[jonlg]

I recall the 55-300 had a pretty good reputation (though I have never owned one). I do own the Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 and while it's a bit of a beast it's certainly a very sharp lens indeed, in some tests scoring higher than the £1800 Canon L series 70-200mm. I will be very interested to see how the Pentax 70-200mm F2.8 compares even though I suspect that the difference may not justify the upgrade cost.

For the £430 I paid for it, it's a stellar performer and I doubt that you could find anything else at the price offering its quality. Teamed with a decent 17-70/16-85mm you can do pretty much everything very well with just two lenses...

jonlg

[THoog]

Now, possibly the DL may also have the green band, I'm not sure of this.

SMC DA L version has a silver band, plastic mount, and no quick-shift.
SMC DA version has green band, metal mount, and quick-shift.
HD DA version has red band, metal mount, quick-shift, and WR.

SMC DA* version has a gold band and is a 60-250.

[Rupert]

With a zoom factor of 10 the Sigma 50-500 actually does really well keeping image quality throughout its zoom range.
I'm pretty sure this is not what the OP was looking for though.

I agree ......and it is probably not what the OP is looking for or needs? but having shot with a Bigma 50-500 for almost 10 years it is a pretty decent lens for sharpness through the entire range. Sometimes you just want to get a shot you would otherwise miss and the more range the more chance of getting it.

I never owned a Pentax 55-300 but I have seen many, many, very fine shots from it.....it may be the best bargain out there for a long zoom.....I would not hesitate to recommend it and I don't think most owners would either?

OTOH- If a longer lens is in the running. the Bigma is not a lens to turn your back on.....

1/250 Handheld f7.1 ISO640 on the K5IIs @ 500mm



Regards!

[normhead]

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.

Anyone have an actual test to find out how many lw/ph a UV filter costs you or is this a wive's tale? I hate advice without numbers.

[rawr]

Anyone have an actual test to find out how many lw/ph a UV filter costs you or is this a wive's tale?

I don't think you have to look further than the lenstip tests, which give you a nice chart for visible light transmission for each UV filter tested, vignetting, haze etc. In their supplemental tests, they even provide a score for the homogeneity of the filter.

UV filters test - Introduction - LensTip.com
UV filters test - supplement - Introduction - LensTip.com

[K-Three]

A different way to look at it,
Rather than a new lens; if you don't like changing lenses in the field, and you have the 18-135 and 55-300 already,
Pick up a second body, put a lens on each, and problem solved, GAS is appeased for a while, and the world is right.

Then you will want to start adding primes to your arsenal, and a body for each of them...
It's a slippery slope...

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

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.

I'd have to disagree and say that convenience is in they eye of the beholder, especially in the case of the 17-50 range of f/2.8 zooms. I have both a 18-135 and a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as well as a DA 35 f/2.4 and DA 50 f/1.8. The 18-135 has a slight edge with the DC AF, but in terms of image quality, the 17-50 is ahead of the 18-135. Sure the primes are sharper than either, but the 17-50 definitely offers convenience of not changing between my 35 and 50mm lenses. While slightly larger than the 18-135, the 17-50 isn't really large, heavy, or expensive, and it is much more useful in low light.

I don't have a 60-250 or 50-135, but I would argue that they also offer a bit of convenience compared to switching between lenses such as the 50mm, 100mm, and 200mm primes.

[Tony3d]

A different way to look at it,
Rather than a new lens; if you don't like changing lenses in the field, and you have the 18-135 and 55-300 already,
Pick up a second body, put a lens on each, and problem solved, GAS is appeased for a while, and the world is right.

Then you will want to start adding primes to your arsenal, and a body for each of them...
It's a slippery slope...

I've thought of that! LOL!

[totsmuyco]

I've thought of that! LOL!

That's what I'm doing. I would mount my 18-135 on my k-5II and the 55-300 on my k-3II. If only that sigma 18-300 would be WR, I would get one. Then I can play with a mounted 10-20 on one camera and an 18-300 on the other.

[normhead]

I don't think you have to look further than the lenstip tests, which give you a nice chart for visible light transmission for each UV filter tested, vignetting, haze etc. In their supplemental tests, they even provide a score for the homogeneity of the filter.

