[tibbitts]

You could also consider a Tamron 70-300. I have both it and one of the multiple 55-300s I've owned over the years. Optically the 70-300 has worse purple fringing, notably at the longer end, but is actually very sharp, and in my experience less tempermental in AF than the 55-300s. It covers full-frame, although I would be dubious about corner performance on FF. The filter mount rotates which is moderately annoying with a polarizer, but unlike L versions of the 55-300 it comes with a hood. I bought mine like-new in-box for $70. There is no quick-shift, but personally I have not found that signficiant for my usage. With the 55-330 - or any lens really - if you buy used, beware that quality control on most lenses (defintely including 55-300s) is horrible, and some people selling them might not be reasonably picky about quality. Especially with longer zooms, people tend to look at center performance and declare victory, without even looking at the edges and corners.

[frey71]

I did not think about Tamron. Can you provide a more accurate model number?

[frey71]

What say about fa 80-320 4.5-5.6

[aslyfox]

I did not think about Tamron. Can you provide a more accurate model number?

there are several such tamarons and their " user reviews " can be found here - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

I agree with much of what tibbitts posted

I used an " experienced " one of this one on my first visit to Tanzania in 2016 as my " long lens " for the trip

Description:
Model 772D

"A silver-version of the lightweight, compact telephoto macro zoom lens with a Maximum Magnification Ratio of 1:2 at the 300mm setting. It's ideal for shooting sports, theatrical events, and wildlife. By switching to macro mode, subjects as close as 95cm can be shot within the focal range of 180-300mm, for true macro photography."

Aperture: f/4-5.6
Minimum Aperture: 32
Lenses Construction: 9 Groups / 13 Elements
Diaphragm Blade Number: 9
Angle of View: 34° / 8°
Type of Zooming: Rotation
Filter Size / Diameter: 62 mm
Minimum Focus: 1.5 m (59.0 in.) / Macro 0.95 m (37.4 in.)
Diameter x Length: ø 76.6 x 116.5 mm (ø 3.0 x 4.6 in.)
Weight: 435 grams (15.3 oz.)
Mount: Metal Ring
Max Mag. Ratio / Macro Ratio: 1:2
Focus System: Automatic
Year of Discontinuation in Production: 2005

(Note: Weight, diameter and overall length are based on Nikon mount.)

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/data/af-lens/772d.html

Read more at: Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Tele-Macro [1:2] (Model 772D) Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 11-20-2019 at 07:06 AM.

[BigMackCam]

What say about fa 80-320 4.5-5.6

The user reviews are generally positive about it, but you really need direct input from someone who has owned and used the lens for some time, as reviews can be skewed for a whole range of reasons - new buyer "confirmation bias", user expectations, comparisons relative to other lenses, copy variation, AF fine tuning (or lack thereof), body used, basic skills etc. For example, one review suggests the FA80-320 is better than the 55-300, but based on my experience of the screw-drive HD55-300, it's not a million miles off the DA*60-250. Anything markedly better would be up there with the DA* lens, and I don't for one moment believe the FA80-320 can be that good. This is one reason I won't just point towards reviews. Whilst a large enough sample of them can give a broad indication as to whether a lens is at least OK or otherwise a complete howler, that's about as much as you can hope to learn from them

[UncleVanya]

What say about fa 80-320 4.5-5.6

The 80-320 compared to the 55-300 (non-plm)

CONs:

• Heavier
• Larger
• More purple fringing
• Minimum focal length is 80mm
• No dedicated hood
• Weaker long end performance (this is subjective and based in my experience with my single example of both these lenses)
• More flare prone (even with aftermarket hood)

PROs:

• Optically Longer (320mm)
• A little cheaper

[Bertrand3000]

Another voice for the 70-300 from Tamron (A17). It is cheap, and still sharp and can also do 1:2 macro. Only problems are purple fringing (higher than usual) and rotating front element.

[tibbitts]

I did not think about Tamron. Can you provide a more accurate model number?

I have and would get the last version, LD Di. I forgot to mention macro. Although I wish the macro was more at the short end, the macro performance in the center at least is pretty good at 180mm (the shortest setting.) I've used it for flowers and have been pleased with the results. It's not real 1:1 macro (only half that even at 300mm) but really does come in handy for casual use. With my 60-250 I'm forever bumping up against the close focus limit and reaching for my Nikon 5T or 6T and required thread adapters. With the Tamron you just flip a switch and can focus as close as usually necessary.

