[Scorpio71GR]

The 55-300 does very well on the K3. The K3 is powerful enough to quickly rack that lens back and forth. Not so much on the K50. It tends to hunt a bit and can struggle in low light. Luckily that is what quickshift is for. Nice shot of the robin. I like the bokeh in the background.

An American Goldfinch that was in the tree in front of my house. Never seen one here before.
K50 with the HD 55-300.

[schnitzer79]

some great photos here. Will have the chance to test out the HD(and WR) version pretty soon since I bought one(new) over the weekend at a bargain. I sold my DA version 1 month ago and couldnt resist at the deal I came across online. I was putting money aside for the tamron 70-200 f2.8. oh well, LBA has hit again. look at this way, I bought the lens for 50 euros more of what I sold mine, so not much harm done.
I used the DA version quite a bit with my k-50, which I also sold. Any noticeable improvement with the HD version and K-3ii? This and the 18-135 make a perfect combo for travelling abroad. light, WR and versatile!
will post some pics soon!

[naldopr]

I need this lens I want to start taking birds photo seems great for the price?

[Scorpio71GR]

I need this lens I want to start taking birds photo seems great for the price?

You can not beat this lens for the price. The build quality is very good. The only real downside is that is a bit slow and needs to be stopped down to F8 to get decent sharpness. That is typical for a lens in this price range. My 60-250 is sharp right at f4 but that is a $900 dollar lens. I have the DA*16-50, DA*50-135, DA*60-250 and I still have alot respect for the 55-300. Learn it's limitations and build on what it does well.

K50 300mm f10 1/200s ISO200 handheld









---------- Post added 05-03-16 at 10:36 PM ----------

some great photos here. Will have the chance to test out the HD(and WR) version pretty soon since I bought one(new) over the weekend at a bargain. I sold my DA version 1 month ago and couldnt resist at the deal I came across online. I was putting money aside for the tamron 70-200 f2.8. oh well, LBA has hit again. look at this way, I bought the lens for 50 euros more of what I sold mine, so not much harm done.
I used the DA version quite a bit with my k-50, which I also sold. Any noticeable improvement with the HD version and K-3ii? This and the 18-135 make a perfect combo for travelling abroad. light, WR and versatile!
will post some pics soon!

I only have the K3 so I can not comment on the K3ii. On the K3 the lens focuses faster and better in low light. SR on the K3 is much better than the K50. The HD version handles flare much better and controls PF better as well. Both lens are sharp and will produce excellent results. I got the HD version for the WR since this what I take camping. I primarily use the 55-300 on the K50 paired with the 18-135 for the ultimate lightweight WR kit.

This is a shot with the K3 where I did not have enough room in my camera bag for the 60-250 so the 55-300 went along. I was shooting into the sun.
300mm f9 1/400s ISO 1600

---

Last edited by Scorpio71GR; 05-03-2016 at 07:39 PM.

[Canada_Rockies]

Here is a recent (yesterday) photo taken hand held with the K3 and 55-300. I find the quality quite good for the price. I still lust over the 150-450, but will probably never get it because of the limited retirement income. I make do with the 55-300 and M 400, and occasionally the M400 + AFA 1.7X. This on land photo shows the detail available with the lens.1/250@f/11, ISO 200, 300mm. Cropped from 6016x4000 to 2400x1600.

[schnitzer79]

[Archimedes the Dog]

I've found the lens rather soft, but when conditions are right it works well for a truly reasonable price. If it was a stronger performer I might reach for it more but when I need range it's a decent choice.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[audiobomber]

I've found the lens rather soft,

I'm not surprised that the photo you posted is soft. 1/125s is simply too slow a shutter speed for a photo with this much movement.

The 55-300mm is not a soft lens, as most of the images in this thread show. It won't stand as much cropping as my DA*300, but if not cropped too hard, it is very sharp with amazing colour and contrast for a budget lens. If that is not your experience, then your lens is defective. Have you tried AF Adjust? That could explain your difficulties.

[Archimedes the Dog]

I'm not surprised that the photo you posted is soft. 1/125s is simply too slow a shutter speed for a photo with this much movement.

The 55-300mm is not a soft lens, as most of the images in this thread show. It won't stand as much cropping as my DA*300, but if not cropped too hard, it is very sharp with amazing colour and contrast for a budget lens. If that is not your experience, then your lens is defective. Have you tried AF Adjust? That could explain your difficulties.

