[knoxploration]

Their prices do not reflect the same we see in real B&M stores. The WR version of both lenses are more expensive.

Only slightly so, to be fair. For example, Adorama lists the 50-200 at $210, and the 50-200 WR at $225. (Admittedly, the difference for the 18-55 is wider - $110 vs $150 - but that's still only a $40 difference, not night and day).

Personally, I'd be all over a 55-300 WR in a heartbeat.

[Kenn100D]

is this typo or error in Pentax EU (UK site)

See attached.

[glanglois]

I vote for the "careless copy and paste" option.

[jct us101]

is this typo or error in Pentax EU (UK site)

See attached.

No that's actually a very nice find, because if it's not a typo then we have a new lens. Of course it could just as easily be a typo and they'll probably fix it now that you've noticed it.

[Kenn100D]

check the other kit lenses (18-55 and 50-200) its correct except this one. well hope its true 55-300 WR.

[glanglois]

Why would a WR 55-300 be much more expensive than a non-WR 55-300?

Pentax' Webstore (reliable MSRP) lists the following prices:
DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL WR - $199.95
smc Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL II - $199.95
DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED WR - $249.95
smcP DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED - $249.95

smc Pentax DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED - $429.95

So I'd expect a 55-300 WR to be pretty close to 430 dollars. Maybe 450 upon introduction.

I don't know the engineering in WR but I note that the 55-300 range is a lot greater than the 50-200 range. If there is a longer extension with the 300 (5.5X versus 4X) that's reflected in the variation of the extension of the tube, Pentax may find it harder to maintain effective seals. Certainly there would be more of a "bellows effect". Air has to enter and leave. Tougher engineering challenge may increase cost of solving it.

All speculation. And I'd get the WR version in a heartbeat at $450 if it had the same optical and handling characteristics.

And who among prospective 55-300 purchasers would pick the non-WR version at similar prices?

[flippedgazelle]

Two weeks ago I referred a friend to Amazon where they packaged the 18-55II and DA55-300 (neither the L version) with black K-x for $660. They came in separate packaging, not a single "Kit" package.

That's an incredibly awesome deal. Metal mount, quick-shift, and lens hoods!

[lurchlarson]

The 16-50 and 50-135 is also in short stock.

[Nomad]

That's an incredibly awesome deal. Metal mount, quick-shift, and lens hoods!

That is a GREAT deal!!
I paid $849 for the K-X and two DA kit for my wife for Christmas this year....happy to report no SR, focusing, or mirror slap issues
Oops,
can opened.........

[aleonx3]

That's an incredibly awesome deal. Metal mount, quick-shift, and lens hoods!

Indeed, that is an incredible deal - I paid over $330 for my 55-300mm (original version) - wow...

[solar1]

I think the reason is the popularity of the K-x and many buyers are getting the kit version when they purchase. So they probably are just in short supply.

I haven't heard of a WR version coming out but if they do make one, I'll have to give it some serious consideration.

Likely so Peter, I would add the new 645 debut as recent need to place their sites elsewhere for the time being.

[KjetilH]

Would make sense to do the same as for the 18-55 and 50-200, a DA-L along with a WR version. Especially now as the K-7 becomes cheaper, and in range of the 'serious amateurs', who demand a little bit more (in that regard, slapping a 'WR' symbol on the DA 17-70 would also make sense).

[wowtip]

Another vote for "Please Pentax give us a WR 55-300". I want to buy the 55-300, but knowing my luck Pentax would announce the new improved 55-300 the day after I bought the lens.

[davidvcd]

Would make sense to do the same as for the 18-55 and 50-200, a DA-L along with a WR version. Especially now as the K-7 becomes cheaper, and in range of the 'serious amateurs', who demand a little bit more (in that regard, slapping a 'WR' symbol on the DA 17-70 would also make sense).

In the case of a a WR 17-70mm, doesn't it already exist with the 16-50mm ? They'd have to take out the sdm and even then some would prefer it over the DA*...

Any futur primes they should just make them directly WR.

I'd rather they stop the 50-200mm / 50-200mm WR and focus on the 55-300mm WR, combine with the 18-55mm WR (and sell in kits) it would be all that you need to start off for the outdoors person.

I'm hoping they'll prioritize manufacture of the 55-300mm, and price comes down a bit before summer..

[Mike L]

In the case of a a WR 17-70mm, doesn't it already exist with the 16-50mm ? They'd have to take out the sdm and even then some would prefer it over the DA*...

If they took the SDM out I think a lot would prefer it over the 16-50