[spiralcity]

I purchased this lens from a member on this site. I'm still waffling on how I feel about this glass. At the price point, I find it adequate. With good light it performs decent, other than that, well, it just isn't what I was hoping for. I am curious if the newer version is any better?

A photo from my backyard.

[Madaboutpix]

Coming from the smc Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED, which uses the same optical formula as the HD, only with less effective coatings, I felt the HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE was a significant improvement on my K-3. Optically, the images are crisper and a tad sharper. I would have little hesitation to use it wide open at the long end, where I would have routinely stopped down the smc version to at least F6.3 to avoid a slight softness. To benefit from these improvements, however, you would have to make sure that you obtain a good copy of the PLM (both 55-300 versions that I used qualified for that category, at least in my estimation). At face value, your posted sample looks fine to me, although the resolution provided is not really sufficient for a qualified opinion.

To my mind, however, the greatest improvement of the PLM over the two previous 55-300 iterations lies in the AF speed and accuracy. Here, even on the K-3, the PLM is indeed a game changer. At least my personal keeper rates, particularly with pets and zoo animals, have risen dramatically.

Given that you remain somewhat unspecific about what you dislike about your current lens, here are some recent sample shots I got from my copy of the PLM (photo info available on my SmugMug site, where you also find full-res JPEGs, just click on samples; all images processed to taste in DxO PhotoLab 5):













---------- Post added 10-03-22 at 08:48 PM ----------

Still, all of the above doesn't mean that the old smc Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED was a bad lens. After all, used with a little care and patience (not to mention a bit of DxO post processing magic), it would also produce images like these:

[mlag]

It has been since long my travel tele lens. I had a similar feeling: it is a nice as tele but...

It was an attractive priced zoom telelens, and as such not the sharpest lens, it is a bit slow on autofocus for fast objects, and a bit slow on light (F5.8) if you want to shoot wildlife at dusk or in autumn/winter....

However It is also a light, compact telelens, well at least when i compare with my recent acquired 150-450mm which outperforms this lens on everything but "portability" (weight and size).

So I still own both... prefer the 150-450 for performance, the 55-300 for compactness (but only if compact is really needed).

What do you want to use your tele for ?
(for me : safari, wildlife were the use cases that made me start looking to new tele solution).

[Madaboutpix]

There's a probably a reason for different tiers (and accordingly price points) of telezoom lenses in the Pentax line-up. It's just unreasonable to expect a 300-dollar lens to perform like its new-formula 400-dollar successor, and even less so like a honking 1,900-dollar lens.

While there is that law of diminishing returns, and newer designs needn't always be earth-shatteringly better, you still tend to get what you pay for, at least in my experience. Which leaves us users to decide how much we can afford or are willing to pay, and how much is good enough for our needs (or just wishes, nothing wrong with that).

---

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 10-03-2022 at 01:58 PM. Reason: Nuance.

[Des]

My experience is much like Marc's (@madaboutpix). I agree completely with his comments.

I had a DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8 (optically identical to your lens, except without HD coatings) and have had two copies of the 55-300mm f4.5-6.3 PLM. Much of what I said in my review of the DA L (SMC Pentax-DA L 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED Reviews - DA L Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database) is equally applicable to the HD DA 55-300mm f4-5.8 WR.

Like Marc, I got some very satisfying images with the screw driven AF version.






The PLM has slightly better centre resolution wide open. I don't feel the same compunction to stop down as with the DA-L. It might also be a little sharper in the edges and corners, even stopped down, but that's a subjective impression only. There's not a lot in it really.

The main difference in image quality is in the bokeh, contrast and overall rendering. The PLM can produce images that look like those from a more pro-grade lens.








(I suspect this is why you are feeling underwhelmed by the HD-DA 55-300mm f4-5.8 WR. There's nothing wrong with your sample image (the resolution is fine) - the bokeh and rendering are just a bit meh.)

And of course the AF doesn't compare. Out with the coffee grinder noise and slow response of the screwdriven AF, in with AF so fast and quiet you wonder whether it is working.


The compact size of the PLM when retracted is another plus.

A few words of caution.
1. Technique and processing skills are important in getting the best from any consumer-grade lens.
2. You can't expect the resolution of a consumer zoom to match that of a 300mm prime. If the subject fills a significant part of the frame, you might not see the difference, but you will when using it in more testing conditions. And of course the extra stop or so of aperture can make a big difference.
3. 300mm is often just the starting point for wildlife shots. Beyond 300mm almost inevitably involves much more expensive and much heavier lenses, starting with the DA*300mm + TC combination and going to the DFA 150-450 and beyond.
4. To get full value from the superior AF of the PLM requires a K-3iii.
5. The PLM is fragile. The plastic barrel will break easily if you drop it, as I found out: What to avoid with your 55-300 PLM lens! - PentaxForums.com
6. There is always sample variation in lenses. (Maybe more so in consumer lenses.) My second copy of the PLM is better than the first.

