[Atindra]

I am looking for a zoom lens. I have heard very positive about New Pentax DA 55-300mm lens particularly its sharpness through-out and contrasty images. Similarly Tamron 28-300 mm lens (Non-VC) is also considered to be one of the very versatile zoom lens.
Now I would like to know if some body has experience in handling both or the images to compare, which one is better.
If DA 55-300 in not significantly better over Tammy 28-300, I would go for tammy because, I just have to lug one lens around.

I would be using 300mm end of the lens quite extensively so sharpness throughout the range is very important for me.

Thanks in Advance

Atindra

[dazman]

Hi Atindra,

Choosing between the Tamron and Pentax, I'd go with the DA 55-300. The IQ from this lens is surprisingly good for it's price. I have it and my only issue with it is the large minimum focus distance...apart from this I highly recommend this lens. Here are some user reviews Pentax Lens Review Database - 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED

I tried the Tamron 28-300 in store and the few tested shots from it did not impress. Soft at the long end.

Another option is the Tamron or Pentax DA 18-250, which gives you the all in one lens option, however the IQ can decrease slightly towards the long end that you what to be sharp. The minimum focus distance is a lot shorter than the DA 55-300, which may or may not be important. There are many happy users Pentax Lens Review Database - 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF]

[Atindra]

thanks Dazman.
Since I have 18-55 mm kit lens, I may go for DA 55-300 mm lens and will sell my DA 50-200mm. I guess IQ is more important over convinience.

Atindra

[k100d]

the da 55-300 has many happy users and most people are more content with the lens than the (albeit) much cheaper Tamron and Sigma 70-300. because it was designed only for crop sensors, the lens is also lighter than those two others. search the forum for some results. i have one but i don't use it much (really don't go over 77mm much), but when i do, the lens performs well. the one criticism is that the focus is pretty slow, so if you're doing sports and stuff, might not be the best idea.

if you're looking for superzooms, the tamron/pentax 18-250 is probably the best you can get. the 28-300mm won't be very wide. although with the superzooms, they aren't really the true focal length unless at infinity at the long end.

Hi Atindra, I have the Tamron 28-300. It's not a bad lens for the price. As a previous poster said it can be soft at the long end but it can also produce pretty sharp images at the long end. I think a lot depends on the circumstances. Using a tripod at the long end certainly helps. You can also dial back just a little bit from 300mm and improve things.
If you are interested, PM me and I'll see if I can find a few shots with it for you.

[nulla]

I think you would be happy with either.

I have the 55-300 and use 200-300mm range most of the time with this lens and I am more than happy with both the IQ and the price paid.



Neil

[audiobomber]

Although they are both nominally 300mm lenses, the 28-300mm is an internal focus lens like its stablemate the 18-250mm. They only reach their true equivalent focal length at infinity. I don't have specific comparisons on the 28-300, but the 18-250mm is only 200mm equivalent at 30 feet. Here are the results of my test of the range of the 18-250 vs the 55-300: Picasa Web Albums - Dan - FL compare

The 28-300 gives less reach than the 55-300. Of course it's wider if that's what appearls to you, but it's the long end that I need, and a real 300mm is just barely enough for wildlife IME.

[Atindra]

the da 55-300 has many happy users and most people are more content with the lens than the (albeit) much cheaper Tamron and Sigma 70-300. because it was designed only for crop sensors, the lens is also lighter than those two others. search the forum for some results. i have one but i don't use it much (really don't go over 77mm much), but when i do, the lens performs well. the one criticism is that the focus is pretty slow, so if you're doing sports and stuff, might not be the best idea.

if you're looking for superzooms, the tamron/pentax 18-250 is probably the best you can get. the 28-300mm won't be very wide. although with the superzooms, they aren't really the true focal length unless at infinity at the long end.

I wont do sports but probably action mode may come in to picture while shooting wildlife. Idea of lugging just one lens in case of Tammy 28-300 is tempting me but on the other hand quality of the images at higher end is more important. I guess I may endup trading convenience over IQ.

Atindra

[Atindra]

@ Gary PM sent

Atindra

[Atindra]

I think you would be happy with either.

I have the 55-300 and use 200-300mm range most of the time with this lens and I am more than happy with both the IQ and the price paid.



Neil

Me too guess so. I am inclining to DA 55-300.

Atindra

[Atindra]

Although they are both nominally 300mm lenses, the 28-300mm is an internal focus lens like its stablemate the 18-250mm. They only reach their true equivalent focal length at infinity. I don't have specific comparisons on the 28-300, but the 18-250mm is only 200mm equivalent at 30 feet. Here are the results of my test of the range of the 18-250 vs the 55-300: Picasa Web Albums - Dan - FL compare

The 28-300 gives less reach than the 55-300. Of course it's wider if that's what appearls to you, but it's the long end that I need, and a real 300mm is just barely enough for wildlife IME.

Wide end of tammy appeals me because of the idea of lugging only one lens in travel. But I think I should be more towards quality of the images and reach at the higher end of zoom rather than my convenience.

Atindra