Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-11-2009, 11:31 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
FWIW, I have the 50-200 and have only used the 55-300 briefly in a store. I have no doubt whatsoever the 55-300 is a better lens, and worth the extra money for many people, but that still doesn't mean it's the better choice for everyone. I *do* find the difference in size & weight significant, and I find 200mm is long enough *for me* 95% of the time (and when it isn't, 300mm usually isn't long enough, either). So I'm happy with the smaller cheaper lens that is still as good as I need in IQ and as long as I need most of the time.

04-11-2009, 11:53 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Sean Nelson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 353
QuoteOriginally posted by choubacca Quote
If you can get the 50-200mm lens for effectively $50 dollars on Newegg with the kit deal how does the extra 100mm justify $250 dollars?
There is a "law of diminishing returns" with lenses just as there is for so many other manufactured items. You get (in rough terms) 80% of the capabilities for the first 20% of the cost, and beyond that each increment of cost brings smaller and smaller increments of capability.

If you don't need the extra capabilities, you don't need to pay the extra cost - lucky you. If you do need them, then the extra cost really isn't the issue.
04-12-2009, 05:04 AM   #18
Senior Member
IsaacSteiner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stouffville, ON, Canada
Posts: 181
Yeah, I too have a DA 50-200mm, and I really love the IQ. My mom has a Tamron 70-300mm, and the extra 100mm is nice (in some circumstances), but the 50-200mm is so small and compact. For now it's great. I do want to save up for a faster 200mm or 300mm, but for now, it's perfect .. does the job.

But I also have no doubts that the DA 55-300mm, would be an awesome lens..

-Isaac
04-12-2009, 05:25 AM   #19
Veteran Member
xjjohnno's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
I can't comment on the 50-200, I do have a 55-300 and use that in preference to my Sigma 70-300 and reckon it was money well spent.

04-12-2009, 05:26 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
the other thing you can do is pick up a Tamron 70-300 for $100 instead and use the 55-200 when you want a lighter lens. You'll have to deal w/ PF but it's sharper than the 55-200 and also the 55-300 according to photozone. The 55-300 has a nice SMC coating which gives it better contrast/colors though...
04-12-2009, 06:09 AM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fly-over, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
QuoteOriginally posted by racinsince55 Quote
Here's what will happen.

You save the $183....

A couple of week later, you see a rare bird you want a shot of and say to yourself, "Boy, if I just had the extra 100mm".
Grrrr... I remember when...

Yep... It's the "one that got away" that makes the DA 55-300 worth it... and it only takes one miss... my walk around in nature lens. For a ton of examples, check it out in my photo-journal... link below.

BTW: I have them both... once I got the 55-300, the 50-200 has not been used.
04-12-2009, 11:40 AM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Durban, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,051
The 50-200 would make an ideal hiking lens as it is small and compact and lighter.

But I don't own that lens.

I have the 55-300 and if ever there was a "sleeper" lens this IS the one.

Have shot at every conceivable focal length,aperture and lighting and have yet to find weakness.

I could offer up a ton of shots which would show what a fantastic lens this is.

Dylan
04-12-2009, 01:33 PM   #23
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteOriginally posted by racinsince55 Quote
As an owner of both the DA 50-200 and DA 55-300, I can, without reservation, tell you that the 55-300 is worth the extra money. There's more to it than just the extra 100mm. Go to Welcome to Photozone! and look and the review and comparison on both.
++ I have both as well, and the 55-300 blows away the 50-200.

04-12-2009, 01:37 PM   #24
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteOriginally posted by choubacca Quote
Ok

$783 for the Pentax K2000 and the DA 55-300mm lens (bought separately through amazon)

OR

$600 for the Pentax K2000 with the DA 50-200mm lens bundled together on Newegg.

Still weighing the options. 183 dollars is alot more. I've read the reviews on Photozone. But they seem to be the ONLY people unimpressed with the 50-200mm. I have to think more about this, but contracticting viewpoints still havent convinced me to spend that extra $$$
If you aren't convinced to buy it, then don't. The 50-200 is a capable lens, and the size can't be beat. I used mine happily until I got my 55-300. I haven't used the 50-200 since then. Longer range, better performance wide open (no vignetting unlike the 50-200).
04-12-2009, 02:55 PM   #25
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
QuoteOriginally posted by Sean Nelson Quote
There is a "law of diminishing returns" with lenses just as there is for so many other manufactured items. You get (in rough terms) 80% of the capabilities for the first 20% of the cost, and beyond that each increment of cost brings smaller and smaller increments of capability.

If you don't need the extra capabilities, you don't need to pay the extra cost - lucky you. If you do need them, then the extra cost really isn't the issue.
Excellent point Sean.
If it matters to you, you'd pay for it - saying that the extra cost can't be justified reflects your own personal value for that extra money rather than that of the added benefit of the better lens.

55-300 is better than the 50-200. Hands down.
But you can still capture beautiful images with the 50-200...
04-12-2009, 06:01 PM   #26
Veteran Member
res3567's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Houston Tx.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,876
QuoteOriginally posted by aweir Quote
Yea. They harping on LBA thing to get you buy thier lens.
04-12-2009, 06:04 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,073
QuoteOriginally posted by choubacca Quote
If you can get the 50-200mm lens for effectively $50 dollars on Newegg with the kit deal how does the extra 100mm justify $250 dollars? Even if you bought the 50-200mm separate, you will still spend an average $150 dollars more for that extra 100mm.

In terms of justifying a purchase, I'm not seeing it with the 55-300mm. The cost doesn't justify the means.
Huh? That extra 100mm makes it much more useful--well worth it as far as I'm concerned.
04-12-2009, 06:10 PM   #28
mel
Veteran Member
mel's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,531
Okay so let me get this straight. The 50-300 is a good lens? I'm asking because my "soccer" lens is experiencing some separation in one of the rear elements. It's old anyway so it's time for a new one. Seeing how I just bought the 50-135, um, cost is an issue and this looks like a decent price if the quality is up there. So the concensus is the quality is up there?
04-12-2009, 06:17 PM   #29
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,428
QuoteQuote:
Okay so let me get this straight. The 50-300 is a good lens?
Uh, yeah, straight. There are a couple threads dedicated to this lens with nearly all positive comments.
04-12-2009, 07:55 PM   #30
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,437
QuoteOriginally posted by mel Quote
I'm asking because my "soccer" lens. . .
Mel: I use mine almost exclusively for college lacrosse - IQ for $ is outstanding. The student paper kids with their massive white lenses don't get anything any better. The only time I've had all my shots rejected for the team website was when a local pro happened to shoot a game - and that was because he was better positioned and had better timing, not the IQ
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
100mm, 50-200mm, da 55-300 mm, dollars, k-mount, lens, mm lens, pentax da, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm Traveling, Want Inexpensive Telephoto Zooms : Pentax 55-300 Or Sigma 70-300 APO Christopher M.W.T Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 01-01-2010 07:48 PM
FA* 300/4.5 worth buying? Deimo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 12-22-2009 03:48 AM
TESTED: Pentax 55-300 vs. Sigma 70-300 vs. Tamron 70-300 falconeye Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 05-14-2009 04:01 PM
Sigma 100-300 APO vs New Pentax 300 dylansalt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 07-24-2008 05:44 AM
Pentax FA J 75-300 lens vs. Sigma 70-300 APO DG Clem Nichols Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 04-09-2007 07:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:58 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top