[mikesbike]

I purchased this lens from a member on this site. I'm still waffling on how I feel about this glass. At the price point, I find it adequate. With good light it performs decent, other than that, well, it just isn't what I was hoping for. I am curious if the newer version is any better?

A photo from my backyard.

I originally had the DA 55-300mm non-HD, non-WR version having the same optics. It was slightly damaged making the filter threads unusable, and I wanted the WR feature, so I gave the old one away to friends along with my old K-r camera and DA 18-55mm kit lens. I was quite surprised to find the HD coatings made so much improvement in IQ, though the original was no slouch. I am even happier with it after getting the KP, where the screw-driven AF is improved quite noticeably with it on this camera. IQ is also yet more improved.

---------- Post added 10-03-22 at 05:06 PM ----------

With good light it performs decent, other than that, well, it just isn't what I was hoping for. I am curious if the newer version is any better?

Yes, its very average aperture capability means some compromise in usage, which is to be expected. Any lens with a wide open range of f/4-4.8 or so will not be in the same league as much more expensive tele lenses going out to 300mm, and having a larger aperture for use under dimmer conditions.

Your squirrel shot looks quite fine, obviously taken under good lighting conditions.

[spiralcity]

I originally had the DA 55-300mm non-HD, non-WR version having the same optics. It was slightly damaged making the filter threads unusable, and I wanted the WR feature, sos I gave the old one away to friends along with my old K-r camera and DA 18-55mm kit lens. I was quite surprised to find the HD coatings made so much improvement in IQ, though the original was no slouch. I am even happier with it after getting the KP, where the screw-driven AF is improved quite noticeably with it on this camera. IQ is also yet more improved.[COLOR="Silver"]



Yes, its very average aperture capability means some compromise in usage, which is to be expected. Any lens with a wide open range of f/4-4.8 or so will not be in the same league as much more expensive tele lenses going out to 300mm, and having a larger aperture for use under dimmer conditions.

Your squirrel shot looks quite fine, obviously taken under good lighting conditions.

Thanks for the comment on my pic. Actually, my back yad is shady so I have to work harder at grabbing decent images while shooting there.

This chippy found the good light.



---------- Post added 10-04-2022 at 12:36 AM ----------

Thanks for the reply's, folks.
Yes, I am fully aware that this is a consumer lens and yes as I stated above, at the price point it will do. Unfortunately for me my budget keeps me below 500.00, but that would have been enough for the newer model. so perhaps I have a bit of buyer remorse due to the fact I should have just spent my money on the newer model. But all is not lost, I can make this lens work while I own it, but I definitely will be putting it on the Bay this winter.

---

Last edited by spiralcity; 10-04-2022 at 12:39 AM.

[mikesbike]

Again- another nice shot! Yes, there are advantages to the newer PLM version. Its primary improvement comes from the very quick, silent AF performance. However, like many other things, there are advantages and also disadvantages. I decided against getting the PLM version and am very content with my HD WR version. For practical purposes, though I now use my little K-S2 model and mainly my very fine KP, both of which the PLM technology would work perfectly, I am still fond of sometimes using my still very well-performing K-5 IIs, and occasionally my old K20D- especially in the Fall for its rich color rendition. These last two camera models will not function with PLM, while they are perfectly fine with screw-driven, SDM, or DC driven AF. In fact, as I said, the screw-driven AF is noticeably improved with the KP. So much of practical use will depend of which camera models you own or intend to own and use for the purposes these lenses offer. If fast-moving subjects are a major interest, the PLM lens, with the appropriate camera model, would be of foremost advantage. Again with the appropriate camera model, the PLM lens should offer superior video performance as well.

There are some other aspects also. The HD WR version is not of internal focus design, so it does not exhibit the typical "focus breathing" which imposes a shorter focal length effect when used at shorter shooting distances. Therefore, when getting somewhat close to a bird or other subject, you will come away with a larger image in your frame than you would with the PLM version at that distance. Also, one reason for the sometimes slower-than-average AF with the HD WR version is its longer rotational throw of the focusing collar, more often so when following a subject from a near distance to a farther distance. But this design is actually better when fine-adjusting manual focus, including use of the "quick shift" feature for overriding AF to fine-tune focus. While a short throw helps with AF speed, it becomes more difficult for dealing manually with fine adjustment of focus. Then there is the fact of a slightly faster, larger aperture of the HD WR version than the f/4.5-6.3 of the PLM version. The older HD WR lens you now have can keep to a brighter f/4-4.5 on out to around 200mm, which is just around a stop off from the big, expensive, 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses at their maximum, yet with a wider zoom range than those big, expensive lenses, which are not capable of the sometimes valuable 55mm range.

