[Joyce Keay]

Hi, I've got Pentax lenses 18-135, 55-300 and macro 100. I'm thinking about buying the 150-450. Reviews on Amazon are excellent but it is a lot of money. Once you bought your 150-450 did you sell your 55-300 or do you still use it? Thanks.

[normhead]

I don't own either, but there are times you want an insurance lens that doesn't weight a lot. If you're a hiker or non-motorized traveller, I'd keep the 55-300 just for when I didn't want the weight or bulk of the 150-450.

[jatrax]

When I bought the 150-450 I passed the 55-300 on to my wife. I agree with Norm these two serve different purposes, I'm glad I have both. I do like the results from the 150-450 but you need to make a conscious decision to go shoot with it. It is not something you just toss in your backpack just in case. Which the 55-300 is.

[mattt]

I just acquired Sigma 120-400, a reasonable equivalent to 150-450 for size / weight.

I had 55-300. I will keep the 55-300 - Its very light, and cheap in consideration of what it delivers.

[UncleVanya]

I have the 60-250 and the 55-300. Not sure if that helps. The weight is the main reason is carry the 55-300 sometimes.

[clickclick]

Have the 55-300 in PLM and HD WR versions and the 150-450. Sequence of purchase was HD 55-300, 150-450, PLM 55-300. So that would I think indicate having a compact telezoom in that range in addition to the 150-450 is attractive for all the reasons stated, like weight and ease to grab and go. And remember, to best use the 150-450, you're probably using a tripod, at which point it's not just the size/weight of the lens. And now with the PLM, the first 55-300 is a common use lens with the kids.

[C_Jones]

The 150-450 will give the super telephoto that you need for long distance. For example, I use my Sigma 150-500 on my Pentax cameras for birds in flight or stationary (in trees or in water), and for some sports (soccer). It gives me the option of getting real close-up shots while giving me a nice range to work with that I can adjust to different situations. I had a 55-300 years ago and it gave me nice images, but did not cover the super telephoto range I knew I wanted, so I traded it in and got my new Sigma 150-500 (when they were still made). The 150-450 was not available then. If I did not have my 150-500, the Pentax 150-450 would be my first choice for super telephoto zoom. The new 55-300 is lighter than the 150-450, but does not serve the same category of shooting needs. In most cases I use my 150-500 handheld for the versatility.

[derekkite]

I bought the 150-450 last fall and have been impressed. I have an older version of the 55-300 that I bought with the K5 and I haven't used it in a long while. I also have the DA*300, as well as the Sigma 500 f4.5.

I wanted something more flexible and lighter than the Sigma. The focus distance is good enough for shooting insects and reptiles. It is sharp and nice contrast. It needs lots of light though, but that is the constant bane of long shooting. I'm finding it on my K1 almost all the time and when there is decent light I can get quite nice shots.

[OzzRod]

I have both lenses and use the 55-300 whenever weight is an issue; especially when flying to a destination.
And yes, apart from its size and weight, my 150-450 copy delivers grand IQ.

[Andy Fern]

The HD55-300mm is my walkabout telezoom due to its relatively light weight and compactness. It's sharp enough for most of my travel or casual photography. But it can't hold a candle to the DFA 150-450mm which is light years better in IQ. The latter however is a beast to carry about and I bring it along when I have something specific to shoot, like birds in flight and other forms of wildlife photography. I love both lenses and will be keeping them for a long time.
Cheers
Andrew

[WPRESTO]

The 150~450mm is an excellent zoom, but it is really big and really heavy. It can be hand held, but is really best atop a sturdy tripod. The 55~300mm is not in the same league for IQ, but it is small and light, easy to take-along and is really intended to be used hand held. I'd call the 150~450mm a purpose lens = you specifically intend to use it when you take it along because you are going to a location that has a subject suited to such a big zoom. The 55~300mm is a take-it-because-I-might-want/need-it. It's not that much extra to carry in a shoulder bag or a separate lens case with a shoulder strap.

[wstruth]

I have both. Mt 55-300 was a kit lens when i bought my Kx. And my 150-450 is fairly new. I love them both but honestly don't use the 55-300 much right now since my copy focuses slowly and because i really like the 150-450. The smaller lens is good for a carry along lens when travelling. I actually plan on buying the new PLM version of the 55-300 for a carry along fast focusing lens.

[DeadJohn]

Joyce, I still use my 55-300 even after I bought a Sigma 50-500mm zoom. The Sigma is undoubtedly better image quality and I try to bring it when I plan to photograph wildlife or an airshow.

So, why do I keep the 55-300? It's for hiking and air travel where I want to pack lightly. For example, there are places I've hiked multiple times where I don't expect to encounter much wildlife, but there's still a reasonable chance of spotting something interesting. The 55-300 doesn't take up much space or weight in a backpack.

For National Park visits I sometimes bring both the 50-500 and the 55-300. The big 50-500 is for when I'm staying relatively close to the car. The 55-300 gets used when I'm wandering for miles.

[david94903]

I have both lenses, and the DA 55-300 hasn't been used since I got the D-FA150-450. The 55-300 is a good lens but I find 150-450 is a much better lens in pretty much all aspects, and especially image quality. Now the weight of the 150-450 vs the 55-300... that's another story

[Madaboutpix]

On a budget like mine, a €2,200 beast like the DFA150-450 must remain a distant telephoto dream that may never come true. However, even if I could afford it, I doubt I would dump a lightweight and flexible telephoto option like my classic DA55-300. You can walk all day with this lens on your camera or in your backpack without feeling a thing, and considering that it cost less than a seventh of its DFA cousin, it delivers remarkably well, even on a 24MP body like the K-3.

It's the sort of lens I'd never hesitate to slap on my camera when sudden photo opportunities arise, like when my wife woke me on that February morning a couple of years back and suggested I might want to join her on the morning walkies with our dog, given there was such gorgeous light. Here's what that single stroll with the DA55-300 yielded (all shots hand-held):