[UncleVanya]

You were right about the focus ring listen to Vanya, he knows his stuff

I'm so glad to know that worked! Thank you for the kind words.

[Penview52]

The most acceptable findings are these;

For DA F 4-5.8 the sharpness of object is 8.2 out of 10

For DA L F 4.5-6.3 the sharpness of object is 8.6 out of 10

They have both 25 degrees wide horizontal angle of view.

Sorry for the confusion: the first line is for DA L, and the second is for DA. a typing error is the most to blame.
If you don't agree, then you don't agree the reviews where I got it.

[normhead]

The most acceptable findings are these;

For DA F 4-5.8 the sharpness of object is 8.2 out of 10

For DA L F 4.5-6.3 the sharpness of object is 8.6 out of 10

They have both 25 degrees wide horizontal angle of view.

Sorry for the confusion: the first line is for DA L, and the second is for DA. a typing error is the most to blame.
If you don't agree, then you don't agree the reviews where I got it.

Those aren't measured ratings, but estimated ratings. But they usually are pretty close. I checked the forum ratings for the DA 70 and DA 21 ltd. and while pretty good for centre sharpness, the forum ratings don't seem to notice the 21s much softer borders. You could easily make a case the 21 should be rated lower

The DA 70 is rated 4.5 out of 5.
The DA 21 ltd is rate 3 out of 5.
The DA 55-300 is rated 2.5.

Test sites that do actual measurements can have very different results.
You may not agree with these ratings, but from my perspective, you buy the focal length you need,
You can also look at the forum ratings as a measure of how happy people are with the lens. But, if you're used to a DA* lens you own't be giving a 55-300 a rating over 9. But if you don't you might not. And it's unlikely a DA* owner is going to buy a 55;300. I have the DA*55-300 6.3 PLM, and I quite like the lens. But my evauation would be, if my DA*60-250 is a 9.7, the DA 55-300 is an 8.5. Still a good lens but let's not get crazy with marks over 9 out of 10. And I definitely wouldn't bet on any of the 55-300s being much different from the others.

[Penview52]

Yes I agree with the rating is an average from input of user/s but do not reflect the true ratings.
The most notable one is the bad side of review ( from disgruntled owner ) and not the good one.
At amazon count the number of reviews and it shows that it is the actual number of users. The more reviews the more owner. They like show their feelings. Less review means did not like the lens to buy no matter what good reviews it has and not convinced. Reviews are intended to entice buyers.

[UncleVanya]

The most acceptable findings are these;

For DA F 4-5.8 the sharpness of object is 8.2 out of 10

For DA L F 4.5-6.3 the sharpness of object is 8.6 out of 10

They have both 25 degrees wide horizontal angle of view.

Sorry for the confusion: the first line is for DA L, and the second is for DA. a typing error is the most to blame.
If you don't agree, then you don't agree the reviews where I got it.

I feel like we are not communicating. You keep calling things DA-L and DA and I keep reminding you there are many DA versions and the DA-L version that exists is only the f4-5.8 version and that it is identical in performance to the DA (non-PLM/non-WR) version. Because of this confusion I'm not sure what you are saying exactly. Below I have linked all of the relevant lenses user review summaries. I have also listed out the sharpness and the number of reviews this is drawn on as well as the price paid by the reviewers.

DA version without weather resistance and with screw drive focus: SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Sharpness: 8.2 Reviews: 111 Avg Price: $319.61

DA version with weather resistance and with screw drive focus: HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Sharpness: 8.4 Reviews: 30 Avg Price: $366.16

DA-L version without weather resistance and with screw drive focus: SMC Pentax-DA L 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED Reviews - DA L Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Sharpness: 8.6 Reviews: 41 Avg Price: $199.86

DA version with weather resistance and with PLM in lens focus motor:
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Sharpness: 8.8 (not 8.6) Reviews: 20 Avg Price: $410.12

So which results are you using to get your numbers? Also how do you account for the subjective nature of these? The best data I could find doesn't compare the two directly:

HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 PLM WR RE Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The PLM version was cited for loss of sharpness at longer focal lengths but did not go head to head with the older versions.
I have read forum posts and seen comparison images that suggest either that one is sharper than the other but nothing too consistent honestly.

I personally would like to see a good comparison of ALL of the 55-300's to put this issue to rest.

EDIT: To be fair one of or two of the numbers may have slightly changed since you first posted but given the numbers of reviews that seems a bit more of a shift than I would expect. Also to be fair - they all rate in the 8's which is good enough data in my opinion. People are generally satisfied but they have seen better in some lenses or wish for better. That makes some sense.

[UncleVanya]

I want to also make this point. The DA* 16-50 and the DA 16-85 at 16mm are very close in sharpness at the same f/stops but the 16-85 only beats the 16-50 around f/6.7-f8 per the in depth study done here on the site. However the DA* 16-50 is rated 8.5 for sharpness and the DA 16-85 is rated 9.1 - this clearly shows a bias in the subjective expectations of the users vs. the objective measurements of the reviewers. Even if the two were nearly identical which is what many other reviews have said, the sharpness values should be closer to one another if they were objective unless we assume huge sample variation.


All of this goes to show that despite the sharpness data being intended as a measurement divorced from value and intended as a relatively comparable quantity across lenses it isn't that. It fails to track to objective tests or even head to head subjective tests. The data is nice to see but probably means more about a lenses perceived qualities than actual qualities. Reputation and expectation are playing a large role in this data.

[Penview52]

" ...I personally would like to see a good comparison of ALL of the 55-300's to put this issue to rest. "

Not much about reviews because I do not have this kind of lens and aside from that I just copied from other reviews but I do not confirmed that those reviews are true.

The best comparison is that - that lens with many reviews is better than few reviews regardless how good or bad the reviews are.

To put this to rest leave it to the original poster to decide which one to choose.

[Cerebum]

I want to also make this point. The DA* 16-50 and the DA 16-85 at 16mm are very close in sharpness at the same f/stops but the 16-85 only beats the 16-50 around f/6.7-f8 per the in depth study done here on the site. However the DA* 16-50 is rated 8.5 for sharpness and the DA 16-85 is rated 9.1 - this clearly shows a bias in the subjective expectations of the users vs. the objective measurements of the reviewers. Even if the two were nearly identical which is what many other reviews have said, the sharpness values should be closer to one another if they were objective unless we assume huge sample variation.


All of this goes to show that despite the sharpness data being intended as a measurement divorced from value and intended as a relatively comparable quantity across lenses it isn't that. It fails to track to objective tests or even head to head subjective tests. The data is nice to see but probably means more about a lenses perceived qualities than actual qualities. Reputation and expectation are playing a large role in this data.

Exactly this ^^ using albeit objective reviews made by different individuals about the version they own based largely on how well it worked for them can only ever be taken as a guide. There are simply too many unregulated variables to start using it to illustrate a minute percentage of performance difference. All we can say, based on the reviews is that the three that share a similar construction perform extremely well for the price and are equally well received. As for the plm, the physical differences have been measured and are documented. Bottom line, each has a list of features and a price point. If you want WR, there are two choices, if you want faster glass, three, faster focus, just the one and if you are on a tight budget, also one. They all perform well but arguing over performance data garnered from marks given for degrees of personal preference is never going to end well. Regarding reviews, for example I would give my 24mm f2.8 Miranda scores of nine across the board. I am quite possibly alone in this but it really works for me. It ain't scientific, but once you have enough opinions you can make an informed judgement, although not sufficiently informed to have an argument