[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.

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.

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 www.Photozone.de and look and the review and comparison on both.

[k100d]

you must be new to photography, there are tonnes of so called "price discrepancies", value is relative

i used to own the 55-300 and it is faster at 200 which also makes it more worthwhile

[SpecialK]

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.

If you ever get a chance to use a 55-300, you will likely change your opinion.

[choubacca]

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.

Ok, put size and weight into the mix. I hear the 300mm is way bigger and heavier.

If you are new to a forum does that necessarily mean you are new to photography?

[Vylen]

i have the 55-300.... havent tried the 50-200... but its not that heavy... or big... its quite compact for its range and quality...

it only gets "big" when extending to the 300mm length but thats to be expected

i've sstooed next to a person who was proud to by using their 75-200mm Canon L-glass... and that was big ( almost twice the length?)... i just laughed :P

[CSoars]

Well, quality (optical and physical build) probably surpass the DA 55-200. It's more than just reach and aperture values.

Better glass and longer reach usually = bigger and heavier. If you don't use the tele range much, then the 55-200 is cheap and light for those 'just in case shots'. If you do more wildlife & sports, the 55-300 gets you into the ballpark, but it'll be noisy and slow compared to the faster zooms and primes with in-lens motors (that cost $1000's).

I figure if I don't use a focal range much, I'll cheap out until I see the need for something better. I use a $125 CAD manual focus 135mm lens that gets used for maybe 1 in 20 shots, if that. Middle ground solutions (and consumer tele-zooms) just don't make sense to me, as you'll always feel you spent too little or too much.

[monochrome]

+9

I have had both - they're both nice consumer lenses, especially in bright sunlight.

I sold the 200, kept the 300. They are so close in IQ that the extra reach is the only real difference - maybe the 300 is a might more robust and substantial.

To me, for my needs (college lacrosse), the reach was the only justification, making it worth the extra $100 investment.

Weight:
SMC PENTAX-DA 1:4-5.6 50-200mm ED - 260 g - 9.2 oz
SMC PENTAX-DA 1:4-5.8 55-300mm ED - 440 g - 15.5 oz
Variance - 6.3 oz

Ok, put size and weight into the mix. I hear the 300mm is way bigger and heavier.

Yes, it is larger and heavier. That would be from the extra 100mm.

when I bought my DA 50-200 nearly three years ago, I paid right at $250 for it (less rebate). I bought the DA 55-300 late last hear for around $329.


The 55-300 has decreased demand for the 50-200 in the same way the DA* 16-50 has decreased demand for the DA 16-45. As a result, both new and used prices on the DA 50-200 have dropped dramatically.

[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 $$$

Ok

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

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".

You can always add the 50-200 later. They're going pretty cheap right now on e-bay.

[choubacca]

Why would you buy the 50-200mm if you had the 55-300mm before it?

[k100d]

If you are new to a forum does that necessarily mean you are new to photography?

only people who are new to photography would have these types of questions. i'm just saying get used to it, good glass can be expensive
i would recommend the 55-300

Why would you buy the 50-200mm if you had the 55-300mm before it?

It's a thing called "LBA". And, there are applications where the 50-200 would be very adequate.

However, in the aggregate, go with the 55-300.

And, I agree with K100d.

[aweir]

this ad doesn't help one bit.

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