[assa1]

The 55-300 is not a WR LENS CORRECT?

It is WR if there is a red ribbon around the lens.

[Alex645]

=Tony3d;3571522 Just the thought of someday having to swab the sensor freaks me out! The 55-300 is not a WR LENS CORRECT?

I have swabbed dozens of sensors (mostly for my trusting students' DSLRs) and only once encountered a sensor on an old Canon Rebel XTi that was so filthy that I was just sweeping dust bunnies from one end of the sensor to the other. The Rebel XTi is not weather-sealed and neither are the lenses, and although the family only had the one kit lens and never removed it, the mess on the sensor was either generated internally or like many viewfinders, the dust just finds its way in over many years.

As long as your battery is fresh, and you get special swabs and a product like Eclipse (mostly methanol) to clean with, it's not eye surgery.

FYI: Pentax made a 55-300mm that wasn't WR, and the latest version which is WR. The WR version is worth the higher price tag.

[rawr]

An observation re super-zooms: if you use Lightroom make sure you choose a lens that has lens corrections available for it in Lightroom. Or for more extensive corrections, check if a RAW convertor like DxO Optics Pro has a lens module for your super-zoom + camera.

Good software corrections/lens profiles (to fix distortion, vignetting, purple fringing and even edge sharpness in the case of DxO) can quickly and easily improve how super-zoom images look.

[Sandy Hancock]

The 55-300 is not a WR LENS CORRECT?

My old one wasn't, my new one certainly is.

[rawr]

The 55-300 is not a WR LENS CORRECT?

The first two versions (DA 55-300, DAL 55-300) weren't. But the latest HD DA 55-300 f4-5.8 ED WR is.

My DAL 55-300 has been a very good performer, and unlike many other big zooms, it never proved to be a dust pump. But it can be very handy indeed to have such a lens with WR, so I have that model too.

[totsmuyco]

Has anybody com pare the HD 55-300 wr versus the sigma 18-300 in terms of image quality and AF? I have the the HD 55-300 but I'm also looking at the sigma 18-300.

[niceshot]

The sharpest zoom is the Vivitar 70-210 3.5

[Boer1974]

I have 2 DA 55-300mm, and bought a Sigma 18-300.
Sigma 18-300 is sharper than my 2 copy of DA 55-300mm in the long end.
It is also quick to be a slow lense

I am very happy with it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/boergelein/albums/72157663031391420

[FantasticMrFox]

It is WR if there is a red ribbon around the lens.

Nope, the red ring has nothing to do with weather sealing. It was introduced to denote HD coating, but has since been abandoned.

A lens is 'WR' if it has 'WR' in the name, and if it is DA*/'AW' it has an even higher level of sealing.

[Sandy Hancock]

Yes, but the HD version of the lens in question is WR, so assa1's statement is correct.

[Simen1]

If I may cavil, I don’t think the wish for super sharp and super zoom is an oxymoron. We have chosen system cameras for a reason. We can have both, just not at the same time. I have a DA18-135 for convenience and a set of primes for superb optical performance. The 18-135 sits on the camera by default - ready for anything, even bad weather and ready to go on trips where I don't want to carry more lenses. The set of primes are used when I want to carry them and have the time to change lenses.

Personally I don’t like f/2.8 zooms because they are not excelling in ether department. They don’t really offer ether the convenience of not having to change lenses and they don’t really offer prime quality or prime aperture. They are just big, heavy and expensive crossovers.

[normhead]

OK, so you have the 55-300. Have the discipline to take the 18-135 off when you want edge to edge sharpness, over 55mm. That's what I do with my 60-250. There are many images where edge to edge sharpness is irrelevant to the image because the borders are out of focus. You can leave the 18-135 on for those.

But then, if you can't train yourself to do that, you pretty much have to buy lenses that are sharp edge to edge (and sacrifice centre sharpness). That would be lenses like the DA 35 2.4, and DA 70, 100 and 100 macro, which you can push to 140 with the TC. The 16-85 while better than the 18-135 at 85mm, is not prime quality at 85mm. A Tamron 90 with a 1.4 TC would probably be all you'd need for the long end if you sold your 18-135.

Any edge to edge solution you find in a super zoom, will cost you centre sharpness, but many will give you more consistent edge to edge, even if it's not particularly sharp, or as centre sharp as the 18-135.

Below 50mm, particularly the 20-40 range you are definitely going to lose both edge to edge and centre sharp compared to your 18-135 going to another superzoom. So you're really just trading edge to edge in the 60-135 range for better edge to edge in the 20-40 range by getting rid of your 18-135. Life is full of compromises.

It's hard to find one lens that does it all. Every zoom has it's weakness (except maybe the 60-250) . No super zooms are even in the running.

[csa]

The 55-300 is not a WR LENS CORRECT?

There are 3 versions of the 55-300. The DL (plastic mount I think), the regular with Green band, and the WR, that has the Red band. Now, possibly the DL may also have the green band, I'm not sure of this.

As far as sharp images from the 55-300, I have just the regular Green band, using with a Tamron 1.4xTC, with very sharp results.

[FantasticMrFox]

Yes, but the HD version of the lens in question is WR, so assa1's statement is correct.

I thought he was referring to lenses in general - my bad.

[rawr]

Just for the record .. the usual warnings:

- avoid using UV or 'protection' filters on a lens if you are worried about lens sharpness and optical performance;
- always use a hood for better contrast, less flare etc, esp when shooting complex optical designs like super zooms.