The worst use for this lens is birds. You are usually at 300mm (or want to be) and you have a bright background, so the purple fringing is at its worst. So if you want to photograph birds against bright backgrouunds, probably look elsewhere.

[climbmountainway]

To address some comments. The 70-210 Takumar F is sharper than its Pentax SMC F 70 -210 brother, so some comments by others here may represent this reality. My copies are slightly sharper and offer greater chrominance saturation than my pristine DA 55-300 ED (which it is now apparent is the ED non L version with an attachment hood and metal mount). The 55-300 DA ED is noisy when focusing (it is quite noisy, more than the 70-210. Deer have run during its auto focusing). The 55-300 lens barrel extends, and does not rotate. Likely the other lenses mentioned by others here, going to around the 300mm long end, do rotate. This means preadjusting a circular polarizer before focusing may be primarily achievable with the 55-300mm DA ED. It is a fine optic, with decent reach, yet needs very adequate on subject light for subject details from 250mm on.

[UncleVanya]

To address some comments. The 70-210 Takumar F is sharper than its Pentax SMC F 70 -210 brother, so some comments by others here may represent this reality. My copies are slightly sharper and offer greater chrominance saturation than my pristine DA 55-300 ED (which it is now apparent is the ED non L version with an attachment hood and metal mount). The 55-300 DA ED is noisy when focusing (it is quite noisy, more than the 70-210. Deer have run during its auto focusing). The 55-300 lens barrel extends, and does not rotate. Likely the other lenses mentioned by others here, going to around the 300mm long end, do rotate. This means preadjusting a circular polarizer before focusing may be primarily achievable with the 55-300mm DA ED. It is a fine optic, with decent reach, yet needs very adequate on subject light for subject details from 250mm on.

I hadn't known the Takumar version was better. Mine is the standard F SMC. I have the same DA version of the 55-300 and agree it is noisier than the 70-210 but I have not scared anything away with it.

[frey71]

I find hd version da 50-300, but owner write about problems with focus. Price is good - 110 usd. I ask local service center pentax. They tell me cost of service works about 30-120 usd. And i find nearest used tamron 70-300 from 50 usd. What you recommend?

[UncleVanya]

I find hd version da 50-300, but owner write about problems with focus. Price is good - 110 usd. I ask local service center pentax. They tell me cost of service works about 30-120 usd. And i find nearest used tamron 70-300 from 50 usd. What you recommend?

I haven't used the 70-300, but at that price I'd take a working lens over a non-working one. Also of note there are several da and dal 55-300 lenses for sale in the marketplace at excellent prices.

[Des]

I find hd version da 50-300, but owner write about problems with focus. Price is good - 110 usd. I ask local service center pentax. They tell me cost of service works about 30-120 usd. And i find nearest used tamron 70-300 from 50 usd. What you recommend?

Keep looking for a better copy of the DA or DA-L 55-300. Plenty about for cheap - no need to buy one with focus issues or other defects. Skip the Tamron - it's notorious for purple fringing, something which can't always be removed in post-processing.

EDIT: I missed the fact that the one you found was the HD WR version. Both of those features are big advantages. Yes I agree with @Mikesbike below that it would worth following through on what the focus issues are and the seller's returns policy - to get a good copy of that lens for $US110 would be a real bargain.

[mikesbike]

I find hd version da 50-300, but owner write about problems with focus. Price is good - 110 usd. I ask local service center pentax. They tell me cost of service works about 30-120 usd. And i find nearest used tamron 70-300 from 50 usd. What you recommend?

I would say find out about seller's return policy. Some people have said they have focus issues with this lens, and that it is slow to catch good focus. Perhaps this is because they are constantly going from near to far distance. Also, I think perhaps this is because they are not onto good technique with using the half-press of the shutter button to get and hold focus before releasing it the rest of the way to take the shot. I have very good images of small animals and birds using this lens. The HD coatings make a difference. I don't think there has been any tested 70-300mm FF lens that is as good.

[frey71]

I think chance buy used lens with some problems available. If i service lens for some money i get really working lens. And i contact with owener to local area (10 km) and i checked lens before deal. If i see what lens have phisical damage - i trying find another lens.