[Michaelina2]

I've been exploring the DA55-300 for about a week.

You are welcome to visit birdsite.org for some examples taken by me. A word of warning: it's quite obvious that I'm pretty low the DSLR/PP learning curve, so my 'command and control' is a bit spotty. The images are a mixed bag. Some were taken using a K100D and others with a K20D, plus in some cases I was using the DA50-200. All images are hand-held captures.

Nutshell impressions...

I like the 50-200 very much. It's light weight, has very good IQ and is a great walk around lens with the ability to add extra reach when needed. No complaints at all.

As to the 55-300, I'm very impressed. It's extra weight helps stabilize it for the even longer reach subjects and it's IQ is superb. While I've only used it on the K20D, I consider the 55-300 to be 2-3 times better.

Just my 2 cents...

[rparmar]

Would love more opinions on this lens, athough, based on price and IQ, I just ordered the Sigma 70-300mm.

[John Kovarik]

I have two AF zooms (and one old Cosmicar 70-200 that came with my Program Plus some 20 yrs. ago), the Tamron 18-250 and more recently, the 55-300. Differences in size and weight are negligable though the PTX is longer both when collapsed and fully extended. I find IQs equivalent, though I have not performed any direct tests with either the K100 or K20. For me, the 18 v.55 is more important than the 300 v. 250, so I find myself turning to the Tamron more than the new PTX. As to whether that is worth the c. $150 price difference, I guess is up to the buyer...............

[expatCanuck]

Some caveats --

- new to DSLR and the K200D
- no tripod

So these shots aren't indicative of the what the lens can do, but rather what the lens did do.

The URLs are here:

Sea Lion Island
Lava

From the first group, these were taken with the 55-300:
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/poeHeron.JPG
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/pelican.jpg
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/chillIguana.JPG
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/iguanaWithAnAttitude.jpg

From the second group, the first 3 in the second row (the shots of the hawk) were taken with the 55-300, as was the shot of the cormorant (5th photo, first row).

Also, this shot was taken with the 55-300:
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day1pm/galapagosMockingbird.jpg

So was this shot -- I wish I had had a tripod -- the centipede (probably between 1 & 2 feet long) was about 25 or more feet away, and the light was not great:

http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day1pm/centipede.jpg

- Richard

P.S. - I can provide specifics (f-stop, exposure, focal length) if anyone would like.

---

Last edited by expatCanuck; 07-19-2008 at 07:17 AM.

[vinzer]

Some caveats --

- new to DSLR and the K200D
- no tripod

So these shots aren't indicative of the what the lens can do, but rather what the lens did do.

The URLs are here:

Sea Lion Island
Lava

From the first group, these were taken with the 55-300:
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/poeHeron.JPG
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/pelican.jpg
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/chillIguana.JPG
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/iguanaWithAnAttitude.jpg

From the second group, the first 3 in the second row (the shots of the hawk) were taken with the 55-300, as was the shot of the cormorant (5th photo, first row).

Also, this shot was probably taken with the 55-300:
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day1pm/galapagosMockingbird.jpg

So was this shot -- I wish I had had a tripod -- the centipede (probably between 1 & 2 feet long) was about 25 or more feet away, and the light was not great:

http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day1pm/centipede.jpg

- Richard

P.S. - I can provide specifics (f-stop, exposure, focal length) if anyone would like.

The lens look to be a real gem. Well, for me, at least. Thanks for sharing!

[SpecialK]

Would love more opinions on this lens, athough, based on price and IQ, I just ordered the Sigma 70-300mm.

I hope you got the APO version. I found the Sigma was OK if you increase the contrast a lot - otherwise it seemed to have flat and lifeless images.

The 55-300 has much better IQ than the Pentax 50-200 or Sigma 70-300 which have very similar IQ to each other with a slight edge to the Pentax.

There's no quasi-macro as with the Sigma, and the 4.67 ft closest focussing distance is further than the others. The 55-300 is slightly smaller in length and diameter that the 70-300, but not even close to the 50-200.

Thanks to the 55-300, I'll be selling the 50-200 and 70-300.

[cupic]

As least keep the 70-300 for the macro shots

cheers

[lesmore49]

Well about a month ago, I finally got a 55-300 Pentax and I'm happy with it. My arsenal now contains the 55-300, the 16-45 Pentax and my old (35mm) 35-105 Macro Zoom f.3.5 'A'.

