Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

wowtip · 09-24-2009, 07:04 PM

If Pentax could release a WR version of 55-300 at a small premium, I would pick it up right away.

photogerald · 09-24-2009, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by wowtip

If Pentax could release a WR version of 55-300 at a small premium, I would pick it up right away.

Yes, a WR version really would be nice. I'd also like for them to resurrect the 16-45in WR guise (in my dreams).

Nubi · 09-24-2009, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

Primes are fine, I can only afford zooms, cheap ones at that

.

Cheers. Mike.

Hi, Mike,

Let "BillMeLater" help you. You only live once.

Spock · 09-24-2009, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Nubi

Dude,
never too late to buy a nice prime or two.

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

And what (nice) or two) Pentax prime would that be?. Dude, get real, "55-300 rips it in and SR holds it steady" and all this without breaking the bank.

.

Cheers. Mike.

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

Primes are fine, I can only afford zooms, cheap ones at that

.

Cheers. Mike.

How about an M or A200 F4? These are compact, quality (metal and glass) lenses that at F4 are faster than any zoom. Sure they are a little short at 200mm compared to a -300 zoom but if necessary with a 1.4 converter they would stretch to 280mm at F5.6.

BB_Zone28 · 09-24-2009, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

...

For example, the aperture is actually continuously variable, and not changing in steps. the steps reported only correspond to steps in the 1/2 EV indexing used by Pentax in their mount. I would be willing to bet, that the exposure actually changes within the constant F stop range and is really only accurate at the middle focal length within the range. In this way the 1/2 stop steps become +/- 1/4 stop deviations from correct (i.e. perfect) exposure.

...

I tested my 55-300mm with a K20D set to 1/3 EV steps, the camera displays f-number incremental steps of f/4.0 to f/4.5 to f/5.0 to f/5.6. When set to 1/2 steps the camera displays f/4.0 to f/4.5 to f/5.6. Note that f/4.5 can't be both -1/3 EV and -1/2 EV changes, so the f-numbers aren't displayed very accurately. But that's another issue.

When you zoom the lens, it jumps to from f/4.0 to f/4.5 at 120mm and stays there thru 190mm using the 1/3 EV system. Based on your hypothesis, the f-number would be most accurate at about 120 + (190-120)/2 = 155mm for f/4.5.

Just for reference, if you calculate f-number based on aperture size:
-1/3 EV change should be f/4.38 rounded to f/4.4
-1/2 EV change should be f/4.62 rounded to f/4.6
-2/3 EV change should be f/4.90 rounded to f/4.9

BB

VaughnA · 09-25-2009, 10:24 AM

Back to the Topic..

Got the 55-300 today. But it's raining (HARD) outside so I can't go and really play with it yet. But the few shots from the front window look very good. I'm thinking I won't miss the 50-200.

wowtip · 09-25-2009, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by VaughnA

Back to the Topic..

Got the 55-300 today. But it's raining (HARD) outside so I can't go and really play with it yet. But the few shots from the front window look very good. I'm thinking I won't miss the 50-200.

The one reason I could see to keep the 50-200 is that it is smaller. But I haven't seen the 55-300 in real life, maybe the size difference is not that great?

**Ex Finn.** · 09-25-2009, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Nubi

Hi, Mike,

Let "BillMeLater" help you. You only live once.

That is an idea, except.... my wife would "kill me now"

. And then who would enjoy the lenses.

Cheers. Mike.

**Ex Finn.** · 09-25-2009, 12:57 PM

The 55-300 is not much bigger or heavier than 50-200, both are nice and light.

Cheers. Mike.

legacyb4 · 09-25-2009, 01:15 PM

I have the 55-300 for weekend sports use and I'd trade up in a heartbeat!

Originally posted by wowtip

If Pentax could release a WR version of 55-300 at a small premium, I would pick it up right away.

ve2vfd · 09-25-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

Primes are fine, I can only afford zooms, cheap ones at that

.

Join the club!

I'd love a DA*300... but I settle for my 55-300 and am quite satisfied with it. I've had mine since the week it came out and never regretted my purchase.

Pat

VaughnA · 09-25-2009, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by ve2vfd

Join the club!

I'd love a DA*300... but I settle for my 55-300 and am quite satisfied with it. I've had mine since the week it came out and never regretted my purchase.

