K-x kit with 55-300 or K-r kit with 50-200?

RonakG · 02-05-2011, 08:52 PM

Hi,

As the title suggests, I'm totally confused between the two options -

1) K-x with 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses
2) K-r with 18-55mm and 50-200mm lenses

Both these packages are retailing at same price at around USD 630.

I have read on the forum here that the 55-300mm lens is optically much better than the 50-200mm lens. However I'm tempted for K-r as it offers bigger and better LCD, AF assist lamp, AF focus points in view-finders etc. All these were missing points in K-x and they have addressed those in K-r.

My confusion is, is the IQ of 55-300mm lens good enough to go with K-x without those features? I don't care about the extra 100mm reach I'll lose with 50-200 as I won't be using the zoom in that range that much anyway. Does anyone have side-by-side comparison of these two lenses?

Please advise.

epqwerty · 02-05-2011, 09:12 PM

Well are you going to use the focal ragne between the 150 -200 mm range? If so I'd get the 55-300 as it will provide better image quality over the 200 as it will become soft at those ranges. The camera itself the kx is no slouch but the kr has more features. I would look into spending more for the kr with the 300 zoom packaged together it should be only 150$ more at most. It would be more sensible if you need the 200 range. For my personal opinion the value of glass will never drop as fast as a body in terms of the digital slr times. Because next year your body will be outdated. If you can live without the features I'd go with the kx and spend the extra money of the lens. That just my thinking at least.

Deiberson · 02-06-2011, 03:35 AM

The IQ of the 55-300 is far superior.

**Ash** · 02-06-2011, 04:38 AM

The very questions you've asked us about what you'd forgo with the K-x over the K-r are what you ought to ask yourself whether or not those features are valued enough to go with the K-r. The 50-200 is capable of getting some decent images in its sweet spot, but the 55-300 is that much more capable and useable over all the focal lengths and apertures.

pxpaulx · 02-06-2011, 07:00 AM

The 300mm lens is significantly better, and retains f4.5 through close to 200mm, giving it a 2/3 stop advantage over the 200mm at it's longest focal length. If you can, wait for a good deal or wait until you can scrounge the extra $100 for the kr 300mm kit as it is well worth the extra money.

KxBlaze · 02-06-2011, 01:33 PM

I do not have side by side comparisons but I can say that the 55-300's IQ is far better than the 50-200. Are you sure you will not use the 200-300 focal length? That is what I thought and therefore did not get the 55-300 (only the 18-55) and now I regret it and since I could not afford the 55-300 at the time I had to get the Tamron 70-300 (a good lens but not the 55-300).

I suggest doing some searches to find examples (preferably 100% crops) of both lenses to judge for yourself and make sure that you will not use the 200-300 focal length.

RonakG · 02-06-2011, 05:29 PM

Thanks everyone for chipping in. Looks like the 55-300 is a clear winner here. Also, I had gone to a botanical garden today and when I checked the flower shots realized that lot of them were actually falling in the 300 to 450mm range. I love flower macros shots. I don't have much time to wait for K-r prices to go down further as I am going back to India in another month's time from US of A.

So, it is K-x for me then, I'll have to make do without the extra features of K-r (anyway the K-r deal is gone now).

BirdDude007 · 02-06-2011, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by RonakG

Thanks everyone for chipping in. Looks like the 55-300 is a clear winner here. Also, I had gone to a botanical garden today and when I checked the flower shots realized that lot of them were actually falling in the 300 to 450mm range. I love flower macros shots. I don't have much time to wait for K-r prices to go down further as I am going back to India in another month's time from US of A.

So, it is K-x for me then, I'll have to make do without the extra features of K-r (anyway the K-r deal is gone now).

I wanted the K-r at first but the wife bought me a K-x for Christmas.......I'm glad she did. I don't have a use for the indicator in the viewfinder for the focus, in fact if I had a K-r I would never use it anyways, I just use the center weighted focus most of the time where if I am using the auto focus I will lock it on the image and recompose it.
I really like having the AA option for my camera, I just mainly use the lithiums and they last me a long time. As for the smaller viewfinder I never even notice it being so small, it only seems tiny to me because I am used to the viewfinder on my Pentax ME Super film camera, so most DSLRs seem to have a small viewfinder to me.
You will really be happy with the K-x so don't sweat it.

tibbitts · 02-06-2011, 08:55 PM

I did do a very careful comparison with over 100 images, and my particular 55-300 was significantly inferior to both my 50-200 and my 100-300F (the "bad" version.) But honestly, it wasn't bad enough that if I hadn't had the other two for comparison, I wouldn't have known that it was bad. I'm sure there are better 55-300 copies out there, but the point is that no matter what lens you get, you have to test it, and that's hard to do if you don't have anything of at least somewhat similar focal length to test it against.

