[Peter Zack]

Here's a couple samples

[pinholecam]

The thing to note about the 55-300 is this. At 190mm it is f4.5. That is only 10mm less than the 70-200/4 and 0.5 stop slower. It is sharp wide open at all focal lengths. Of course it also goes to 300mm which the 70-200/4 does not. On a budget, its probably the best bet equivalent to the 70-200/4. If the budget is big, the 60-250/4 is the best choice.

[PentaxPoke]

1) Nobody else has EF70-200/4L (IS or not) equivalence.
2) Buy only what you need and buy quality products, and avoid switching system are the best way to save money in the long run.

I have to agree with this as well. There are many (not just Canon users) that say the EF70-200 f/4 is the best zoom lens ever made. IMO there is no direct replacement, although the suggestions above are not bad. If you want small, convenient, and one lens, the 18-250 is a good choice. Don't expect lightning-fast ring-USM, or the sharpness you got on your 70-200, with any lens however.

I also am just curious, why a small rebel was not an option for you since you have so much invested in excellent glass already. The rebel cant be much bigger and heavier than the k-x, and the depreciation hit you are going to take buying and selling glass is probably more than the body.

[Peter Zack]

Pentax Poke, the Canon is a great lens, no question. But I have a second shooter (admittedly using a 40D IMO not a great camera) who has one. I can say with complete confidence, the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 (older version) I have is as good in every way to that lens. Just as sharp, equal or better Bokeh, renders an excelent image etc. switching from one to the other, I'd not hesitate to recommend the Sigma or the Tamron which Jay feels equals the older Sigma version.

Put the Sigma I have on a K20D and the 70-200 f4 he has on a 40D and the Pentax renders a much better image. I can't say how it would perform on a better body. I'll repeat that I hate the way a 40D renders an image. Lifeless and flat is what I see from that body and I've looked at 100's of shots from it with some good lenses.

[seacapt]

Frank , If you're used to the image quality of Canon L series glass, you should probably bite the bullet and go with the Pentax * series or limiteds. You would probably be disappointed with most of but not all of the consumer grade lenses.
As Peter pointed out the Tamron SP and Sigma EX lenses are very nice also.
If you don't need auto focus there are tons of choices in high quality older Pentax glass.
For the record I switched from Canon film to Pentax digital and found the vast number of lens choices confusing at first.

[wallyb]

1) Nobody else has EF70-200/4L (IS or not) equivalence.

Actually, Minolta has the popular "Beercan" which is a 70-210mm f/4 lens with really good image quality. Not Canon-L quality, but it can be had for less than $200, and it's certainly better than "one fifth as good" as the $1000 Canon cousin. All Minolta Maxxum lenses are stabilized on digital bodies just like we have, too.

As for Frank's question, I would echo the sentiments for the 60-250/4 if there's no limit on budget. At least as good as the Canon 70-200/4L, though it's a little bulkier I think. If you're on a budget, Frank, I would suggest trying the 50-135/2.8 SDM and carry around a teleconverter. Sadly Pentax does not have an exact mirror of this zoom range and aperture, at least not in a currently produced AF model.

[photogerald]

Okay, I've been reading a lot and I'm seriously considering the PENTAX DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED.
It may, I think, fit my needs at a very reasonable cost, I hope .
I do have some questions:
First:
Maybe I should move this discussion to the lens forum or maybe you could, Peter?
Anyway,
How long does this lens hold f4?
I'm using the Canon 70-200mm f/4 on a full frame 5D so on the K-x this lens it would reach the 35mm equivalent of 200mm @ 135mm, right?
I really like the bokeh at f4 so if this lens hold f/4 out to 135mm or longer and it's still in it's sweet zoom range (not maxed out) it may be a low price solution.
Plus, give me the extra reach I get now with my 1.4x teleconverter (240mm @ f5.6).
Also, does anyone know the difference between the DA and the kit DA L (which isn't available with the white one or separately)?
Thanks,
Frank

Hi Frank, and welcome!

While the DA55-300 is an excellent value for the money, I would not expect it to be in the same league as your Canon 70-200/4L (yes folks, this is the legendary L-series zoom).

That said, there are other alternatives you can also consider. If you want a Pentax kit that would be equivalent to the zoom range and DOF as your 70-200/4L on your FF 5D, then the closest match would be the DA*50-135/2.8 (shooting a subject at 135mm@f2.8 on APS-C should give the same FOV/subject size and DOF as 200mm@f4 on FF, assuming working distance is the same). Another consideration is the Sigma 50-150 HSM. Both of these lenses have been specifically designed to work on APS-C, so they will be lighter and more compact than FF 70-200 zooms.

However, since you mentioned you sometimes need more reach, then you should also consider Tamron and Sigma's 70-200/2.8 offerings. These are also excellent, and on APS-C would be equivalent to 105-300mm on FF (though you will be giving up a bit on the wide end). IMHO, you will get the best bang for your buck with either of these if you can put up with the extra weight.

The DA*60-250/4 is also a top-flight offering, but it is a bit pricier and it is f4 vs. f2.8, however the difference in out-of-focus rendering may not matter that much for your usage. The advantage with this lens over the 70-200's is that you will get even more reach on the long end, as well as a little bit more on the wide end. And like all DA* lenses, it is also weather-sealed.

