Is the Pentax DA 55-300 mm lens worth the $300+?...No

Marc Sabatella · 04-11-2009, 11:31 PM

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.

Sean Nelson · 04-11-2009, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by choubacca

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.

IsaacSteiner · 04-12-2009, 05:04 AM

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

xjjohnno · 04-12-2009, 05:25 AM

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.

kenyee · 04-12-2009, 05:26 AM

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...

**Michaelina2** · 04-12-2009, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by racinsince55

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.

dylansalt · 04-12-2009, 11:40 AM

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

alohadave · 04-12-2009, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by racinsince55

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.

alohadave · 04-12-2009, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by choubacca

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).

**Ash** · 04-12-2009, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Sean Nelson

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...

res3567 · 04-12-2009, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by aweir

this ad doesn't help one bit.

http://www.pentaxian.com/pdf/ads/PEN_1327_LBA_Poster.pdf

Yea. They harping on LBA thing to get you buy thier lens.

**dadipentak** · 04-12-2009, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by choubacca

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.

mel · 04-12-2009, 06:10 PM

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?

SpecialK · 04-12-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

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.

**monochrome** · 04-12-2009, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by mel

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

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

04-11-2009, 11:31 PM	#16
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	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
Sean Nelson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 353	Originally posted by choubacca 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
IsaacSteiner Senior Member 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
xjjohnno Veteran Member 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
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	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
Michaelina2 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: SE Michigan USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,300	Originally posted by racinsince55 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
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	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
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by racinsince55 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
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by choubacca 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 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Sean Nelson 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...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-12-2009, 06:01 PM	#26
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by aweir this ad doesn't help one bit. http://www.pentaxian.com/pdf/ads/PEN_1327_LBA_Poster.pdf Yea. They harping on LBA thing to get you buy thier lens.

04-12-2009, 06:04 PM	#27
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by choubacca 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 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
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Quote: 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
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by mel 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