| Author: | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: North Idaho Posts: 696 | | Review Date: January 8, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $220.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | compact, excellent optics, perfect companion to the kit lens | | Cons: | slow, as most 'consumer' zooms are | |
I purchased this lens in September of 2005, and it has become one of the lenses in my compact travel kit (along with the kit lens). It is a perfect cousin to the kit lens and it is obvious they have the same heritage when viewed side-by-side.
Optical quality is outstanding. Construction quality is also pretty good. I have never heard or read one bad word about the DA50-200/4-5.6 ED lens. Didn't have the opportunity to take advantage of any of the rebates for this lens, but feel the purchase price was well worth the cost. Best thing about DA lenses is their clutch focusing ability, that allows manual focusing when in autofocus mode.
It is also possible to mate the 50-200 to the low-cost Tamron AF 1.4x teleconverter with very negligible degradation of image quality. With the kit lens and the Tamron converter you cover from 18mm to 200mm in just two lenses (or is that two and a half lenses?).
For a consumer zoom, there are few better and many worse.
Highly Recommended. Given a 7 rating because it is somewhat slow in its maximum aperture, but that is to be expected of a consumer zoom.
| | | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: September, 2006 Location: Folsom, CA Posts: 321 | | Review Date: January 16, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Great optics for price, lightweight | | Cons: | Slow (aperture) | |
This lens is a great deal normally, an awesome deal if you can get the rebate! A perfect companion to the kit lens, but even better optically I believe. I have never seen a complaint about the 50-200's IQ. It's light enough to take everywhere and a very useful range. It extends quite a bit at the 200mm end, and the apertures are nothing to brag about - but this lens is a great value. Recommended for anyone looking for a little extra length from their kit lens.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: December, 2006 Location: So California Posts: 16,480
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 10, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $170.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Compact with good IQ | | Cons: | Moderate speed, not a close focuser | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 6
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 6
| |
This was the last lens I purchased. I bought it because rebates were on and it was a cheap LBA fix. I also wanted to phase out the Sigma 70-300 if possible.
It is a bit sharper than the Sigma, and is also about 1/2 the bulk. The trade off is that the minimum focus distance is not particularly close and there is no "macro" mode.
It is compact and light, and does not become the center of attention when zoomed out and close focused like the Sigma. The included plastic lens hood clicks into place, and has a removable (and lose-able) access hatch that allows you to get a finger on a rotating filter if so desired.
Recommened as anyone's first zoom unless you are into low-light sports due to the average f4-5.6 speed.
Great bang for the buck even at full price, but the rebate made it a no-brainer.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2007 Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia Posts: 472 | | Review Date: April 19, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | size, weight, price | | Cons: | slow | |
I have the samsung version (AU$190) which by all accounts is the same lens. I sold the sigma 70-200 not long after buying this as there was so little difference in image quality (there are some differences esp that you no longer f2.8 but this much nicer to carry all day - popphoto tests shows very comparable to sigma 70-200 and that is pretty much what I find).
doesn't have that 'magic' of some pentax lenses but it's small, its light, its cheap, its sharp.
| | | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: February, 2007 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 4 | | Review Date: April 20, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $170.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Very sharp for a zoom, small and light weight, great value | | Cons: | Slow compared to f2.8 primes | |
I highly recommend this lens to include in everyone's kit. Pentax's second best bargain, next to the FA 50mm f1/4.
Shaprness 9
Bokeh 7
Color 8
Handling 9
Build 7
Distortion 8
Aberations 8
Value 9
One of my two most used lenses. Very inexpensive and versatile for the money.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 269 | | Review Date: August 21, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Light weight, small size, exceptional value | | Cons: | slow, a little soft at edges, some CA | |
Versatile, solid performer, particularly for the money. Works very nicely with the AF540FGZ flash. Make sure to use in good light or with flash as it is a somewhat slow lens.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: August, 2007 Location: Apiary, Oregon Posts: 1,181 | | Review Date: August 30, 2007 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | small, light | | Cons: | slow | |
I usually have a wide angle zoom mounted on my camera, and I am carrying this lens as the rattle around in the bag telephoto for those occasions when you suddenly need one.
It's small size and light weight (and low cost) make it suitable for this usage. I own numerous telephotos, both primes and zooms, and if I am packing my bag for a telephoto shoot, this lens doesn't go. I have an FA 80-320, an FA 24-90, and an A 300 F2.8 prime so there are a lot of things that I don't need it for. But it fits in the bottom of my bag just fine, and I have scrambled it out of there a few times when the occasion struck.
I often carry camera equipment around 'just in case' and you can't take everything particularly since the K10 itself is so robust, but this is one that you can carry around, and if a UFO lands across the field you will have something besides a wide angle with which to record the event.
