Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-27-2009, 12:37 PM   #16
ggc
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10
Thank you Pentaxor and Rondec.

I have checked online images ( for example from pixel peeper @ Full-size sample photos from Pentax 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ), but i have seen no full resolution photos at 14 megapixel with far subjects, and large or full aperture ( f4 - 4.5 - 5.6 - 6.3 ) and that's why i have posted here.

For example i saw 10 megapixel shots from Pentax 50-200 ( for example Flickr Photo Download: Death to the Pink Room and Pentax smc DA 50-200 mm f/4-5.6 ED WR - sample shots - Lenstip.com ), and borders at 50 are quite weak, so i have decided 50-200 isn't the right lens for me, but there are still a lot of people satisfied with that lens that maybe are shooting portraits people flowers or so. And a review with data confirms and shows that borders at 50mm are poor.

A friend of mine for example has bought a Nikon 18-200, after hearing that is was good or beautiful from a lot of people: with his 12 megapixel D300, it is simply extremely bad for his kind of photo. I wouldn't want to do the same.


Last edited by ggc; 09-27-2009 at 12:45 PM.
09-27-2009, 01:30 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by ggc Quote
Thank you Pentaxor and Rondec.

I have checked online images ( for example from pixel peeper @ Full-size sample photos from Pentax 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ), but i have seen no full resolution photos at 14 megapixel with far subjects, and large or full aperture ( f4 - 4.5 - 5.6 - 6.3 ) and that's why i have posted here.

For example i saw 10 megapixel shots from Pentax 50-200 ( for example Flickr Photo Download: Death to the Pink Room and Pentax smc DA 50-200 mm f/4-5.6 ED WR - sample shots - Lenstip.com ), and borders at 50 are quite weak, so i have decided 50-200 isn't the right lens for me, but there are still a lot of people satisfied with that lens that maybe are shooting portraits people flowers or so. And a review with data confirms and shows that borders at 50mm are poor.

A friend of mine for example has bought a Nikon 18-200, after hearing that is was good or beautiful from a lot of people: with his 12 megapixel D300, it is simply extremely bad for his kind of photo. I wouldn't want to do the same.
I understand your predicament ggc. but mind you that both the 50-200 and 50-200 WR are kit lenses. honestly speaking they are good lenses and better than the kit lenses offered by other kit lenses produced by other brands, except maybe the oly lens. but the thing is, don't think that the 50-200 /WR have the same optical quality as to that of the 55-300 due to their similar build. they are not the same. there is a reason why they are called as kit lenses and the 55-300 is somewhat of a middle-high range premium glass with a cheap build. I myself, having a WR kit lens like the 18-55, I could tell and see the difference from that of the 55-300 both set at 55mm. the 55-300 is 1 or 1.5 notch higher than the kit lens. my 18-55 WR produce nice and good results but doesn't meet my expectations nor standards. the only reason I kept it is for the rainy and weather-troubled seasons. on a normal shooting day, I would bring the 55-300 or maybe a 16-45 which I don't have.
09-28-2009, 12:45 AM   #18
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
Have both and ?

The 50-200mm is a nice little carry around lens, but the 55-300mm is way better optically.

I actually have two 50-200mm that are on the Market Place Forum now.

For the bit more weight and size, I'll carry the 55-300mm because of its quality. Those of you who don't have this lens, if your in the market for a long zoom, this is one heck of a lens.


wll
10-15-2009, 12:14 PM   #19
ggc
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10
For now i have received the camera and i have been able to try for some shots the 50-200 that is quite bad for me and the photo i shot till 80 or so and in this range never gets sharp even stopping down to f11.

Now i have to solve even a bigger problem on the left side of my 18-55... Maybe meanwhile i'll be able to try a 55-300 before buying it. It would be the best thing.

10-15-2009, 01:16 PM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,850
I've recently had the opportunity to compare three DA50-200s, all three Tamron 7x-300s, a Super Tak 200/4, an SMC-M 80-200 and two Vivitar 200s side by side at the long end.

All three DA50-200s were decent across the board as far as IQ went and the size and lack of weight make them easy choices to carry around. For the most part, I'd have been happy to have any of the three with me for my purposes in the field.

But the one thing that stood out in my mind was that one of the three DA50-200s was noticeably superior to the other two lenses and as good as, or better than any other lens I had available from 100-200mm.

For obvious reasons, lenses (especially consumer-quality lenses) have a wide spread in the quality bell curve. We often see reference to the negative side of that curve but no one seems to notice those at the top end of the range.

While I wouldn't roll the dice lookin' for a +6-Sigma DA50-200, if I found one I'd be very happy to keep it and respect it for the small. light pocket tele zoom it can be.

H2
10-15-2009, 01:21 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tri-Cities, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,784
Yup, would have to agree; return on what you spend is more than acceptable and as Rondec points out, stepping up to the DA* stuff will eat up all spare cash.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think it's pretty good for what it is -- a consumer zoom. I don't think you'll find anyone selling their DA *60-250 or DA* 300 to get one, but stopped down a little bit, it's pretty sharp. Just remember, you'll easily pay 3 to 4 times as much to move up to a Da* lens with similar reach.
07-20-2010, 04:36 AM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2
I am in the market for the Pentax K-x. I am trying to decide which kit to purchase. Currently on amazon, the 18-55 and 50-200 kit is $599 in white. The 18-55 and 50-300 is $699 in white. Basically, is the 50-300 worth an extra $100?
07-20-2010, 05:58 AM   #23
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,761
QuoteOriginally posted by Snuffleupagus Quote
I am in the market for the Pentax K-x. I am trying to decide which kit to purchase. Currently on amazon, the 18-55 and 50-200 kit is $599 in white. The 18-55 and 50-300 is $699 in white. Basically, is the 50-300 worth an extra $100?
Kudos on doing a search and reviving an old thread rather than starting yet another on this subject.

