Originally posted by csa Count me in the corner of the anti 55-300 club. It's a decent lens at a decent price, but it does not age well. As you get more experience with tele work and start expecting better results, you very quickly learn that its IQ and functionality (skittish focusing/long focus throw/f5.8/skittish focusing - I've watched it go from infinity to min and back to infinity before locking somewhere in the middle countless times) is lacking. For $200 it's a very good "dollar per mm" lens, but it's no more than a consumer long telephoto lens.
Call it a bridge lens, or even an hors de ouvres. It gets your appetite going for wildlife photography, but it's not the main course. Unfortunately the main course is being served by Ruth Chris so you better be prepared to foot the bill or stick to the happy hour menu.
Here's my rant about using "good but not great" lenses in wildlife photography - Sometimes you only get ONE shot at it. How many times will I get to Yellowstone? Maybe 2x in my life if I'm lucky. Let's say I have a DA55-300 and I've managed several good shots, maybe from my favorite zoo or local pond. And I've accumulated these shots over several visits and hundreds of photos. And then I post them on PF or Flickr and from what I've posted, you would be believe the DA55-300 to be a potentially very good lens. Well now I'm in Yellowstone, my bucket list trip and it's early am in the fall, low light. Well my F5.8 lens isn't really happy with the low light, and it's really not happy with the lack of contrast. So a once in a lifetime moment with 2 bear cubs happens and the DA55-300 spins and whirs and won't lock and then spins and whirs again and finally locks! So the moment where the cubs stopped and looked at me, one head above the other, framed by dawn light on grass was over in one spin and one whir. Did I get my photo of the moment I saw? NO. Did I even get a useable photo? Well f 5.8 pushed my iso to 1250 instead of 800. Probably not useable. Oh and the lack of contrast of the fur caused the camera to Front Focus on the grass despite center spot focusing and the grass was in the right 1/4 so my cubs are slightly out of focus on top of everything else.
This is a real life true story that happened to ME. This was the defining moment in my wildlife photography, that almost caused me to switch to Nikon. For full disclaimer, I had a pro lens, and the K5iis PDAF was to blame for the missed shot (FF on grass). But I added the spinning and whirling DA55-300 because that's the lens my GF had on HER K5iis right next to me. Her lens NEVER did focus lock, and I heard it spinning away for the whole 8 seconds the cubs were visible.
The epilogue, the K5iis are both gone and the DA55-300 is gone. They have their use but they failed because they weren't up to the task. We both have K3 now and she has upgraded to the Sigma 150-500. Will we get another shot at the bear cubs to see if things turn out differently? Probably not that exact same situation, but I CAN tell you, she RAVES about her 150-500 and how much more responsive and decisive it is. How quickly and quietly it focuses compared to the old 55-300. After just 3 months, she loves photography again because she doesn't miss as many shots. that's the most aggravating thing, to be in the right place at the right time after hundreds of hours of planning, and then have your EQUIPMENT fail you. Do I hate the DA55-300. No and I owned one once when they first came out and quickly sold it. Would I ever put it in my bag? No. Do I hate the K5iis? yes...lol. Does my GF hate the DA 55-300? yes. So maybe that's why Venom so vehemently hates the DA55-300. It failed him.
So yes, there can be hundreds of great photos taken by a lens, but that doesn't tell the whole story. What about the hundreds or even thousands of photos the lens missed, not through photographer error, but because it was asked to function beyond its design limits. Understanding the limits of any lens you own is important, and the problem with wildlife lenses is that the price goes up exponentially to overcome these limitations.