Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-11-2009, 07:12 PM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21
Is the Pentax DA 55-300 mm lens worth the $300+?...No

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.

04-11-2009, 07:22 PM   #2
racinsince55
Guest




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.
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.
04-11-2009, 07:23 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
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
04-11-2009, 07:28 PM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,944
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.

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

04-11-2009, 07:38 PM   #5
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21
Original Poster
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.
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?
04-11-2009, 08:00 PM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,250
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
04-11-2009, 08:01 PM   #7
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 322
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.
04-11-2009, 08:15 PM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,608
+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


Last edited by monochrome; 04-11-2009 at 08:43 PM.
04-11-2009, 08:16 PM   #9
racinsince55
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by choubacca Quote
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.
04-11-2009, 08:26 PM   #10
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21
Original Poster
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 $$$
04-11-2009, 08:30 PM   #11
racinsince55
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by choubacca Quote
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.
04-11-2009, 08:36 PM   #12
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 21
Original Poster
Why would you buy the 50-200mm if you had the 55-300mm before it?
04-11-2009, 08:38 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
QuoteOriginally posted by choubacca Quote
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
04-11-2009, 08:40 PM   #14
racinsince55
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by choubacca Quote
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.
04-11-2009, 08:52 PM   #15
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 58
this ad doesn't help one bit.

http://www.pentaxian.com/pdf/ads/PEN_1327_LBA_Poster.pdf
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 05:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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