You will find varying opinions on quality of the DA 50-200. Some (like me) like it. Some don't. The almost universal opinion of the DA55-300 is that it is an optically fine lens and a bargain. I bought the longer kit with the K-x because I already had the DA50-200.

Which kit works for you depends upon what you will do with it. The DA55-300 is about twice the weight of the 50-200 and significantly larger. Its advantage are more reach (300) and better performance at wider apertures, especially at longer focal lengths. Its only disadvantage is that its size greatly detracts from the compact K-x package.

When I traveled with the K-x last month, I took the DA50-200 and left its larger sibling at home. The size just did not fit in with my compact travel gear (or fit in my compact bag). I had little need for the longer length, and found my DA70 long enough for indoor tele work. Outdoors in bright light, where your aperture is F8 or smaller, you will be hard pressed to see the difference in quality between the two zooms.

So, if you are looking for a compact travel rig, the 18-55/50-200 is hard to beat for size and weight. If this is your complete lens collection, and you are not pressed for space, go for the 55-300. It is the better all around lens.

07-20-2010, 06:05 AM   #24
Senior Member
Michael Barker's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 164
QuoteOriginally posted by Snuffleupagus Quote
I am in the market for the Pentax K-x. I am trying to decide which kit to purchase. Currently on amazon, the 18-55 and 50-200 kit is $599 in white. The 18-55 and 50-300 is $699 in white. Basically, is the 50-300 worth an extra $100?
I have never used the 50-300 but I can tell you about the 50-200. The only times I found the reach was not enough was for wildlife and sports. However, in low light the long end does not offer fast shutter speeds .. the wider max aperture in the 200mm range on the 50-300 would really help in those cases. The 50-200 is very compact and light for such a good quality telephoto zoom, and I loved the portraits I took at weddings in the 70-135mm range.

Definitely for an extra $100 you are getting your money's worth if you choose the 50-300, unless the extra size/weight is a big downer for you. In 35mm full frame terms you're really getting 150mm equivalent - it is a lot.

Not sure what the filter thread sizes are - something to think about as well.
07-20-2010, 05:03 PM   #25
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,056
Spend the extra 100 bucks and get the 55-300.
My most used lenses are:
#1, 16-50.
#2, 55-300.
#3, 12-24.
#4, 60-250.
, 50-200, cant remember the last time I used it.
55-300 v.s. 60-250 (a heavy beast) is a simple weigh issue, IQ does not come even close, different ball-park.
07-20-2010, 05:19 PM   #26
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,761
QuoteOriginally posted by Ex Finn. Quote
50-200, cant remember the last time I used it.
YMMV. I can only say that for me it would almost be reversed. The last time I used the 55-300 was for film.
07-20-2010, 06:26 PM   #27
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
I have the 50~200WR and a DA 55~300. Chances are I will sell the DA 55~300 as the 50~200 has enough reach and it's IQ is good enough for me. Keep in mind I'm more of a wide angle kind of guy. The weather sealing, smaller package and lighter weight of the 50~200 is more important to to me than the virtues of the 55~300.
07-20-2010, 06:28 PM   #28
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,430
QuoteOriginally posted by Snuffleupagus Quote
I am in the market for the Pentax K-x. I am trying to decide which kit to purchase. Currently on amazon, the 18-55 and 50-200 kit is $599 in white. The 18-55 and 50-300 is $699 in white. Basically, is the 50-300 worth an extra $100?
What does every post tell you about the 55-300? Get it :-) And the lens hood.
07-20-2010, 08:48 PM   #29
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteOriginally posted by ggc Quote
Thank you Pentaxor and Rondec.

I have checked online images ( for example from pixel peeper @ Full-size sample photos from Pentax 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ), but i have seen no full resolution photos at 14 megapixel with far subjects, and large or full aperture ( f4 - 4.5 - 5.6 - 6.3 ) and that's why i have posted here.
Heh, most of those pictures are mine.

I love this lens. Second only to my 16-45, and an all around great lens.
06-23-2011, 12:48 AM   #30
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 29
I am also trying to figure out 50-200 WR or 55-300. I dont care about the difference in costs since its only about $100, but what I am concerned about is the WR. I do out door photography mostly landscapes and it rains about a fourth of the days where I live. Can you use a non WR lens with a WR body in any rain? Also I am a clumbsy person and would more than likely at some point spill something on my camera. The WR is one of the main reasons I chose the Pentax brand. Also I care more about great quality lens in the wide angle range. What I want to know is the better quality of the 55-300 would be worth it for me.
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!
da, da 50-200mm, ed, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron AF 70-300mm or Sigma Lens 70-300mm or Sigma 70-200mm Ben Hunt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 11-05-2008 05:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 PM. | 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