WR lenes

Docrwm · 07-15-2012, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

I have the DA55-100 and use the quickshift all the time, it allows you to miss less shots because it does have a noisy and slow autofocus, but has very good image quality, unlike so many xx-300 zooms that lose IQ in the long end. I would really miss that quickshift if I didn't have it. I've used the lens several times in a downpour with an Opteka rain sleeve, it works, but I still wish it was WR. I agree with the suggestions to buy the kit with a DA18-135, that's what I'm planning.

I have the 100 Macro WR and it also has a metal body, it may be the only metal body that's not a limited.

Thanks for pointing that out. The two DA* lenses that I have seen were not metal bodies and I made the incorrect assumption (and you know what they say about those) that none of them were. Thanks for clarifying!

Sandy Hancock · 07-15-2012, 06:58 PM

Unlike the Limiteds, the DFA 100 WR is not *all* metal. The inner barrel and hood are plastic. It's still a beautiful, crisp, tactile joy of a lens though

audiobomber · 07-15-2012, 07:00 PM

Here's a comparison of the DA 18-135 and 55-300mm in their common ranges. The 55-300 does have slightly better sharpness and slightly less fringing, but you'll have to view at 100% to see the very minor differences. https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/18135Vs55300?authkey=Gv1sRgCO7y5LGM3-rKEA#
The 55-300 hunts for focus far too often, I can't imagine having one without quick-shift. The 18-135 has smoother bokeh than the 55-300 and mechanically it's in a different league due to quick & silent AF, WR, more solid construction. Pretty good for a superzoom.

SpecialK · 07-15-2012, 07:09 PM

Just a couple minor points:

It's 50-200, not 55-200. Had one. Sold it when I got the much better 55-300 (which I ultimately sold when I got the 150-500 and had the 70-200).

Plastic lasts (almost) forever. Been around for years, will be around a million more...

There are camera condoms for the occasional bad weather that may make true WR not as important.

FragileBird · 07-16-2012, 05:39 PM

Thanks everyone! I appreciate all the help! I look forward to joining the Pentax DLSR community. ^_^

Lupine · 07-17-2012, 03:58 PM

A little late, but just to reinforce many of the other comments, I dumped the DAL 18-55 that came with my Kr for a Sigma 17-70. I did not like the IQ of the 18-55. OTOH, I really like the DAL 55-300 and have gotten some very good shots with it. I do wish I had the DA version with the quick shift and metal mount, but not enough to pay a couple hundred $$ more. Also, when I was a film shooter I only shot MF and even now most of my lenses don't have AF, so I am very comfortable operating in MF mode and do most of my shooting with AF off.

I would like to add an 18-135WR to my kit for those times when I can only carry one lens. The 17-70 doesn't have as much reach as I often want and the 55-300 is to long for a lot of shots.

**ramseybuckeye** · 07-17-2012, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The 55-300 hunts for focus far too often, I can't imagine having one without quick-shift. The 18-135 has smoother bokeh than the 55-300 and mechanically it's in a different league due to quick & silent AF, WR, more solid construction. Pretty good for a superzoom.

I just ordered the K-30 with the 18-135, I'm happy to hear about the bokeh, I really didn't expect that. I think the bokeh of the 55-300 is pretty good. Thanks for that info!

audiobomber · 07-17-2012, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

I just ordered the K-30 with the 18-135, I'm happy to hear about the bokeh, I really didn't expect that. I think the bokeh of the 55-300 is pretty good. Thanks for that info!

The 55-300mm can melt the background into a sheet of colour because of its long focal length, but at similar focal lengths, the 18-135 bokeh is smoother, probably as a result of the rounded aperture blades.

**ramseybuckeye** · 07-18-2012, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The 55-300mm can melt the background into a sheet of colour because of its long focal length, but at similar focal lengths, the 18-135 bokeh is smoother, probably as a result of the rounded aperture blades.

awesome, can't wait to get it

FragileBird · 07-20-2012, 04:52 PM

Yeah. I got it with the 18-135. So far so good with the lens but the camera I've found an issue with the 18-135 and the lamp.

