[Lukasabs]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Wow! Thank you so much for all the input, opinions and sharing your experiences! I would like to respond to some of your arguments and discuss them more in detail:

Many of you noted, that the 70-210mm lens would not be long enough for my needs. Maybe I am missing a point, but to my understanding, the Pentax K-70 with it´s APS-C Sensor would push the focal length to approximately 105-320mm. So it would be around the same length as the 55-300 PLM, or is there a misinterpretation on my side?

Secondly, I see that many of you also would recommend the 60-250mm lens by Pentax. I am sure it is a great lens and I read a couple of articles about it, but standing at 1500$ it is another 300$ more than the 70-210mm and I think this price would be to high for me. Maybe I could save another 300$ extra and spend it on the 60-250mm, but it would only be worth it for me if it is head and shoulders above every other lens in this comparison.

And lastly, my takeaways from your suggestions are that the 55-300mm PLM is the more versatile lens, because it goes down to 55mm and can therefore of course make wider shots. This point to me is not that important, as I always can switch back to my 16-85mm. Maybe I will get tired of switching all the time as some of you mentioned, but at the moment I feel ok with it.
Further takeaways from the 55-300mm PLM: it is overall a very good lens. It is fast, reliable, sharp and easy to handle. But if we talk about pure image quality, the 70-210mm is the superior lens - am I right with this statement? Also autofocus speed seems to be better on the 70-210mm.

But overall I have to say, I am very surprised with how satisfied all of you are with the 55-300mm PLM. I expected the coversation to be much more in favour of the 70-210mm lens.

Also I want to thank you for your hints regarding the national parks, I really appreciate it. And Sterby, thank you for clarifying my "pro lens on regular body" dilemma, I am relieved that it is not a problem at all.

[RICHARD L.]

Remember that if the 70-210 gives a field-of-view equivalent to a 320 mm lens in FF, the 55-300 mm gives a FOV equivalent to 450 mm in FF on APSc.

[Lukasabs]

Remember that if the 70-210 gives a field-of-view equivalent to a 320 mm lens in FF, the 55-300 mm gives a FOV equivalent to 450 mm in FF on APSc.

Oh, yes I understand. I thought because the 55-300mm lens is designed for APS-C digital cameras, that the given focal length is therefore equivalent to the FOV. Thanks for clarifying! Thats of course a positive argument for the 55-300mm PLM.

[Sterby]

Wow! Thank you so much for all the input, opinions and sharing your experiences! I would like to respond to some of your arguments and discuss them more in detail:

Many of you noted, that the 70-210mm lens would not be long enough for my needs. Maybe I am missing a point, but to my understanding, the Pentax K-70 with it´s APS-C Sensor would push the focal length to approximately 105-320mm. So it would be around the same length as the 55-300 PLM, or is there a misinterpretation on my side?

Secondly, I see that many of you also would recommend the 60-250mm lens by Pentax. I am sure it is a great lens and I read a couple of articles about it, but standing at 1500$ it is another 300$ more than the 70-210mm and I think this price would be to high for me. Maybe I could save another 300$ extra and spend it on the 60-250mm, but it would only be worth it for me if it is head and shoulders above every other lens in this comparison.

And lastly, my takeaways from your suggestions are that the 55-300mm PLM is the more versatile lens, because it goes down to 55mm and can therefore of course make wider shots. This point to me is not that important, as I always can switch back to my 16-85mm. Maybe I will get tired of switching all the time as some of you mentioned, but at the moment I feel ok with it.
Further takeaways from the 55-300mm PLM: it is overall a very good lens. It is fast, reliable, sharp and easy to handle. But if we talk about pure image quality, the 70-210mm is the superior lens - am I right with this statement? Also autofocus speed seems to be better on the 70-210mm.

But overall I have to say, I am very surprised with how satisfied all of you are with the 55-300mm PLM. I expected the coversation to be much more in favour of the 70-210mm lens.

Also I want to thank you for your hints regarding the national parks, I really appreciate it. And Sterby, thank you for clarifying my "pro lens on regular body" dilemma, I am relieved that it is not a problem at all.

Just a quick experience talk.
I've done wildlife with the 70-200 for some time and the difference between 200mm and 300mm is much smaller than you might think, especially comparing an essentially pro/enthusiast lens with a hobby/whatever lens, more so on 24MP where you have ample amount of cropping options.
As nice as the 55-300 is, the examples you see here are downsized aggressively for viewing on HD or smaller screens. You don't see the aberrations, and these aberrations decrease your cropping power or negating entirely because you will need to downsize to get rid of them. Even a little bit of aberrations will need at least 2x or 3x downsizing.
The 70-210 is mostly free of aberrations, have a nice contrasty image and has a nice washout for bokeh, no hardlining or doubling in the background, it is just much nicer.