I'm happy with all these lens. I have a (35mm) 50 mm Macro Pentax Takumar, that I need to dig out, should convert to a 60 to 70 mm is my guess.

For my purposes I think I have all I need, lens wise.

[Serpiente]

Some caveats --

- new to DSLR and the K200D
- no tripod

So these shots aren't indicative of the what the lens can do, but rather what the lens did do.

The URLs are here:

Sea Lion Island
Lava

From the first group, these were taken with the 55-300:
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/poeHeron.JPG
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/pelican.jpg
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/chillIguana.JPG
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day2pm/iguanaWithAnAttitude.jpg

From the second group, the first 3 in the second row (the shots of the hawk) were taken with the 55-300, as was the shot of the cormorant (5th photo, first row).

Also, this shot was taken with the 55-300:
http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day1pm/galapagosMockingbird.jpg

So was this shot -- I wish I had had a tripod -- the centipede (probably between 1 & 2 feet long) was about 25 or more feet away, and the light was not great:

http://www.oldwithoutmoney.com/galapagos1/day1pm/centipede.jpg

- Richard

P.S. - I can provide specifics (f-stop, exposure, focal length) if anyone would like.

many thanks!! your shots look great! I think this lense is a good addition to my K10D

[aweir]

There is world of difference between my Tamron 70-300 and the Pentax 55-300. The contrast seems to be alot higher on the Pentax from what I've seen so far and the purple fringing seems to be negligible.

but is it just me or do ALL of these photos appear to have a blue color cast to them??

.

[kenyee]

There is world of difference between my Tamron 70-300 and the Pentax 55-300. The contrast seems to be alot higher on the Pentax from what I've seen so far and the purple fringing seems to be negligible.

The extra contrast is probably from the excellent SMC coatings.
Photozone claims the Tamron is slightly sharper.
The DA55-300 is also APS-C only while the Tamron is FF (not that it matters much since the Tamron is pretty soft on a FF according to people how have tried it on other mounts)...

[thibs]

The extra contrast is probably from the excellent SMC coatings.
Photozone claims the Tamron is slightly sharper.
The DA55-300 is also APS-C only while the Tamron is FF (not that it matters much since the Tamron is pretty soft on a FF according to people how have tried it on other mounts)...

IMO The tammy is a film design. It was probably an very good lens on film which is still OK on digital but as good as on film.

[kenyee]

IMO The tammy is a film design. It was probably an very good lens on film which is still OK on digital but as good as on film.

Yep, very true. The same can be said of the FA ltds and the old FA*, A*, primes (not that the Tammy deserves to run in those circles . As I understand it, it was based on the old 70-300 Nikon design.

I was just trying to summarize the differences...

[lesmore49]

I have used my 55-300 mm Pentax on my K10D for about 10 months and I am extremely impressed. I use it to take pictures of wild animals and birds. I live in Canada...in an areas where the Boreal forest meets the Prairies and I spend a lot of time walking through these forests In the past couple of months I've been able to get some really sharp pictures of a Barred and Northern Hawk Owls, Pileated Woodpeckers ...Bald Eagles..etc.

I have used this lens and the K10D in winter weather ....sometimes as cold as 25 blow zero plus and it functions perfectly....even after an hour or so...then the weather gets too cold for me...but the K10D and 55-300 are still up for more.

A phenomenal lens...focuses fast and the pictures are sharp, clear, contrasty.....top marks for this lens....I use it quite regularly.

[Cambo]

I have used my 55-300 mm Pentax on my K10D for about 10 months and I am extremely impressed. I use it to take pictures of wild animals and birds. I live in Canada...in an areas where the Boreal forest meets the Prairies and I spend a lot of time walking through these forests In the past couple of months I've been able to get some really sharp pictures of a Barred and Northern Hawk Owls, Pileated Woodpeckers ...Bald Eagles..etc.

I have used this lens and the K10D in winter weather ....sometimes as cold as 25 blow zero plus and it functions perfectly....even after an hour or so...then the weather gets too cold for me...but the K10D and 55-300 are still up for more.

A phenomenal lens...focuses fast and the pictures are sharp, clear, contrasty.....top marks for this lens....I use it quite regularly.

let's see some...

Sheesh!

Cameron