I was tracking the target to get background blur, so 1/125 is a decent setting for that (on the advice of an experienced photographer of horse racing), as is a little softness to be expected as I track a moving target. I actually found that image to be one of my better examples from this lens.

I have found mine to be soft even on tripod under ideal conditions, perhaps mine is defective (I bought it almost a year ago so I think perhaps I'm stuck with it, though). I've got my AF dialed in to the best result (and verified it this morning) and still it compares as soft to my other lenses. Comparing here to the 18-85, which is admittedly a top-notch lens, and the 35mm DA 2.8. These examples are at ~5.6 but I had similar results at f11.

I also don't find mine to "hunt" on AF like others have reported (at least not like my FA 100mm macro). Color and contrast are good, and sharpness is a bourgeois concept anyway, according to Cartier-Bresson (who shot with a Leica and thus found it easy to say). I just don't find this lens as impressive as my others.

[Nicolas06]

The problem we don't speak of the same sharpness. The 55-300 is good at 300mm if you stop down to f/8. But if you look at a 100% crop and it is not that great. If you need to crop significantly, then it start to really show. I would call that on the borderline of soft but for that amount of money, this is indeed a great choice. There nothing better. At 190mm f/4.5 the lens is sharp even on a 100% crop. This isn't perfect but it is much better.

I don't think the 55-300 provide really that much more details than a DA*200 despite the difference in focal length. But it is almost half the weight, less than half the price (5 time less expensive for a used DAL).. You can't have everything.

If you are not willing to spend 800€ and get something that is 800g or more, the 55-300 is hard to beat. There would be a tamron 70-200, for 550€ new, but that already more expensive and more than 1kg... I am sure the tamron beat the 55-300 once you put a TC, but then the price diffferent grow again.

Basically, in current line up there no way arround it. We may get one day a high quality 70-300 f/4-5.6 that woud perfectly sharp at f/8, but that would cost at least 600€ and also 600g.

[audiobomber]

Not looking good Arch. The 55-300mm is a sharper lens than the 18-55, IME, especially at 55mm where the 18-55 is known to be soft. At the very least they should be equal.

You say you dialed in the auto-focus. A good way to double check is with CDAF (use Live View). If that is indeed not the issue, then I'm confident in saying your 55-300 is defective. I've compared all my DA zooms, 18-55 (original & II), 16-45, 18-135, 18-250 and 55-300. My 55-300 tested sharper than all but the 16-45.

[mee]

Any HD Teleconverter 1.4x owners with this lens that would be willing to weigh in with their thoughts on the pair? I know it's going to be super slow on the long end (aperture wise) but I'm wonder if the combo still function? Specifically with AF... 1 stop from f/5.8 is what? a bit over f/8 ? But I find this lens is better stopped down to f/8 so that would be f/11 essentially with the TC.

How well/poor does it work with the 55-300?

[Archimedes the Dog]

Not looking good Arch. The 55-300mm is a sharper lens than the 18-55, IME, especially at 55mm where the 18-55 is known to be soft. At the very least they should be equal.

You say you dialed in the auto-focus. A good way to double check is with CDAF (use Live View). If that is indeed not the issue, then I'm confident in saying your 55-300 is defective. I've compared all my DA zooms, 18-55 (original & II), 16-45, 18-135, 18-250 and 55-300. My 55-300 tested sharper than all but the 16-45.

Sorry for the typo, it was the 16-85 (posting too early in the morning) which is pretty notably sharp.

The 55-300 is largely a stepping stone lens for me on the way to something more expensive. It's definitely better than my FA 100-300 was. My example at least just doesn't dramatically outperform its price point IMO.

[mee]

Sorry for the typo, it was the 16-85 (posting too early in the morning) which is pretty notably sharp.

The 55-300 is largely a stepping stone lens for me on the way to something more expensive. It's definitely better than my FA 100-300 was. My example at least just doesn't dramatically outperform its price point IMO.

Your copy is notably soft.

[Rupert]

I don't have this lens but have viewed many hundreds of shots from it and have always been very impressed....and the price is amazingly low! A great lens at a great price...what's not to like!

I would say it compares very nicely with my 50-500 Bigma HSM OS and at a much lower price....the only problem is that I need the extra 200mm range more often than not.
I would love to see Pentax make an affordable lens in the 50-500mm range that could retain the same IQ as the 55-300...they would sell a ton of them!

As for sharpness, it appears plenty sharp for amateurs like me...and my Bigma always requires some processing to get the best results, so that would not bother me at all. I'd be the first to order!

Regards! & I hope to keep seeing all your 55-300 shots for a long time to come!