Getting the nicer lens is the cheaper option in the long run as well because you will eventually buy one and have the 55-300 gathering dust. It will play well on the next body and on FF if you go that way. Also consider buying used and maybe buying the (old) Tamron 70-200/2.8, same weight, wider aperture, screwdrive AF works snappy and fast.
Lastly, on this trip you will not do any hard wildlife, mostly landscape with wildlife in it. You don't need to go supertele with teleconverters and such, 200mm will be more than enough. (You have to consider the longer the lens the more the air shimmer affects the image, the closer the subject the better)

[RICHARD L.]

Here is the FOV difference between the HD DA 55-300 mm f/4-5.8 ED WR @ 200 mm FL (upper) and @ 300 mm FL (lower) on a K3 III.

[wadge22]

...the 60-250mm lens by Pentax... standing at 1500$ it is another 300$ more than the 70-210mm and I think this price would be to high for me.

I didn't see that part of your response till it was quoted by someone else.

I know you are not in the same country as me, but (if you haven't) you may want to check on actual retail prices after discounts. For us in the US, that one is available for closer to $900 right now, and the deal finder tool has the lens' highest low price of the last 180 days as $999. Not sure if the deals are anything like the same where you are, but I would hope it's available below the 'list price' for you as well.

[UncleVanya]

The DA* 60-250 is often available used far cheaper than the 70-210.

FF and crop lenses are specified in actual focal length not effective focal length. A 200mm lens made for an 8x10 camera adapted to a k-70 would give the same rough image perspective as a 200mm lens designed for apsc.

I own all the lenses I’m talking about or I’ve used them in extensive timeframe (weeks at minimum) in a KP and a Sony a7Riii for the 70-210 and 60-250. The 55-300 is not as crisp as the 300/4.5 I own but it’s better to use it than take a 210mm shot and blow it up. The 70-210 plus a 1.4x is probably better but that’s another expense added on.

[Sterby]

For comparison I'll post some of my low effort wildlife shots with my Tammy 70-200

[ramseybuckeye]

Wow! Thank you so much for all the input, opinions and sharing your experiences! I would like to respond to some of your arguments and discuss them more in detail:

Many of you noted, that the 70-210mm lens would not be long enough for my needs. Maybe I am missing a point, but to my understanding, the Pentax K-70 with it´s APS-C Sensor would push the focal length to approximately 105-320mm. So it would be around the same length as the 55-300 PLM, or is there a misinterpretation on my side?

Secondly, I see that many of you also would recommend the 60-250mm lens by Pentax. I am sure it is a great lens and I read a couple of articles about it, but standing at 1500$ it is another 300$ more than the 70-210mm and I think this price would be to high for me. Maybe I could save another 300$ extra and spend it on the 60-250mm, but it would only be worth it for me if it is head and shoulders above every other lens in this comparison.

And lastly, my takeaways from your suggestions are that the 55-300mm PLM is the more versatile lens, because it goes down to 55mm and can therefore of course make wider shots. This point to me is not that important, as I always can switch back to my 16-85mm. Maybe I will get tired of switching all the time as some of you mentioned, but at the moment I feel ok with it.
Further takeaways from the 55-300mm PLM: it is overall a very good lens. It is fast, reliable, sharp and easy to handle. But if we talk about pure image quality, the 70-210mm is the superior lens - am I right with this statement? Also autofocus speed seems to be better on the 70-210mm.

But overall I have to say, I am very surprised with how satisfied all of you are with the 55-300mm PLM. I expected the coversation to be much more in favour of the 70-210mm lens.

Also I want to thank you for your hints regarding the national parks, I really appreciate it. And Sterby, thank you for clarifying my "pro lens on regular body" dilemma, I am relieved that it is not a problem at all.

Really, I would forget about the crop equivalences, that only comes into play is you are swapping between ASPC and Full Frame. I believe that the 55-300 is faster at autofocus than the 70-210.