07-15-2012, 07:00 PM	#18
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Here's a comparison of the DA 18-135 and 55-300mm in their common ranges. The 55-300 does have slightly better sharpness and slightly less fringing, but you'll have to view at 100% to see the very minor differences. https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/18135Vs55300?authkey=Gv1sRgCO7y5LGM3-rKEA# The 55-300 hunts for focus far too often, I can't imagine having one without quick-shift. The 18-135 has smoother bokeh than the 55-300 and mechanically it's in a different league due to quick & silent AF, WR, more solid construction. Pretty good for a superzoom. Last edited by audiobomber; 07-15-2012 at 07:07 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FA Lenes on a Nikon 700	stoge	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	12-08-2010 09:20 AM
I am new, so, What are the MUST HAVE lenes?	Softsoap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	02-20-2010 04:44 PM
using a changing bag to change lenes	jon pafford	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	9	02-29-2008 10:19 AM

07-15-2012, 06:48 PM	#16
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye I have the DA55-100 and use the quickshift all the time, it allows you to miss less shots because it does have a noisy and slow autofocus, but has very good image quality, unlike so many xx-300 zooms that lose IQ in the long end. I would really miss that quickshift if I didn't have it. I've used the lens several times in a downpour with an Opteka rain sleeve, it works, but I still wish it was WR. I agree with the suggestions to buy the kit with a DA18-135, that's what I'm planning. I have the 100 Macro WR and it also has a metal body, it may be the only metal body that's not a limited. Thanks for pointing that out. The two DA* lenses that I have seen were not metal bodies and I made the incorrect assumption (and you know what they say about those) that none of them were. Thanks for clarifying!

07-15-2012, 06:58 PM	#17
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Unlike the Limiteds, the DFA 100 WR is not all metal. The inner barrel and hood are plastic. It's still a beautiful, crisp, tactile joy of a lens though

07-15-2012, 07:09 PM	#19
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Just a couple minor points: It's 50-200, not 55-200. Had one. Sold it when I got the much better 55-300 (which I ultimately sold when I got the 150-500 and had the 70-200). Plastic lasts (almost) forever. Been around for years, will be around a million more... There are camera condoms for the occasional bad weather that may make true WR not as important.

07-16-2012, 05:39 PM	#20
FragileBird Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 38 Original Poster	Thanks everyone! I appreciate all the help! I look forward to joining the Pentax DLSR community. ^_^

07-17-2012, 03:58 PM	#21
Lupine Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 93	A little late, but just to reinforce many of the other comments, I dumped the DAL 18-55 that came with my Kr for a Sigma 17-70. I did not like the IQ of the 18-55. OTOH, I really like the DAL 55-300 and have gotten some very good shots with it. I do wish I had the DA version with the quick shift and metal mount, but not enough to pay a couple hundred $$ more. Also, when I was a film shooter I only shot MF and even now most of my lenses don't have AF, so I am very comfortable operating in MF mode and do most of my shooting with AF off. I would like to add an 18-135WR to my kit for those times when I can only carry one lens. The 17-70 doesn't have as much reach as I often want and the 55-300 is to long for a lot of shots.

07-17-2012, 06:50 PM	#22
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,294	Originally posted by audiobomber The 55-300 hunts for focus far too often, I can't imagine having one without quick-shift. The 18-135 has smoother bokeh than the 55-300 and mechanically it's in a different league due to quick & silent AF, WR, more solid construction. Pretty good for a superzoom. I just ordered the K-30 with the 18-135, I'm happy to hear about the bokeh, I really didn't expect that. I think the bokeh of the 55-300 is pretty good. Thanks for that info!

07-17-2012, 07:20 PM	#23
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye I just ordered the K-30 with the 18-135, I'm happy to hear about the bokeh, I really didn't expect that. I think the bokeh of the 55-300 is pretty good. Thanks for that info! The 55-300mm can melt the background into a sheet of colour because of its long focal length, but at similar focal lengths, the 18-135 bokeh is smoother, probably as a result of the rounded aperture blades.

07-18-2012, 03:14 AM	#24
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,294	Originally posted by audiobomber The 55-300mm can melt the background into a sheet of colour because of its long focal length, but at similar focal lengths, the 18-135 bokeh is smoother, probably as a result of the rounded aperture blades. awesome, can't wait to get it

07-20-2012, 04:52 PM	#25
FragileBird Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 38 Original Poster	Yeah. I got it with the 18-135. So far so good with the lens but the camera I've found an issue with the 18-135 and the lamp.