Pentax K-X Which lens kit?

rbcole123 · 03-29-2010, 09:57 AM

I am going to purchase a K-X kit, but don't know whether to get the 200 or 300 zoom lens. Will be used for general photography (kids, some nature shots, etc.), upgrading from point and shoot. Any thoughts -- the 300 kit is $100 more than 200 kit. Thanks!

rbcole123 · 03-29-2010, 10:09 AM

Is the 300 lens much bulkier? Thanks!

Ira · 03-29-2010, 10:32 AM

Consensus is the 300 is very superior to the 200.

I don't have either so can't comment on size, but that's what I've mostly read here.

séamuis · 03-29-2010, 10:50 AM

SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED
Weight Length Filter Diameter
255 g(235 for DAL) 7.85 cm 52 mm

SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED
Weight Length Filter Diameter
440 g(425 for DAL) 11.15 cm 58 mm

as stated above, the 55-300 is optically superior, but I guess you are the judge on wether that optical superiority is worth the extra cost. its not much longer than the 50-200 but its nearly double the weight and has a larger filter thread.

Marc Sabatella · 03-29-2010, 10:53 AM

Most say the 55-300 is better, but the 50-200 is good enough for me. Size difference I'd call noticeable but not huge; it's the *weight* difference that would give me pause, personally the 55-300 is about twice as heavy as the 50-200 (BTW, the stats above are for the regular versions, not the slightly lighter versions sold in the K-x kit). I'd say if you're not concerned with the difference in weight, for $100, the extra reach and better IQ is well worth it. And if you don't get it with the kit, you'll miss your best chance to ever get it so cheap.

Here's a site with specs on on all Pentax lenses (and a lot more useful info too):

Welcome to Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page

Also, I'm merging this thread with the similar one you started in the beginner's forum. In the future, please don't create duplicate threads. The beginner's forum was the better place for it. The lens forum might have been OK too, but since this is a common beginner question, that's the best place for it. And before posting, do consider browsing searching for existing threads - this topic is discussed quite often.

VikingDave · 03-29-2010, 01:42 PM

I got the 55-300 kit and have never regretted it. I love that lens. And trust me, you find shots that can use the reach. I like birds and wildlife down by the creek near me, and the 300 is great for these shots.

And it's funny that weight is such a big factor, because I've never thought of the lens as heavy - never really thought about it at all.

Oddity96 · 03-29-2010, 01:58 PM

I am Borrowing my buddies Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm and this thing is heavy more then twice the weight of the camera(K-x), but it really is not that bad when you are taking pictures the only time i notice the weight is when i have it around my neck.

VikingDave · 03-29-2010, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by VikingDave

I got the 55-300 kit and have never regretted it. I love that lens. And trust me, you find shots that can use the reach. I like birds and wildlife down by the creek near me, and the 300 is great for these shots.

And it's funny that weight is such a big factor, because I've never thought of the lens as heavy - never really thought about it at all.

To demonstrate why I love this lens, I just went outside to my backyard moments ago and took a shot from a decent distance away of a sparrow in a tree. The first pic below is the shot I took at 260mm at f/8 (just handheld from my back porch). The second pic is the crop of the same shot.

BTW - For all you pros that may not be impressed, I've been shooting for only a short period of time (weeks) and admittedly still suck with much to learn. However, that is the point. With this lens, I consistently get shots I am happy with for as bad a photographer as I am.

Bramela · 03-29-2010, 03:57 PM

I think that for your purpose, the 50-200 would be a good way to go.
Light and small it is a great lens for the price which is quite economical.

I would suggest you think about the 55-300 only if you are leaning to a longer reach.

Both are good budget lenses, small and light and produce sharp pictures in very true color.

SpecialK · 03-29-2010, 06:30 PM

55-300 has better image quality overall, though I notice some blue-fringing at the long end.

**Ex Finn.** · 03-30-2010, 06:03 PM

I have used both,(non L), go with the 55-300, worth the extra buck`s.

Cheers, Mike.

**interested_observer** · 03-30-2010, 06:21 PM

If you want the most general lens, and think you will need or want the additional reach go for the 300. Purchased bundled in the kit, it is the most affordable that way. Now, after saying that, go with the one you can actually afford. If the $100 is not going to make a big difference.

I bought the 50-200 in a kit almost 5 years ago with my K100, then about a year and a half ago picked up the 55-300 after it came out, because I needed the additional range. The 300 is the better lens, however if you do not need the additional reach the 200 will be just fine.

henzo · 03-31-2010, 08:56 AM

Not sure if this is an option, but you may want to consider getting the 18-250 superzoom. I initially went down the kit + 50-200 route, but ended selling it and going with the superzoom for convenience.

ICTUS TACTUS · 03-31-2010, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by henzo

I initially went down the kit + 50-200 route, but ended selling it and going with the superzoom for convenience.