[Sterby]

I believe that the 55-300 is faster at autofocus than the 70-210

It only means anything if the AF of the body is fast enough but Lukas has a K-70, not a go-to sports camera. That AF on the K-3III or even on the K-1 would mean something but then you would rather put a nice lens on that body.
I do BIF on a DA* 300 and the SDM is not the fastest, in fact the screwdrive AF on the Tamron 70-200 is faster. Not a problem if you choose your place and don't shoot subjects speeding straight towards you, that angle doesn't even make for good photography anyway.

[Des]

It only means anything if the AF of the body is fast enough but Lukas has a K-70, not a go-to sports camera.

With respect, I don't agree. The extra AF speed on the DA 55-300 PLM will be a huge advantage on the K-70 - as it has been on my K-S2, compared to screw-driven AF lenses like the old 55-300 f4-5.8 or the FA*300 f4.5, or even SDM lenses. The fact that that camera doesn't have the burst speed, extra AF points or better tracking of the K-3 series is neither here nor there.

As nice as the 55-300 is, the examples you see here are downsized aggressively for viewing on HD or smaller screens. You don't see the aberrations, and these aberrations decrease your cropping power or negating entirely because you will need to downsize to get rid of them. Even a little bit of aberrations will need at least 2x or 3x downsizing.

This is not my experience at all. I have never "downsized aggressively" to hide optical flaws with the PLM lens. With many images - where the subject fills a reasonable proportion of the frame - the optical quality is as good as that from the FA*300.

The 70-210 is mostly free of aberrations, have a nice contrasty image and has a nice washout for bokeh, no hardlining or doubling in the background, it is just much nicer.

The 55-300 PLM has quite pleasant bokeh in my experience. I have never had nisen bokeh ("hardlining or doubling in the background") with this lens - in contrast to my old DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8.

Some examples from the PLM:






Let's be clear. I know what really good bokeh looks like - I have four Limited lenses. I'm not saying this is in the same class. Nor am I saying that it is as sharp as a premium lens like my FA*300 f4.5 or DFA 100 f2.8 macro. Of course it isn't. But for ordinary use, the PLM is fine. It's the perfect travel lens. The versatility is invaluable. It's compact, light-weight and affordable. It's a good lens for landscapes, or close-focus, and for entry-level wildlife.

As @Sterby shows, you can get good wildlife images at 200mm on APS-C. And yes 24mp gives scope for cropping. But it's not a substitute for the extra reach of a 300mm lens for wildlife in the field. Even at 300mm, I usually need to crop: for example, the butterfly shot above (taken at 300mm) was cropped from 24mp to about 6mp. That's quite common. Had that image been taken at 200mm and cropped to the same field of view, it would have been down to about 4mp. That's a significant difference.

[mikesbike]

Actually, depending on one's use needs, the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is not a bad suggestion. You don't get WR and only have screw-driven AF, but at a similar weight to the Pentax 70-210mm f/4, you can get twice the shutter speed for moving subjects or for lower lighting situations, hand-held. Then if you should add a suitable 1.4x TC, you'd get out to quite near that 300mm area and still be at f/4, while carrying only the additional weight of the TC.

However, that being said, the greater aperture capability above is not always needed- mainly for situations such as described. For the most part, the scenics being contemplated here are most often addressed under good lighting conditions. In this case, might as well travel with the far lighter, less expensive, and very capable DA 55-300mm PLM with its speedy, quiet AF and WR construction. This seems to be the most rational solution in this case. My older HD DA 55-300mm WR lens has a little more aperture and can keep to f/4.5 out to about 200mm, and with good quality too. Its screw-driven AF is surprisingly improved on my KP body. I don't carry my DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 along with my DA* 200mm f/2.8+ plus 1.4x TC unless I need the aperture range and with extra-fine quality.

[silcam]

How about one of these guys for under $50 ? Remarkably sharp and remarkably overlooked and forgotten (but not by me and a few others). Can be obtained for pocket change and use the saved thousands for something else?
pentax f 70-200 f/4-5.6 smc: Search Result | eBay

[nutz]

SOOOO many lenses that will do what you want done. SOOOO little time to do it!

[rvandenbrink]

My kit for wildlife is the 55-300 plm on the camera (KP) often with the 1.4x converter on it
The 18-135 is always in the bag for wider shots, and is the walkabout lens for street/urban settings
I have a sigma 10-20 for wider yet, I’m still making friends with that lens

Since the converter is on so much, I’m debating getting the 150-450 for wildlife, but then weight and size jump by an order of magnitude (so does IQ apparently). I’m at the point of measuring to see how much I’d need to change up the pack and the bike bag …