Pat

See my thread in the Post Your Photos Forum. I'm in love!! Absolutely no regret about selling the 50-200 at all. A shocking difference in IQ to my old eyes.

Nubi · 09-25-2009, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

That is an idea, except.... my wife would "kill me now"

. And then who would enjoy the lenses.

Cheers. Mike.

Oh, very good come back.

PentHassyKon · 09-25-2009, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by wowtip

The one reason I could see to keep the 50-200 is that it is smaller. But I haven't seen the 55-300 in real life, maybe the size difference is not that great?

Been meaning to finish the post but here's a size comparison:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/68884-da-50-20...m-comparo.html

If you carry your equipment in a bag - not a problem with carrying the 55-300 vs the 50-200.
But.... If you like to carry lenses in your pants pocket, the bulk of the 55-300 can be an issue unless you have cargo pants to stow it in.

**Ex Finn.** · 09-25-2009, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by PentHassyKon

Been meaning to finish the post but here's a size comparison:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/68884-da-50-20...m-comparo.html

If you carry your equipment in a bag - not a problem with carrying the 55-300 vs the 50-200.
But.... If you like to carry lenses in your pants pocket, the bulk of the 55-300 can be an issue unless you have cargo pants to stow it in.

55-300 vs.A 70-210 f4, unfair to compare, owning both, AF is nice but IQ wins.

Cheers. Mike.

Little sidetracked?, sorry.

09-24-2009, 08:50 PM	#33
Nubi Guest	Originally posted by Ex Finn. Primes are fine, I can only afford zooms, cheap ones at that. Cheers. Mike. Hi, Mike, Let "BillMeLater" help you. You only live once.

09-24-2009, 08:58 PM	#34
Spock Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 674	Originally posted by Nubi Dude, never too late to buy a nice prime or two. Originally posted by Ex Finn. And what (nice) or two) Pentax prime would that be?. Dude, get real, "55-300 rips it in and SR holds it steady" and all this without breaking the bank.. Cheers. Mike. Originally posted by Ex Finn. Primes are fine, I can only afford zooms, cheap ones at that. Cheers. Mike. How about an M or A200 F4? These are compact, quality (metal and glass) lenses that at F4 are faster than any zoom. Sure they are a little short at 200mm compared to a -300 zoom but if necessary with a 1.4 converter they would stretch to 280mm at F5.6.

09-25-2009, 01:20 PM	#41
ve2vfd Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Montreal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,433	Originally posted by Ex Finn. Primes are fine, I can only afford zooms, cheap ones at that. Join the club! I'd love a DA*300... but I settle for my 55-300 and am quite satisfied with it. I've had mine since the week it came out and never regretted my purchase. Pat

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: DA* 16-50mm/2.8, 50-135/2.8, 200/2.8, 300/4, DA 12-24/4, 18-50, 50-200, K10D	Albert Siegel	Sold Items	15	08-14-2010 08:51 AM
cheap vacation zoom: 18-200, 28-200, and 28-300	Eruditass	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-07-2009 05:45 PM
I've read the reviews - still need help -DA 50-200, FA 75-300, DA 55-300	Neisey	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-22-2009 08:43 AM
DA* 200 and DA* 300	CapitaineAbitibi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-07-2008 03:48 AM
Pentax 50-200 vs. Sigma 28-200 (vs. Tamron 70-300)	shefaet	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	11-24-2007 10:44 PM

09-24-2009, 07:04 PM	#31
wowtip Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: West coast Photos: Gallery Posts: 261	If Pentax could release a WR version of 55-300 at a small premium, I would pick it up right away.

09-24-2009, 08:32 PM	#32
photogerald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 253	Originally posted by wowtip If Pentax could release a WR version of 55-300 at a small premium, I would pick it up right away. Yes, a WR version really would be nice. I'd also like for them to resurrect the 16-45in WR guise (in my dreams).