I don't see it ever being my lens of choice for telephoto work. That is what Primes are for (and zooms stronger than 200mm), but if you need a telephoto on a budget
or need one small enough to carry in your pocket this is a good choice.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2007 Posts: 8,237
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 5, 2008 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Small, versatile | | Cons: | slower, cheaper contruction | |
This was the first long zoom I had with my k100d (2-lens kit with the 18-55.)
Having only used point & shoot's prior to getting the k100d, boy did I have fun with this lens. Couldn't believe the sharpness of the photos, etc.
Since then I've acquired a couple more zooms and primes, and this one doesn't get used as much any more.
It's pretty small/light - barely bigger than the 18-55, so when I need to go light I'll take this (makes my Tamron 18-250 seem like an anvil on my camera.) Also, for me, it's easier to hold a lighter lens steady - camera shake is much less of a problem with this lens at 200mm than my tamron or even the FA J 75-300mm.
Highly recommended to get as part of a kit with the 18-55.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2007 Posts: 8,237
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 5, 2008 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Small, versatile | | Cons: | slower, cheaper contruction | |
This was the first long zoom I had with my k100d (2-lens kit with the 18-55.)
Having only used point & shoot's prior to getting the k100d, boy did I have fun with this lens. Couldn't believe the sharpness of the photos, etc.
Since then I've acquired a couple more zooms and primes, and this one doesn't get used as much any more.
It's pretty small/light - barely bigger than the 18-55, so when I need to go light I'll take this (makes my Tamron 18-250 seem like an anvil on my camera.) Also, for me, it's easier to hold a lighter lens steady - camera shake is much less of a problem with this lens at 200mm than my tamron or even the FA J 75-300mm.
Highly recommended to get as part of a kit with the 18-55.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: belgium Posts: 96
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 13, 2008 | Not Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | cheap | | Cons: | everything else | |
Maybe I was unlucky by receiving a bad sample but I'm absolutely not happy with this lens. It is almost impossible to make a good sharp picture with it. The corners are always unsharp and even in the center the pictureres are a bit hazy (ok, with an aperture f=16 or 22 they are acceptable, at least in the centre). Apart from that the distortions of the straight lines are considerable. So I totally agree with the review on www.photozone.de: this lens is cheap but that's the only good thing I can tell about it. I don't use it anymore, stored it in my garage and replaced it by a second hand old low budget Pentax lens: the 70-200 mm. That works fine.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Posts: 971 | | Review Date: February 6, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Size, performance (for the price | | Cons: | slow aperture, light construction | |
Good, as far as the sub-800 dollar zooms go. Construction is definitely on the cheap side, but my copy seems to be a rather good performer. I've been pleasantly surprised by the sharpness of this lens. It's not all that great for portraits if you're trying to through the background out of focus because of it's large aperture. my 200 2.5 does that far better, but it ain't autofocus. All in all it makes for a great beginning telephoto zoom lens.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: Florida gulf coast Posts: 48
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 13, 2008 | Not Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Light & inexpensive | | Cons: | Corners are fuzzy | |
I have to agree with myrdinn, I find that the center is sharp, but corners are very soft. Maybe I also got a bad example? After reading all the reviews I was expecting better. I guess it would make nice portraits with the subject in the center, but I mainly shoot landscapes, and I think I'll be looking for something with more uniform sharpness across the field.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: March, 2008 Posts: 357
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 11, 2008 | Not Recommended | Price: $255.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | matching pair with the 18-55 (both 52mm filter size) | | Cons: | very soft in the corners | |
IQ at centre is OK but corners are very soft. This happens at almost very FL. Hopefully the new 55-300 is better.
| | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: March, 2008 Location: Working From Home Posts: 26,276 | | Review Date: April 27, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $155.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Light; veratile; color; daylight luminance & IQ; vlaue | | Cons: | Low light and indoor speed; autofocus speed | |
I purchased a K10D body-only and this as my kit lens - at the price of the lens it seemed a better deal than the normal kit lens.
This lens stays mounted on the body almost as a dust protector since it is so versatile for the shooting I do - and I learned the hard way that frequently changing lenses also means frequently cleaning the sensor.
When using this lens in bright outdoor sunlight it is nearly as sharp as the best Pentax lenses and more than competent for a consumer/enthusiast. Color transmission is true and saturation is excellent for ordinary everyday consumer use.
I never even try to use it indoors any more due to the f/4 widest aperture setting. In low light, sharpness and color saturation fall off dramatically.
Additionally, due to the comparatively slow autofocus, this lens is not really suitable for fast-action photography.
For the price I paid this is a great value. For more specialized uses I have other lenses.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: July, 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Posts: 3,948 | | Review Date: August 11, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $169.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Lightweight, inexpensive, good range | | Cons: | Soft at corners, a bit slow | |
This is obviously the pair with the 18-55 kit lens. At least it was until the 55-300mm came out. Overall this is a decent lens and good value. If you are in the rain taking photos of your kid's soccer game, this inexpensive tele-zoom will get the job done with little worry and about as much quality as you could expect for the price. It takes good photos.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