UV filters test - Introduction - LensTip.com
UV filters test - supplement - Introduction - LensTip.com

This test does not say what you claim it does.

At the same time, the radiation is strongly dispersed, so when taking a picture of the Morskie Oko high mountain lake or Giewont Peak we get the impression that the image is slightly more blurred than we see with our naked eye. These are situations in which the use of UV filters would improve the picture quality.

SO the article says UV can make you images sharper.

The problem could be in choosing the right one from amongst a range with prices from 30 to 500 Polish zloty. Moreover, buying even the most expensive filter does not necessarily guarantee a satisfactory effect.

And doesn't recommend not buying one, it recommends buying a good one.

But thanks for posting those links.

[FantasticMrFox]

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.

There is a reason a lot of pros use lenses like the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 - the image quality is outstanding, on one level with many primes, albeit of course not the best ones, and also not as fast. Since I got my Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM I find myself hardly ever using my DA 35 f/2.4 any more. There might be a negligible difference in MTF test charts, but the real world difference is nil. The only reason I see to use primes over fast, high-quality zooms is a wider aperture for darker scenes or shallower depth of field.

And they certainly are very versatile. A 17-50 mm zoom saves you buying and changing at least three primes (20 mm, 35 mm, 50 mm). Sure, something like the 16-85 would be even more versatile (but with a slower aperture), but 17-50 is more than enough for me.

[WPRESTO]

Thoughts on some zooms:
1) the 55~300 is better than it has any right to be at the price, and it's small and light for its range;
2) Sigma 10~20, especially the original version with removable hood, is excellent, significantly smaller/lighter than the 8~16 (also excellent);
3) from 50 to about 350mm, the Bigma 50~500 is really remarkable, and at least acceptable beyond, but the Pentax 150~450 is better, especially at the long end;
4) Sigma 18~250 is very good for the range and price; the newer 18~300 provides about the same IQ with slightly longer reach, an excellent choice for walk-around & tourist-travel;
5) the new Pentax 16~85 is remarkable - I love it and retired an 18~135 after buying one (latter went to another Pentaxian);
6) Pentax 50~135 is outstanding, but very large for the range and would benefit from a tripod socket;

Question: will Tamron offer the 16~300 in K-mount?? Probably not, which is a pity as it would be another fine choice for walk-around and tourist-travel.

[rawr]

This test does not say what you claim it does.

My basic point with UV filters is well illustrated by this (from the lenstip tests):



From this one can draw various conclusions, I guess, two of which are:

(1) there are good and bad UV filters;
(2) bad UV filters can severely rob an image of contrast, clarity - and resolution.

From my own experience, and demonstrated by many of the lenstip tests, most UV filters are not good, and degrade image quality. Don't even get me started on the subject of the internal reflections they can cause during long exposures at night.

[normhead]

From my own experience, and demonstrated by many of the lenstip tests, most UV filters are not good, and degrade image quality. Don't even get me started on the subject of the internal reflections they can cause during long exposures at night.

I wouldn't be using any of those images in all likely hood, with or without the filter. Lens tips also said there were occasions where filters improve IQ, I don't see any of those cited in the above examples. Were they included it would be possible to evaluate when to use a filter or not to, or how likely you were to be in a situation where a filter could hurt rather than help.

I use filter all the time on almost every lens I own. I don't find the results un-accepatable. And I'm not seeing anything you've posted that convinces me I need to change that habit, although maybe changing brands might be a consideration.

My original point is, you go beyond the recommendations of the articles authors, who sure have a much better understanding of the subject than you do, given the amount of testing they've done.

But you tell me, why didn't the authors of this article just come out and say.. "don't use filters"?

[Rondec]

This test does not say what you claim it does.



SO the article says UV can make you images sharper.



And doesn't recommend not buying one, it recommends buying a good one.

But thanks for posting those links.

My experience with UV filters is that they can worsen flare and give color casts. When I use them, I use high end coated ones, like from Hoya or Marumi. I have never seen them add any improvement in sharpness with them and the high end ones are pretty expensive.