[Larrymc]

I am getting a Pentax KP shortly and need help with a 50-300 zoom lens. B&H has two available one is the Pentax HD Pentax-DA-55/300 F/4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE lens and the other is the
Pentax HD Pentax- DA 55/300 F/4-5.8 WR lens. Between these two which would you choose and WHY. If you consider one over the other what would be your choice? I have had many cameras over the years and am looking to get the Pentax KP with the kit lens 18/135 and want to get to 300mm at tops so one of the above lens will get me there. all feed back will be
greatly appreciated. Thanks

Bill

No contest buy the PLM and you will love it on the KP!

[Paul the Sunman]

The 16-85 together with any of the 55-300 makes a great 2-lens kit. I have the non-PLM 55-300 (actually, both the SMC and the HD version), and like its rendering on APS-C a lot. However, I am convinced by the huge enthusiasm for the PLM that it is the preferred choice.

[mikesbike]

I have the older DA 55-300mm, and for me it does just fine, especially with the KP's improved screw driven operation. I have the updated version with the HD coatings, which I found made a difference compared to the original non-HD and non-WR. Unlike the PLM version, it does not feature internal focus design, so it is not subject to to "focus breathing" which will shorten effective focal length at closer focus distances. So if you get up closer to a bird for example, you might be able to get close enough to get a frame-filled image without causing the bird to fly off before you can get the shot. But I can also see the case for the PLM with its quiet, and faster AF.

I have the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM, the DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited, and the DA 18-135mm WR lens, which I would not trade for any other wide-range zoom lens. It does very well for landscape use, as its edge performance is quite good at its shorter FL settings under 70mm, most often used for landscapes, especially when stopped down even a little, which is generally the case for landscapes anyway to increase DOF. Its central area sharpness is excellent throughout. It is also good for closeups and has very good bokeh. The DA 18-135mm is also far more compact, being well-suited for the KP's concept, it also has exceptionally fast, quiet, and accurate AF, and is better able to reduce the need for lens-changing due to its large zoom range.

[aslyfox]

For What It is Worth

In Yellowstone and on safari, in Tanzania, I would have both my K 3 and K 3 II with lenses available as we drove along

one would have the DA 16-85mm and the other the D FA 150-450mm

so I could ' handle ' " targets " that I might come upon without having to change out lenses

of course, should I have time to select, I might switch out to another lens.

this last time I went to Tanzania I also had among my lenses the PLM

it took the place of the D FA 150-450mm when that failed half way through the safari

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 02-02-2020 at 06:50 AM.

[normhead]

I like the 18-135 and I don't have the 16-85, but I agree with you Tim.

I hate agreeing with Tim, but if you have the 55-300 PLM, the 16-85 is a no brainer.

For a one lens walk around I like my 18-135, if I'm taking more than one lens, the 16 mm wide end of the 16-85 saves lens changes.

I'm on my second DA 55-300 PLM, weird circumstances sling shotted my original into a rock. I thought "I'll just go back to using my DA*60-250." That lasted about a week.

The PLM, is better corrected, more elements more groups, much faster focusing. As noted, it's a really hard lens to do without once you get used to it's performance.

[timb64]

I hate agreeing with Tim

ROFL

[normhead]

ROFL

I agreed with you Tim... I feel so dirty, I'm gonna have a shower.

[timb64]

I agreed with you Tim... I feel so dirty, I'm gonna have a shower.

Thanks........now I'll need counselling to deal with that image

[clickclick]

If for some reason you haven't bought the PLM by the time you read this, well, buy the PLM. I have both, and as stated, the focusing speed alone is worth it, and the PLM is optically better too. If you are worried about that little extra bit of light, back off the PLM to about 280, and you're to the same speed as the earlier lens.

[Des]

On the other hand the 55-300 WR isn't an IF lens, so it doesn't focus breath. It was always a nice close up lens, which is nice for a nature walk around lens.

Unlike the PLM version, it does not feature internal focus design, so it is not subject to to "focus breathing" which will shorten effective focal length at closer focus distances. So if you get up closer to a bird for example, you might be able to get close enough to get a frame-filled image without causing the bird to fly off before you can get the shot.

This is true, but I think it needs to be put in perspective. I don't think it matters in practice.

For the uninitiated, I'll start with the basics. What we are talking about here is the effect of the difference between the focus mechanism of the 55-300 f4.5-6.3 PLM lens on the one hand and the screwdriven 55-300 f4-5.8 models (DA, DA-L and HD-DA WR versions) on the other. The PLM (like most modern zooms) has internal focus (IF) - that is, the length of the lens doesn't change when focusing in and out. The screwdriven models are non-IF- as you focus in and out, the length of the lens changes. IF lenses are more prone to focus breathing (explained here: https://photographylife.com/focus-breathing). That means that at short focus distances the field of view (FOV) will be noticeably wider (ie less magnified) than the FOV at the same focal length when focused at infinity.