Paul

02-05-2011, 08:52 PM	#1
RonakG Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	K-x kit with 55-300 or K-r kit with 50-200? Hi, As the title suggests, I'm totally confused between the two options - 1) K-x with 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses 2) K-r with 18-55mm and 50-200mm lenses Both these packages are retailing at same price at around USD 630. I have read on the forum here that the 55-300mm lens is optically much better than the 50-200mm lens. However I'm tempted for K-r as it offers bigger and better LCD, AF assist lamp, AF focus points in view-finders etc. All these were missing points in K-x and they have addressed those in K-r. My confusion is, is the IQ of 55-300mm lens good enough to go with K-x without those features? I don't care about the extra 100mm reach I'll lose with 50-200 as I won't be using the zoom in that range that much anyway. Does anyone have side-by-side comparison of these two lenses? Please advise.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-r 18-55 55-300 kit	AstraNine	Pentax K-r	1	12-09-2010 03:58 AM
For Sale - Sold: Like New K-x Kit with 55-300 (US/CAN)	VaughnA	Sold Items	2	11-29-2010 07:01 PM
Pentax Kx with 18-55 and 55-300 kit?	Firewire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	02-24-2010 07:28 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: DA 18-55 Kit & DA 50-200 Kit	Tingchaleun	Sold Items	3	03-22-2008 08:38 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS - DA 50-200, DA 18-55, Sigma DL70-300 & ZX-5n Kit	mpreston	Sold Items	4	01-28-2008 11:17 AM

02-05-2011, 09:12 PM	#2
epqwerty Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Posts: 550	Well are you going to use the focal ragne between the 150 -200 mm range? If so I'd get the 55-300 as it will provide better image quality over the 200 as it will become soft at those ranges. The camera itself the kx is no slouch but the kr has more features. I would look into spending more for the kr with the 300 zoom packaged together it should be only 150$ more at most. It would be more sensible if you need the 200 range. For my personal opinion the value of glass will never drop as fast as a body in terms of the digital slr times. Because next year your body will be outdated. If you can live without the features I'd go with the kx and spend the extra money of the lens. That just my thinking at least.

02-06-2011, 03:35 AM	#3
Deiberson Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 734	The IQ of the 55-300 is far superior.

02-06-2011, 04:38 AM	#4
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	The very questions you've asked us about what you'd forgo with the K-x over the K-r are what you ought to ask yourself whether or not those features are valued enough to go with the K-r. The 50-200 is capable of getting some decent images in its sweet spot, but the 55-300 is that much more capable and useable over all the focal lengths and apertures.

02-06-2011, 07:00 AM	#5
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	The 300mm lens is significantly better, and retains f4.5 through close to 200mm, giving it a 2/3 stop advantage over the 200mm at it's longest focal length. If you can, wait for a good deal or wait until you can scrounge the extra $100 for the kr 300mm kit as it is well worth the extra money.

02-06-2011, 01:33 PM	#6
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	I do not have side by side comparisons but I can say that the 55-300's IQ is far better than the 50-200. Are you sure you will not use the 200-300 focal length? That is what I thought and therefore did not get the 55-300 (only the 18-55) and now I regret it and since I could not afford the 55-300 at the time I had to get the Tamron 70-300 (a good lens but not the 55-300). I suggest doing some searches to find examples (preferably 100% crops) of both lenses to judge for yourself and make sure that you will not use the 200-300 focal length.

02-06-2011, 05:29 PM	#7
RonakG Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 603 Original Poster	Thanks everyone for chipping in. Looks like the 55-300 is a clear winner here. Also, I had gone to a botanical garden today and when I checked the flower shots realized that lot of them were actually falling in the 300 to 450mm range. I love flower macros shots. I don't have much time to wait for K-r prices to go down further as I am going back to India in another month's time from US of A. So, it is K-x for me then, I'll have to make do without the extra features of K-r (anyway the K-r deal is gone now).

02-06-2011, 06:00 PM	#8
BirdDude007 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Las Vegas NV Photos: Albums Posts: 784	Originally posted by RonakG Thanks everyone for chipping in. Looks like the 55-300 is a clear winner here. Also, I had gone to a botanical garden today and when I checked the flower shots realized that lot of them were actually falling in the 300 to 450mm range. I love flower macros shots. I don't have much time to wait for K-r prices to go down further as I am going back to India in another month's time from US of A. So, it is K-x for me then, I'll have to make do without the extra features of K-r (anyway the K-r deal is gone now). I wanted the K-r at first but the wife bought me a K-x for Christmas.......I'm glad she did. I don't have a use for the indicator in the viewfinder for the focus, in fact if I had a K-r I would never use it anyways, I just use the center weighted focus most of the time where if I am using the auto focus I will lock it on the image and recompose it. I really like having the AA option for my camera, I just mainly use the lithiums and they last me a long time. As for the smaller viewfinder I never even notice it being so small, it only seems tiny to me because I am used to the viewfinder on my Pentax ME Super film camera, so most DSLRs seem to have a small viewfinder to me. You will really be happy with the K-x so don't sweat it.

02-06-2011, 08:55 PM	#9
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	I did do a very careful comparison with over 100 images, and my particular 55-300 was significantly inferior to both my 50-200 and my 100-300F (the "bad" version.) But honestly, it wasn't bad enough that if I hadn't had the other two for comparison, I wouldn't have known that it was bad. I'm sure there are better 55-300 copies out there, but the point is that no matter what lens you get, you have to test it, and that's hard to do if you don't have anything of at least somewhat similar focal length to test it against. Paul