09-24-2009, 11:18 PM	#35
BB_Zone28 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Broomfield, Colorado Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 152	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge ... For example, the aperture is actually continuously variable, and not changing in steps. the steps reported only correspond to steps in the 1/2 EV indexing used by Pentax in their mount. I would be willing to bet, that the exposure actually changes within the constant F stop range and is really only accurate at the middle focal length within the range. In this way the 1/2 stop steps become +/- 1/4 stop deviations from correct (i.e. perfect) exposure. ... I tested my 55-300mm with a K20D set to 1/3 EV steps, the camera displays f-number incremental steps of f/4.0 to f/4.5 to f/5.0 to f/5.6. When set to 1/2 steps the camera displays f/4.0 to f/4.5 to f/5.6. Note that f/4.5 can't be both -1/3 EV and -1/2 EV changes, so the f-numbers aren't displayed very accurately. But that's another issue. When you zoom the lens, it jumps to from f/4.0 to f/4.5 at 120mm and stays there thru 190mm using the 1/3 EV system. Based on your hypothesis, the f-number would be most accurate at about 120 + (190-120)/2 = 155mm for f/4.5. Just for reference, if you calculate f-number based on aperture size: -1/3 EV change should be f/4.38 rounded to f/4.4 -1/2 EV change should be f/4.62 rounded to f/4.6 -2/3 EV change should be f/4.90 rounded to f/4.9 BB

09-25-2009, 10:24 AM	#36
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363 Original Poster	Back to the Topic.. Got the 55-300 today. But it's raining (HARD) outside so I can't go and really play with it yet. But the few shots from the front window look very good. I'm thinking I won't miss the 50-200.

09-25-2009, 10:53 AM	#37
wowtip Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: West coast Photos: Gallery Posts: 261	Originally posted by VaughnA Back to the Topic.. Got the 55-300 today. But it's raining (HARD) outside so I can't go and really play with it yet. But the few shots from the front window look very good. I'm thinking I won't miss the 50-200. The one reason I could see to keep the 50-200 is that it is smaller. But I haven't seen the 55-300 in real life, maybe the size difference is not that great?

09-25-2009, 12:50 PM	#38
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by Nubi Hi, Mike, Let "BillMeLater" help you. You only live once. That is an idea, except.... my wife would "kill me now" . And then who would enjoy the lenses. Cheers. Mike.

09-25-2009, 12:57 PM	#39
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	The 55-300 is not much bigger or heavier than 50-200, both are nice and light. Cheers. Mike.

09-25-2009, 01:15 PM	#40
legacyb4 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Tri-Cities, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,784	I have the 55-300 for weekend sports use and I'd trade up in a heartbeat! Originally posted by wowtip If Pentax could release a WR version of 55-300 at a small premium, I would pick it up right away.

09-25-2009, 02:46 PM	#42
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363 Original Poster	Originally posted by ve2vfd Join the club! I'd love a DA*300... but I settle for my 55-300 and am quite satisfied with it. I've had mine since the week it came out and never regretted my purchase. Pat See my thread in the Post Your Photos Forum. I'm in love!! Absolutely no regret about selling the 50-200 at all. A shocking difference in IQ to my old eyes.

09-25-2009, 03:26 PM	#43
Nubi Guest	Originally posted by Ex Finn. That is an idea, except.... my wife would "kill me now" . And then who would enjoy the lenses. Cheers. Mike. Oh, very good come back.

09-25-2009, 05:14 PM	#44
PentHassyKon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: SoCal Posts: 415	Originally posted by wowtip The one reason I could see to keep the 50-200 is that it is smaller. But I haven't seen the 55-300 in real life, maybe the size difference is not that great? Been meaning to finish the post but here's a size comparison: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/68884-da-50-20...m-comparo.html If you carry your equipment in a bag - not a problem with carrying the 55-300 vs the 50-200. But.... If you like to carry lenses in your pants pocket, the bulk of the 55-300 can be an issue unless you have cargo pants to stow it in.

09-25-2009, 07:01 PM	#45
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by PentHassyKon Been meaning to finish the post but here's a size comparison: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/68884-da-50-20...m-comparo.html If you carry your equipment in a bag - not a problem with carrying the 55-300 vs the 50-200. But.... If you like to carry lenses in your pants pocket, the bulk of the 55-300 can be an issue unless you have cargo pants to stow it in. 55-300 vs.A 70-210 f4, unfair to compare, owning both, AF is nice but IQ wins. Cheers. Mike. Little sidetracked?, sorry.

If I get 55-300..Keep 50-200

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!