[Interstellar Whale]

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.

---

What about this one? Pentax HD 55-300mm lens als tweedehands kopen? | CameraNU.nl

they have the Pentax HD DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 ED WR for less

[Bob 256]

Here's a lens that's decent (not fantastic) and affordable. Moreover, it might allow you to explore the range of focal lengths and see what appeals to your style of shooting. I have two of these and when using mid aperture settings and mid to wide zoom focal lengths, it gives very usable photos. Not that fast, and wide open is soft (as well as a tad soft at the 200mm end). Still, I use mine quite a bit and it would be my recommendation to meet your request. Tamron made both its own version and the Pentax ones, the only difference being the "Supermulticoating" lens treatment of the Pentax versions.

The shot below is a cropped portion (approx 50%) of a full-frame with this lens (@60mm f10).

PENTAX K/AF TAMRON AF ASPHERICAL LD (IF) 28-200MM 1:3.8-5.6 CAMERA LENS, JAPAN | eBay

[angerdan]

1. so for context i currently use a SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED but i'm finding it lacking in sharpness (i haven't used it a lot, so it might be sharper if change settings.), but i also think it's not enough telephoto.
2. so i was looking around and found this lens SMC Pentax-FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8 and wondered if using a older lens might be a good idea?
3. i don't want to spend too much since i don't think i will be using it very regularly. but it needs to be automatic since i'm mainly planning on shooting wildlife with it. my current kit consists of an 16-85mm and a 90mm lens, so it doesn't have to start at 50mm.
4. somewhere else i got the recommendations of the Tamron AF Di LD Macro 70-300mm F4-5.6
5. and the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6

1. It's a kit zoom - cheap and light. Good to start with.
2. The FA 100-300 isn't sharper than your 50-200
3. Which budget do you have? enough for a used FA* 300mm or the 55-300 PLM?
4. Is about the same level of sharpness at 300mm like your 50-200mm at the long end.
5. Be aware of this lens, i can't recommend it to anyone who has a interest on sharpness or resolution.

My recommendations:
<= 1105g DA, FA, F Series Lenses with Autofocus | PentaxForums.com

• $400 - DA 50-300mm PLM
• $600 - FA* 300mm 4.5
• $700 - F* 300mm 4.5
• $800 - DA* 300mm 4.5

[kypfer]

so for context i currently use a SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED but i'm finding it lacking in sharpness (i haven't used it a lot, so it might be sharper if change settings.), but i also think it's not enough telephoto. so i was looking around and found this lens SMC Pentax-FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8 and wondered if using a older lens might be a good idea? i don't want to spend too much since i don't think i will be using it very regularly. but it needs to be automatic since i'm mainly planning on shooting wildlife with it.

First, I'd practice with the 50-200mm you've already got.
The example I have is perfectly adequate as far as sharpness goes, so, unless yours is faulty, your lack of sharpness may well be down to technique.
I also have an FA 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (slightly different model) and again, it's a good lens, but if you can't get a clear picture with a 200mm lens, a 300mm lens will be even worse!
What shutter speeds are you using?
Most wildlife moves. Combine that with disturbance from wind or even unsteadiness from uneven terrain and you've got a "perfect storm" for blurred pictures.
My "default" settings are TAv, 1/1500sec @ f/8. That'll cope with most scenarios.
If the light's good and the subject static you can wind down the shutter speed and take any advantage available from a lower ISO, but at least you should be in a position to start with that'll give you a good shot
I also have the Tamron 70-300mm and find it very adequate, if a little "quirky" when being used as a macro at 300mm … excellent for butterflies and similar, but it is what may be described as a "two-stage" lens, the macro facility needs to be separately engaged, and it only works at the telephoto (180-300mm) end, so there can be a bit of "double-shuffle" to change from macro to wider angle or vice-versa.
Good luck!

---

Last edited by kypfer; 12-11-2022 at 03:04 PM.

[Des]

I see from your profile that you have a K-S2. I have one too. From experience (K100D Super, K-30, K-3, KP, K-3iii) I would say that telephoto lenses with screwdrive autofocus will focus faster and more accurately on the K-3 series or KP than on entry models like the K-S2. But with the 55-300 PLM the gap is narrowed, because of the electronic aperture and AF control.