By the way, the DA L 55-300 is optically the same as the DA version, but with lesser build (ie-plastic lens mount) and doesn't include a hood.

It also goes without saying that with Pentax, all lenses will be stabilized thanks to the in-body SR.

I hope this helps.

[frank2001]

Hi Frank, and welcome!

While the DA55-300 is an excellent value for the money, I would not expect it to be in the same league as your Canon 70-200/4L (yes folks, this is the legendary L-series zoom).

That said, there are other alternatives you can also consider. If you want a Pentax kit that would be equivalent to the zoom range and DOF as your 70-200/4L on your FF 5D, then the closest match would be the DA*50-135/2.8 (shooting a subject at 135mm@f2.8 on APS-C should give the same FOV/subject size and DOF as 200mm@f4 on FF, assuming working distance is the same). Another consideration is the Sigma 50-150 HSM. Both of these lenses have been specifically designed to work on APS-C, so they will be lighter and more compact than FF 70-200 zooms.

However, since you mentioned you sometimes need more reach, then you should also consider Tamron and Sigma's 70-200/2.8 offerings. These are also excellent, and on APS-C would be equivalent to 105-300mm on FF (though you will be giving up a bit on the wide end). IMHO, you will get the best bang for your buck with either of these if you can put up with the extra weight.

The DA*60-250/4 is also a top-flight offering, but it is a bit pricier and it is f4 vs. f2.8, however the difference in out-of-focus rendering may not matter that much for your usage. The advantage with this lens over the 70-200's is that you will get even more reach on the long end, as well as a little bit more on the wide end. And like all DA* lenses, it is also weather-sealed.

By the way, the DA L 55-300 is optically the same as the DA version, but with lesser build (ie-plastic lens mount) and doesn't include a hood.

It also goes without saying that with Pentax, all lenses will be stabilized thanks to the in-body SR.

I hope this helps.

Thanks to all of you.
You've given me several choices to consider.
Again, my main goal is to get my equipment bag more in line with my current needs.
I used to shoot a lot but circumstances make that impossible now.
I have a hard time continuing to justify the investment I've got in equipment.
Plus, I'd really like to have less weight to carry when I do get out.
I want a smaller, less expensive kit and simply don't like the feel of the Digital Rebel and found a review on the K-x.
Back to Glass;
I have had some problems with Sigma and Canon compatibility.
Once they re-chipped my lens but, twice they said it couldn't be done so I have 2 Sigma paper weights.
I don't know if the same problem exists in Pentax mount Sigmas but, I have a bad taste for Sigma.
I had one of the, mentioned, Minolta beer can 70-210mm lenses. Rumor had it that it was so good that it was re-badged for Leica.
The Canon is the best lens I have ever owned and one I would surely miss.
I'm going to lurk around here and read some more before I buy anything.
First, I need to get my new K-x (Friday says Amazon) and see if it fits and handles to my liking.
I just wanted to find out what you guys thought about what was available in that focal length.
Keep the suggestions coming.
Thanks,
Frank

[LeDave]

Why not just get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8? I have this lens and it's just the best! With Pentax built-in IS, you'll be able to use the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 stabilized at a much cheaper cost than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM... Not to forget to mention that the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is optically better than the Canon version =P

[Pentaxor]

or a cheap SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED

the 55-300 would be better.

[PentaxPoke]

Not to forget to mention that the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is optically better than the Canon version =P

I know you are kidding. The Tamron is a good lens for the money, but not even close to the L glass. Tamron 70-200 test/review link

I still think for a small, light, simple and flexible kit, it would be hard to beat the k-x + 18-250. One body, one lens, one small camera bag.

[WerTicus]

the 55-300 is a good choice imo.

with in camera distortion and ca correction on the kx plus shake reduction in the body it would probably = the canon's capability. with advantages.

[LeDave]

I know you are kidding. The Tamron is a good lens for the money, but not even close to the L glass. Tamron 70-200 test/review link

I still think for a small, light, simple and flexible kit, it would be hard to beat the k-x + 18-250. One body, one lens, one small camera bag.

Juza Nature Photography

[johnmflores]

Hey Frank, welcome to the forum!

I don't what kind of photos you take, but instead of trying to find Pentax equivalents to your Canon L glass, have you considered trying primes? The DA40/F2.8 Limited and DA70/F2.4 Limited are jewels and could fill the bottom end of your focal range. Their pancake size matches the diminutive K-x quite nicely and would make for a tiny travel kit. If you buy the K-x kit you'll also have the bottom end filled, 18-55, with a decent if not spectacular lens. And if your willing to focus manually, you can inexpensively find out if an older 135mm or 150mm telephoto (A-series or newer for simplified metering) can meet your current needs.

Since your coming over to Pentax maybe you should sample what they are highly-regarded for - namely their primes. Just a thought....

[wallyb]

I know you are kidding. The Tamron is a good lens for the money, but not even close to the L glass. Tamron 70-200 test/review link

No joke, the Tamron is generally better in sharpness, not even factoring cost in. Even with "L" in the title, it's still made from the same elements as other lenses, and Tamron has been in the game for a very long time as well.