Some lenses are more prone to focus breathing than others. The DA*60-250 f4 is often cited as an extreme example - the FOV at 250mm, when focused on a point not too distant, is significantly wider than the 6.5 degrees diagonal that you would expect of a 250mm lens on an APS-C camera. The effect is at its strongest when the lens is focused at its minimum focus distance (MFD) - that is, the closest point at which it can focus. A zoom lens reaches its maximum magnification when zoomed in as far as it will go (250mm in the case of the 60-250) and focused as close as it can (ie at its MFD). In the case of the DA*60-250, its maximum magnification (that is, at its MFD of 1.1 metres and when zoomed in to 250mm) is only 0.15x. In other words, the butterfly you are focusing on will be recorded by the sensor at only 15% of its actual size. This means it isn't great for any pseudo-macro.

The focus breathing on the 55-300 PLM is far less pronounced. At its maximum reach (300mm) and focused on a subject at its MFD of 0.95 metres (ie 95 cm), its maximum magnification is 0.3x (ie a subject is recorded at 30% of the original size). That's pretty useful for a tele zoom. (If it were a Sigma, they'd be calling it a "Macro": e.g. Sigma 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM (Contemporary) Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database - 0.33x.) By comparison, the maximum magnification of the screwdriven 55-300 models is slightly less - 0.28x (ie 28%).* The difference is that the MFD of the screwdriven models is 1.4 metres. You can argue about which is better - as @Mikesbike points out, getting maximum magnification, or close to it, at a greater distance to subject might sometimes mean that the subject is less likely to be scared off. Perhaps it's also less likely that the subject will bite you (we think about these things a lot in Oz ). On the other hand, in many situations a shorter MFD is preferable (as those with older tele lenses with typically longer MFDs can attest). It's very frustrating when you miss a great photo op because your obliging subject has come too close - something I often experienced with the DA-L 55-300 f4-5.8. Personally I'd take the shorter MFD for the same magnification every time.

So what about other focal distances? I did a field of view comparison between the DA-L 55-300 f4-5.8 (one of the screwdriven models - same optical formula as the other two) and the DA 55-300 f4.5-6.3 PLM here: 55-200, 55-200 WR, 55-300, 55-300 PLM, etc, which telezoom I should get? - PentaxForums.com Summary of results:
1. At 1.4m from the subject, the FOV at 300mm on the PLM is equivalent to 210mm on the DA-L.
2. At 2m from the subject, the FOV at 300mm on the PLM is equivalent to 230mm on the DA-L.
3. At 3m from the subject, the FOV at 300mm on the PLM is equivalent to 260mm on the DA-L

4. At 6m the PLM has just a little more magnification (narrower FOV) than the DA-L at 260. The difference between the PLM at 300mm and the DA-L at 300mm is apparent, but not massive.

To illustrate the 4th point here is a comparison between the FOV of the PLM (first image) and the DA-L (second image) zoomed to 300mm with a subject about 6 metres distant:




My comment on these results is that although there is some focus breathing with the PLM at distances to subject between 1.4m and 3m, it is not greatly significant, because the maximum magnification of the PLM for close subjects is about the same as the screw-driven version. In other words, if you want more magnification with the PLM, get closer; if you can't get closer, it won't matter hugely (especially if you have a 24mp or 36mp sensor, which allows plenty of scope for cropping). By typical distances for birding (e.g. 5m or more), where you want maximum magnification at 300mm, focus breathing is negligible.

So all in all I don't think the difference in magnification is a significant consideration in choosing between the PLM and the screwdriven models. IMO, the only reasons to choose one of the screwdriven models over the PLM are:
- price (the screwdriven models provide very good resolution and can be a good bargain buy); or
- for use on an older body which doesn't support KAF4 (e.g. K-5 series or earlier).


Footnote:
* When I compared the PLM and the DA-L at 300mm at their respective MFDs, I got significantly more magnification from the PLM than from the DA-L, in the order of 10% more. (See posts #37 and #38 in the thread linked above.) But that might have been an error on my part.

[normhead]

I have had one of the screwdriven 55-300 f4-5.8 models and the f4.5-6.3 PLM. The short answer is, I agree with other posters: if it is within budget and you have a camera that supports KAF4 (ie K-50 or later), just get the PLM. It is a great combination with the KP.

My subjective impression from using these two zooms for some time is that the resolution on the older screwdriven model (mine was the DA-L) is about as good at 300mm f8-f11 as the PLM is. Here are two examples at 300mm f8, both taken with the KP, the first with the screwdriven model and the second with the PLM.



Hardly anything between them in terms of resolution, with a good copy of each.