I also own faster, more expensive tele alternatives. The DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, the DA* 200mm f/2.8, and the FA* 300mm f/4.5, all wonderful lenses, and a Tamron AF 1.4 TC as well. These are far more compact and easy-handling than a huge 70-200mm f/2.8 would be, and they come into play for the last word in IQ, and especially the f/2.8 capability for extra low light use. However, my even far more compact DA HD 55-300mm f/4-5.8 WR lens is the more frequently-used, and with great satisfaction.

[Des]

he HD WR version is not of internal focus design, so it does not exhibit the typical "focus breathing" which imposes a shorter focal length effect when used at shorter shooting distances. Therefore, when getting somewhat close to a bird or other subject, you will come away with a larger image in your frame than you would with the PLM version at that distance.

I did a comparison between the DA L and the PLM a few years ago (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.

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; you can then get about the same magnification as with the screw-driven models.

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.

Personally I give more weight to the shorter MFD of the PLM (0.95m v 1.4m). It's more convenient.

Then there is the fact of a slightly faster, larger aperture of the HD WR version than the f/4.5-6.3 of the PLM version.

The one-third stop can help where you are pushing a slower-than-desired shutter speed, and it can make a difference with AF performance. But in practice, it's not a big factor. Assuming the same shutter speed, 300mm f5.8 2500 ISO with the screwdriven version v 300mm f6.3 3200 ISO with the PLM - on the KP you would hardly notice the noise/DR difference. If I really want f5.6 with the PLM I would just zoom back out to about 260mm where it's f5.6.

[ehrwien]

These last two camera models will not function with PLM, while they are perfectly fine with screw-driven, SDM, or DC driven AF.

I think the PLM focus motor works just fine even with older cameras than do support it, but it is rather the KAF4 electronic aperture control that those cameras don't support, so you're left with a wide open aperture when photographing with a combo of an older camera with the 55-300 PLM and other KAF4 lenses, but focussing will work just fine.
I know some folks here use/used or have at least tested this, but can't remember who it was exactly.

[mikesbike]

I think the PLM focus motor works just fine even with older cameras than do support it, but it is rather the KAF4 electronic aperture control that those cameras don't support, so you're left with a wide open aperture when photographing with a combo of an older camera with the 55-300 PLM and other KAF4 lenses, but focussing will work just fine.
I know some folks here use/used or have at least tested this, but can't remember who it was exactly.

Yes, it is the aperture control that fails with PLM lenses on older camera models. Those older cameras also have in-body electronic aperture control, not needing to use the aperture ring to set aperture, but a different kind of electronic control than that with PLM designs.

[Des]

I know some folks here use/used or have at least tested this, but can't remember who it was exactly.

The K-5 series and older don't support KAF4. But @Normhead has been a proponent of the PLM on the K-5, even without aperture control, because it is so good wide open.

[mikesbike]

The K-5 series and older don't support KAF4. But @Normhead has been a proponent of the PLM on the K-5, even without aperture control, because it is so good wide open.

This would be ok for action shooting or for desiring a shallower DOF most of the time, and there would be the benefit of the PLM better AF for action. However, that is not me, and no doubt many others also. This would be a waste of money for such a reduced capacity, unless I really needed that PLM AF speed very badly. I sometimes need more DOF, not less. And I very rarely shoot faster action with my DA HD 55-300mm WR lens than it can handle well, especially on my KP.

ephotozine tested all 3 versions. All 3 were given very high marks, with differences depending on what one is looking for, of course. And this I think is the reality here. The AF performance of the new PLM version gave it an advantage in the overall rating. It received a high rating for sharpness too, and tested slightly better at the frame edges at 300mm, but the HD WR version turned in more consistently "very good" ratings over more of the aperture range in the central area, which at longer FL settings tend to be the most important part of the frame anyway. At shorter FL settings, the older HD WR model was able to achieve "excellent" marks centrally, consistently across most of the aperture range, even at some FL settings reaching "outstanding" levels while the edges were consistently very good-to-excellent. The latest PLM (again) ahead in edge performance at the longer 300mm setting, but not as often reaching excellent levels at any FL settings, yet was consistenly "very good" centrally. Bokeh was highly rated for both, but even better for the PLM model. Boils down to both being very capable of fine imaging, especially for such a price point. If one does much shooting of high-speed subjects and/or video, the choice would be clear for the PLM version, for sure.

[RICHARD L.]

I asked fellow Canadian Norm if there were any advantages to swapping my HD DA 55-300 mm f/4-5.8 ED WR for the newer PLM version on my K3 and K3 III. He said apart from faster focusing (for action), there would be no benefit considering my style of photography (landscape and architecture) often done on a tripod. I am very satisfied with the results I get right now. Norm used to be a photography teacher, so I value his opinion a lot.

Regards