Originally posted by beholder3 - Nobody relevant is "scared of SDM". A handful children on forums is nothing.
- No demand for a 50-200 if you can buy a 55-300 already. 50-200 were a temporary stop gap cheap thing.
- the DA 35/50 are so cheap that it is actually very clever to keep them screw drive the next ten years. They only appeal to the cheapo type buyers but also send the message that you have to pay normal money for normal lenses.
I personally would even see business sense in stopping sales of those lenses if the entry level market is dead. Pentax has nothing to gain from cheapo lens buyers and non-buyers sticking to obsolete manual lenses. Ignore those groups and let other makers have their fun with them.
I have both the DA 50-200 and DA 55-300 (screwdriven AF because I got it before the new PLM was released).
I do agree that the 55-300 is better and the wider focal range very convenient, but it is a big lens which I got for an African wildlife safari and I very seldom used since, because it is large and heavy and I am not a birding fan.
I dont use much my 12 years old DA50-200 since I got DA18-135 three years ago, but it is much lighter and smaller than DA55-300, which, to my kind of photography, is very valuable. I may use it as a two zoom kits to complement the focal range when I go shooting with my DA17-70. The 50-200 range, even at f4-5.6, allows nice bokeh for family portraits.
By the way, DA17-70 is SDM only, it doesnt have screwdrive alternative. It looks like it is not so prone to SDM failure, because its focus elements are small and with a short throw.
My experience is it is a very good f4 constant silent and fast AF zoom lens (which is 0.7 to 1 stop better at the long end than alternative zoom lenses like DA18-135 or DA16-85), with very nice contrast even fully open or at infinity focus, which makes it a nice general purpose alternative to shooting with primes (I have DA15, DA21, DA35 macro, DA40, FA50 f1.7 and DA70) for sessions when you prefer the convenience of a zoom but want better IQ than DA18-135.
I like the way it renders on landscapes and on sunsets.
What I dont like is its size, bulk and weight, and it is only 70 at the long end.
IMO, it is now replaced by DA16-85 f3.5-5.6 DC: almost same size and weight, and comparable optical design, which I might have bought if I didnt have DA17-70, as the wider range at both ends is nice.
I dont understand people bashing entry level kit lenses like DA18-55, or the plastic wonders DA35 f2.4 (I also have it, though I dont use it much since I have DA35 macro limited). Of course, they are not stellar, but they offer an outstanding image quality vs price performance, now that software corrections can cope with most aberrations, and modern sensors deliver usable IQ at ISO 3200/6400, and stabilization allow sharp results at very slow exposures.
Though I prefer fast and silent AF, like in DA18-135, I dont mind screwdriven AF on my limited lenses, it is reliable, fast and decisive enough on K3, even at full aperture, and not so noisy as it was on K30.
I think too many people in photographic gear forums have not understood that the golden age of digital photography, with started in the early 2000 years with growing sales, decreasing prices, and increasing image quality, is now over.
This golden period ended around 2015, as the smartphones have killed the entry level compact cameras, which was the cash flow machine of camera manufacturers.
All manufacturers suffer to what looks like a market collapse, but, IMO, is rather the return to a mature photographic market: no more performance jumps since high pixel density C-MOS sensors replaced CCD around 2010. Only incremental improvements in in-camera processing power and algorythms, which offer better AF and high ISO performance, but the performance of 5-7 years old models like K5 or K30 was already overkill for most users.
Computer design allowed much better optical performance in both zooms and large aperture lenses. But everybody can check that the optical performance of film era classical compact lens designs and coatings was already very good, and most of their aberrations can today be automatically software corrected, either in-camera for JPEGs and for the mirrorless RAW files, or using lens profiles in PP.
ILC cameras are becoming a niche market, and DSLR are slowly loosing their domination inside this market, because mirrorless makers, have benefited of the continuous improvements coming from the smarthone business of both EVF, back LCD viewers, and on sensor AF, and have had a better understanding of what most customers expect: small size and light weight, appealing affordable entry level cameras with excellent out of camera JPEGs, no brainer entry level cheap kit zooms, video implementation and WIFI connectivity with smartphones and tablets, with higher end glass and bodies available for geeks, at high price tags which allow larger margins.
IMO, once the fire sales to clean the shelves will be over, we must expect the industry will return to what the ILC market was 20 years ago: lower sales volumes and number, slower rate of renewals, with only incremental improvements.