On a similar thought, I decided to go body only and do my homework on getting a slight upgrade in buying a non-kit lens with it.

03-29-2010, 09:57 AM	#1
rbcole123 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4	Pentax K-X Which lens kit? I am going to purchase a K-X kit, but don't know whether to get the 200 or 300 zoom lens. Will be used for general photography (kids, some nature shots, etc.), upgrading from point and shoot. Any thoughts -- the 300 kit is $100 more than 200 kit. Thanks!

03-29-2010, 10:09 AM	#2
rbcole123 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4 Original Poster	K-X Which lens kit? Is the 300 lens much bulkier? Thanks! Last edited by Peter Zack; 03-29-2010 at 03:33 PM. Reason: Removed duplication

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-X (black) with kit lens and F 50mm f/1.7 lens	tangus	Sold Items	3	01-06-2010 09:42 AM
For Sale - Sold: WTT Pentax 18-55 AL II kit lens for 18-55 AL kit lens + money	wallyb	Sold Items	2	11-11-2009 02:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax k-2000 + kit lens (18-55) + sigma zoom lens 70-300mm	dexmus	Sold Items	6	11-09-2009 05:25 PM

03-29-2010, 10:32 AM	#3
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Consensus is the 300 is very superior to the 200. I don't have either so can't comment on size, but that's what I've mostly read here.

03-29-2010, 10:50 AM	#4
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED Weight Length Filter Diameter 255 g(235 for DAL) 7.85 cm 52 mm SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED Weight Length Filter Diameter 440 g(425 for DAL) 11.15 cm 58 mm as stated above, the 55-300 is optically superior, but I guess you are the judge on wether that optical superiority is worth the extra cost. its not much longer than the 50-200 but its nearly double the weight and has a larger filter thread.

03-29-2010, 10:53 AM	#5
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Most say the 55-300 is better, but the 50-200 is good enough for me. Size difference I'd call noticeable but not huge; it's the weight difference that would give me pause, personally the 55-300 is about twice as heavy as the 50-200 (BTW, the stats above are for the regular versions, not the slightly lighter versions sold in the K-x kit). I'd say if you're not concerned with the difference in weight, for $100, the extra reach and better IQ is well worth it. And if you don't get it with the kit, you'll miss your best chance to ever get it so cheap. Here's a site with specs on on all Pentax lenses (and a lot more useful info too): Welcome to Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page Also, I'm merging this thread with the similar one you started in the beginner's forum. In the future, please don't create duplicate threads. The beginner's forum was the better place for it. The lens forum might have been OK too, but since this is a common beginner question, that's the best place for it. And before posting, do consider browsing searching for existing threads - this topic is discussed quite often.

03-29-2010, 01:42 PM	#6
VikingDave Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 30	I got the 55-300 kit and have never regretted it. I love that lens. And trust me, you find shots that can use the reach. I like birds and wildlife down by the creek near me, and the 300 is great for these shots. And it's funny that weight is such a big factor, because I've never thought of the lens as heavy - never really thought about it at all.

03-29-2010, 01:58 PM	#7
Oddity96 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Mesa AZ Posts: 81	I am Borrowing my buddies Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm and this thing is heavy more then twice the weight of the camera(K-x), but it really is not that bad when you are taking pictures the only time i notice the weight is when i have it around my neck.

03-29-2010, 03:57 PM	#9
Bramela Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Newcastle Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,284	I think that for your purpose, the 50-200 would be a good way to go. Light and small it is a great lens for the price which is quite economical. I would suggest you think about the 55-300 only if you are leaning to a longer reach. Both are good budget lenses, small and light and produce sharp pictures in very true color.

03-29-2010, 06:30 PM	#10
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	55-300 has better image quality overall, though I notice some blue-fringing at the long end.

03-30-2010, 06:03 PM	#11
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	I have used both,(non L), go with the 55-300, worth the extra buck`s. Cheers, Mike.

03-30-2010, 06:21 PM	#12
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	If you want the most general lens, and think you will need or want the additional reach go for the 300. Purchased bundled in the kit, it is the most affordable that way. Now, after saying that, go with the one you can actually afford. If the $100 is not going to make a big difference. I bought the 50-200 in a kit almost 5 years ago with my K100, then about a year and a half ago picked up the 55-300 after it came out, because I needed the additional range. The 300 is the better lens, however if you do not need the additional reach the 200 will be just fine.

03-31-2010, 08:56 AM	#13
henzo Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 37	Not sure if this is an option, but you may want to consider getting the 18-250 superzoom. I initially went down the kit + 50-200 route, but ended selling it and going with the superzoom for convenience.

03-31-2010, 12:44 PM	#14
ICTUS TACTUS Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56	Originally posted by henzo I initially went down the kit + 50-200 route, but ended selling it and going with the superzoom for convenience. On a similar thought, I decided to go body only and do my homework on getting a slight upgrade in buying a non-kit lens with it.