Trying to get a cheap tele zoom is false economy. Just get the PLM. It's very reasonably priced. Fast, quiet, very good resolution, folds up to a compact size, WR and with rendering and colour to match your 16-85.

Even if you are not a frequent wildlife shooter, when you want it for moving subjects the AF is really useful. It's also a good lens for landscapes, plants, pets, people etc.

[Sandy Hancock]

my biggest problem is that i don't know how much i will use it, or get the opportunity to use it. because besides birds i don't encounter that much wildlife.

Don't forget that telephoto lenses are not just for wildlife. I would never travel without one.

[ramseybuckeye]

Another problem with the Sigma and Tamron 7x-300 lenses is inconsistency, and the old Pentax Film era models suffer from that too. I tried several before finally getting Pentax DA55-300, which was great, but with slow noisy autofocus and as long as you stopped down, I couldn't use it wide open. Since I have gotten the 55-300PLM and it is a vast improvement, Des and Sandy showed some good examples above. If you get a good lens, you will use it more, and this lens is very versatile. I would advise you to save up for the PLM lens, if you can't wait, don't spend more than $35 for any of those others, because you will probably be disappointed.

[mikesbike]

they have the Pentax HD DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 ED WR for less

I would recommend this one. Even the new price is pretty modest for this much zoom range and the fine imaging this lens can provide, and with HD coatings plus WR construction to go with your K-S2's WR construction. This lens is very well-built. A WR camera body is not functionally WR unless it includes a WR lens. I previously had the non HD WR version, and was surprised to discover noticeably improved image quality from the HD coatings. The PLM RE version will be better for doing video, which I rarely do, and it will AF faster, but this one is good enough for my uses. I really like it.

[angerdan]

Don't forget that telephoto lenses are not just for wildlife. I would never travel without one.

Same for me.
Awesome phoos by the way!
I like sunset and ice

[SFX]

"Pentax HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE" is the lens you must have. For sure for 100%. Razor sharp at aperture 8.0. Recommended for everything, including wildlife.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

they have the Pentax HD DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 ED WR for less

yes, they do, but for the difference in Euro's the more expensive one is the better one and as it is retractable, it is much more pleasant to have with you than the cheaper version. You could of course hire this lens.
But if you do not know how much use it will get, keep the money in your pocket until you know what you want and why you want it. You could also look for an 18-250 from Pentax, you can come across quite cheap, but the 55-300, especially the PLM-version, is better.

[Spock]

If lack of autofocus is not a dealbreaker, how about an SMC A70-210 f4?
It is a beautifully made and optically excellent lens that is a joy to use. It produces sharp images with fantastic vintage looking colour tones. It even has a useful macro mode and a built in hood!
I did test shots to compare it to my FA* 80-200 f2.8 and there really wasn't much of a difference between the images.
I really like the one touch zoom feature too.

I had a DA50-200 and the A70-210F4 images are head and shoulders better.

[rod_grant]

I agree with those who extol the virtues of the 55-300PLM.
I had am earlier version and the PLM runs rings around the old one.
I also have a Sigma 150-500 and it hardly gets any use now as cropping from the PLM generally gives a better image.
These two pics are 1. severely cropped. 2. same image straight out of camera.
@ 300mm.
That is sharp enough for my old eyes.

[angerdan]

but it needs to be automatic since i'm mainly planning on shooting wildlife with it.

It seems the TO wants automatic (probably af).

[normhead]

but it needs to be automatic since i'm mainly planning on shooting wildlife with it.

You're in tough spot....telephotos cost more money, just on glass per pound basis.

This F 70-210 cost me $60.
A mink


DA 60-250 @88mm


DA* 60-250 @250mm


DA*200 2.8


A sharp 200 is better than a soft 300, IMHO. Many of my wildlife images are taken at 200mm or under. I'd save money, and keep shooting with your 50-200 until you get some images. It makes no sense to buy something that might not be as good or equal. The DA 55-300 PLM is the cheapest lens I'll use except for the odd bit of shooting a different lens just for fun.

No birds that's ac ompettely different story. For birds I don't like to go under 400mm.

Like DA 55-300 PLM with the 1.4TC


Still under 300mm. It's more about learning to get close than the length of the lens most of the time.