But IMO the PLM is better at wider apertures. Stopping down to f8 is still an advantage, but you can get very good results at 300mm f6.3






With my screwdriven model 55-300 I don't think the results at 300mm f6.3 were as good. The same is true at other focal lengths: the PLM doesn't need to be stopped down as much. Even though the PLM has a slightly narrower maximum aperture across most of the focal range (e.g. f4.5 v f4 at 55mm; f5.6 v f4.5 at 200mm; f6.3 v f5.8 at 300mm), the fact that the PLM is more usable wide open largely overcomes this disadvantage.

Like many consumer zooms, the screwdriven 55-300 is rather prone to nisen bokeh, like the lines you see in the background here.

The PLM rarely exhibits this. In fact its bokeh and rendering are generally very good for a consumer zoom - no doubt because of the rounded aperture blades.




And of course the PLM's real party trick is its much faster and quieter AF - the ideal lens for the fleeting, once-in-a-lifetime wildlife opportunity:


Even though the maximum magnification is about the same, the PLM has a shorter MFD (0.95 metres v 1.4 metres) which is a big advantage in the field. It also folds up to a more compact size.

The build quality is good, but I'd add a word of caution. It doesn't take a lot to break the plastic barrel, especially with the lens extended. You don't need to baby it, but take more care than I did: What to avoid with your 55-300 PLM lens! - PentaxForums.com

For PLM samples and discussion, see this thread: HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE - Show us what it can do, what it CAN'T! - PentaxForums.com You will notice how popular the lens is for shots across the focal range, not just at the long end. You'll see some fine landscape images in this thread.

The one other comment to add about the PLM is that the slow maximum aperture at the long end can hinder focusing when the light is poor. The practical solution is to back off to where the maximum aperture is f5.6 - around 260mm. There seems to be a meaningful difference between the ability of each of my current cameras (KP, K-3 and K-S2) to focus at f5.6 compared to f6.3 in mediocre light.

Now there's my kind of answer.....

[aslyfox]

it's " broken record time "

if the OP has the time and $, I suggest that renting a PLM might be wise

Information on Businesses that offer cameras and lenses for rent - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

so he has personal experience before choosing

LensRental is currently running a coupon

15 % off Rental until Feb 28 2020 - PentaxForums.com

_____________________________________

if the OP wanted to, both the PLM and the D FA 150-450mm could be rented and compared

if the size, weight and cost isn't a factor, the D FA would be the best option IMHO

[Des]

if the OP wanted to, both the PLM and the D FA 150-450mm could be rented and comparedif the size, weight and cost isn't a factor, the D FA would be the best option IMHO

That's a pretty stark choice Allen. At present B&H has the DA 55-300 PLM for $US367 and the DFA 150-450 for $US1842. The PLM weighs 442 grams; the DFA weighs 2 kilograms. The PLM folds up to 3" x 3.5"; the DFA is 3.75" thick and 9.5" long. As much as I would like the reach, versatility and IQ of the DFA 150-450, I remember how much I hated lugging the Sigma 170-500 that I used to have - and it was only 1.4kg.

Between those two extremes is the DA*300 f4 + DA 1.4x TC combination, which offers either 300mm f4 or 420mm f5.6, with WR. It comes with its own bundle of compromises, of course (the SDM AF seems to have caused a lot of frustration among experienced users lately) but many users find that the Goldilocks point for weight, bulk, price and image quality.

[aslyfox]

That's a pretty stark choice Allen. . . . .

I did say:


if the size, weight and cost isn't a factor, the D FA would be the best option IMHO

[normhead]

if the size, weight and cost isn't a factor, the D FA would be the best option IMHO

I wonder for how many Pentax users looking at 55-300s, size, weight and cost aren't factors?

I would think the DA*60-250 with the 1.4 would be first up.

It covers more of the focal range covered by the 55-300 and is ƒ4.

Context is everything.

One of the strengths of the PLM and DA*60-250 is landscape at 55mm and the ability to complement a kit lens for new users.

The 150-450 is an entirely different lens. Especially if you like working with a 2 lens kit, where with the 150-450 you are pretty much limited to the 18-135 if you want full coverage. There are a lot more reasons for not using the 150-450 besides cost weight and size. Add aperture and range of focal length.

Around my house, we start at 2.8 primes and work backwards from there. The DFA 150-450 wouldn't be top of the list. If we need low light performance it would be bottom of the list. I sold my only 400 plus ƒ5.6 telephoto. On some days it's any 2.8 lens, followed by any ƒ4 lens then any ƒ5.6 lens. There are situations it's hard to even focus an ƒ5.6 lens. By that criteria, the 150-450 is getting darn close to the bottom of the list.

If cost size and weight aren't an issue, how about a 600 ƒ4m or my Tammy 300 2.8 with a 1.4 TC 1.7x or 2x. or an FA* 250-600. If size cost and weight aren't important we can have a field day. What about that A*400 2.8? The one guy on the forum who's images come with a Getty Images trade mark stamped on them, doesn't shoot a 150-450. Perspective my friend, context and perspective.