 35mm macro vs. a 50mm macro vs a 100mm macro

gives you more distance as the focal length increases

that can be important if your subject matter might be insects and you are shooting " in the field "

some examples

*Macro* lens club
There is a lens club for all the lens classifications and brands, there's even the Raynox macro club, but none yet dedicated to *dedicated* macro lenses.

So let's see what your classic macro lenses can do. Bring out your Voightlander 125mm macros, your FA* 200 macros, your Lester-Dine macros and your Sigma 180mm macros and show the forum their capabilities

.


Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/129563-macro-lens-club-23...#ixzz629evxAA9

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 10-12-2019 at 08:41 AM.

[Madaboutpix]

My question is, what would I gain by adding a 50-200 DA to my kit.

Er, as other posters have already indicated, there is a pretty short answer to this: You would gain nothing, as your 55-300 PLM would mop the floor with it in just about any respect.

Have you thought of perhaps adding a few more prime options to your kit? Just think of the pretty stunning IQ you're likely getting from your DA50.

[mikesbike]

Forget the DA 50-200mm lens, in view of what you already have. I would get rid of the Tamron 28-300mm lens- it has no wide angle for all-around use on your APS-C camera body, which destroys its versatility, and it is also not as good as your Pentax DA 55-300mm at the longer range. I also agree that the DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR lens is far better than your DA 18-55mm WR kit lens. You would also be in need of lens-changing less often. As an all-around lens, although not a true macro for super-closeups like the fine DA 100mm f/2.8 WR lens, it can also produce quite good closeups of flowers and such. By selling those two lenses you have, you could put the money towards getting the DA 18-135mm lens. It offers fast, accurate and quiet autofocus as yet another of its attributes, and is amazingly compact for its wide zoom range.

[BarryE]

I have the following lenses in my kit:

18-55 DA WR
50 DA
55-300 DA ED PLM WR
120-400 Sigma
28-300 Tamron Macro

My question is, what would I gain by adding a 50-200 DA to my kit.

I shoot aviation, some landscapes, wildlife and flora (usually in close up) and occasional family shots and anything else that catches the eye.

Thanks in advance.

Barry

Probably not a lot Baz, but why the heck should that stop you buying it. Buying lenses rarely makes logical sense ...

Baz

[ramseybuckeye]

I have the following lenses in my kit:

18-55 DA WR
50 DA
55-300 DA ED PLM WR
120-400 Sigma
28-300 Tamron Macro

My question is, what would I gain by adding a 50-200 DA to my kit.

I shoot aviation, some landscapes, wildlife and flora (usually in close up) and occasional family shots and anything else that catches the eye.

Thanks in advance.

Barry

You obviously must have an option to buy one cheap, resist, you would never have a use for it. I agree with the others, you have that covered with superior lenses, save your money for a good lens.

[Pelto]

I would go for some prime instead, the D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR, and then maybe the Samyang 16mm F2 ED AS UMC CS.

[UncleVanya]

If you want something with great iq that might work in most of your areas of photography consider the following options:

DA* or FA* 200 F2.8
DFA* or FA* 70/80-200 f2.8

All of these will give spectacular sharp photos. All can be paired with a 1.4x tc and can be paired with a high quality APO close up "filter" lens LIKE A Canon or Nikon.

Can shoot aviation, people, and flowers.

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 10-16-2019 at 12:38 PM.

As others have said, the 50-200 adds little to your kit.

Instead, a dedicated macro lens would give a big boost to your flora photos. Super zoom macro lenses rarely provide high quality or high magnification. Something like the DFA 100/2.8 dramatically expands the range of close-up shot you can take.

I agree with that, as well. I'd also point out that you've got nothing on the very-wide end of things. How about the HD Pentax-DA* 11-18mm F2.8 ED DC AW? I've got the 100mm myself and love it, though that's a full-frame lens - I use it on APS-C with good results, but some folks think that lessens image quality. I do not have the wide-angle zoom, but it gets good reviews.

[Bertrand3000]

Forget 50-200.

I would suggest the DA 10-17 fisheye (smc or hd). Good for landscape and close shots as well.

[jddwoods]

I have the following lenses in my kit:

18-55 DA WR
50 DA
55-300 DA ED PLM WR
120-400 Sigma
28-300 Tamron Macro

My question is, what would I gain by adding a 50-200 DA to my kit.

I shoot aviation, some landscapes, wildlife and flora (usually in close up) and occasional family shots and anything else that catches the eye.

Thanks in advance.

Barry

If you already have the 55-300 PLM you will gain nothing from getting the 50-200. As others have stated you would do better upgrading the 18-55 to either the 16-85 or the 18-135. Also you could keep the 18-55 and add a wide-angle zoom to your kit. I already have the 16-85 and the 55-300 PLM and this is a great combo. I am considering adding a wider angle zoom and am considering the fisheye, the 12-24 or the DA* 11-18. Depending on funds I will head up to B&H and Adorama and have a hands on look at all three.

[bigbaz]

Many thanks to everyone that took the time to reply.

I’m not buying the lens, instead I’m going to look at buying a prime lens instead.

Once again thank you all.

Barry

[mikesbike]

Many thanks to everyone that took the time to reply.

I’m not buying the lens, instead I’m going to look at buying a prime lens instead.

Once again thank you all.

Barry

A prime for what? You already have the tele zoom range well-covered. Maybe the very small and light DA 15mm f/4 Limited? It is so small it is an easy fit into virtual any bag or pocket, in which case a piece of protective bubble wrap around it is recommended.

[gatorguy]

As others have said, the 50-200 adds little to your kit.

Instead, a dedicated macro lens would give a big boost to your flora photos. Super zoom macro lenses rarely provide high quality or high magnification. Something like the DFA 100/2.8 dramatically expands the range of close-up shot you can take.

I agree with you. He'd find the DFA100WR useful for a lot of shooting situations. The obvious macro, but also as a very good short telephoto and even a portrait lens. If I had the choice of carrying only one prime with me that would be it.

Th other lens he should have a look at is the DA*55-135. That's a great lens perfectly suited to people and pets and portraiture, serves well in landscape too, good low-light capabilities...

The aren't hard to find lovingly cared for under $400. Watch the for sale section here. Big plus: If the SDM should fail our Uncle Vanya can fix you up.

[aslyfox]

Many thanks to everyone that took the time to reply.

I’m not buying the lens, instead I’m going to look at buying a prime lens instead.

Once again thank you all.

Barry

I think you are making the right chose

now you need to consider what type of prime

there are one or two ( or more ) to look at

Prime Lenses | PentaxForums.com

[ click on the name of the lens for information from the " user reviews " ]

[aslyfox]

if the OP is interested in maco:

The Advantages of a Dedicated Macro Lens
Achieving lift-size magnification
By PF Staff in Tutorial Videos on Apr 4, 2016

Read more at: The Advantages of a Dedicated Macro Lens - Tutorial Videos | PentaxForums.com