| Author: | | | | | Review Date: April 17, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Weight, Cost, Decent IQ | | Cons: | Not quite prime lens quality | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 6
Value: 10
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K20D, K-01,K-30, Q-7
| |
Bang for the buck, this lens is hard to beat.
Decent IQ, minimal CA, good range, weaker at 50mm. Bokeh is somewhat edgy.
Reasonable weight.
52mm to 49mm adapter filter rings are available and work well.
This is the lens to take climbing or hiking, if you break it you are only out a hundred bucks.
Biggest drawback is manual focusing—very touchy.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2015 Posts: 11
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 5, 2019 | Not Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 1 |
| Pros: | Extremely cheap | | Cons: | Poor sharpness at both ends | | Sharpness: 1
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 6
Autofocus: 1
Handling: 10
Value: 2
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-30
| |
Only usable as an 80-150mm lens.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: May, 2015 Location: Hampshire Posts: 892
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 31, 2018 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | value for money | | Cons: | Slow af, hunting sometimes. | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 9
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: 1st DL2
| |
Bought fitted to a Pentax 1st DL2 for $50 and as the lens is contemporary with that camera shot some images.
My thoughts;
Not a sharp lens but good enough for it's status and cost.
Renders colour nicely on the 6.1mp sensor.
Small and light, easy to carry on the body.
Coming to a DSLR for the first time from film it is good enough to learn the abilities and drawbacks of a telephoto zoom that equates to a 300mm on 35mm and move on when something better is needed or wanted.
Images can be compared favourably with hand holding a 35mm camera with a zoom of the same range if you are a novice .
So it is good enough in my book to recommend as it provides value for money for the novice photographer.
If you have a larger budget, the 55-300mm is a little better and provides a better range.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2015 Posts: 175
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 30, 2017 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | lightweight, compact, useful focal range, built quality | | Cons: | average IQ | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 8
New or Used: New
Camera Used: Ist-Ds then K3 and K30
| |
This lens has been my only medium telelens from 2006 to 2016.
Nothing to write home about, but a good lens in its category.
I write this review because this lens deserves a better appreciation than the previous review: people must understand that they cannot expect top IQ from a cheap entry level kit zoom, what they must expect is a good average performance, and DA 50-200 does the job.
I use it less, now that i have both DA18-135 and DA55-300.
Yet I still appreciate its very compact size and lightweight, which makes it useful as an addition to your bag when you choose to go out with mainly wide angle to portrait primes or a good transtandard zoom like DA 17-70 or DA 16-85, and you think you might occasionally need a long lens.
It is not as good as the DA 55-300, but it is half the size and weight and it does the job:
 IMGP2053 by Denis Bousquet, sur Flickr
 17 IMGP1801_modifié-1-LR-20150503 by Denis Bousquet, sur Flickr
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 476
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 27, 2017 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | Small | | Cons: | Optical Quality lacking | | Sharpness: 3
Aberrations: 3
Bokeh: 5
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 4
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-5
| |
It could very well have been my copy that I purchased second hand, but I really don't have anything good to say about this lens. Although I really tried to like it from the hundred or so photo's I took with it, I didn't come home with a single one that was acceptably good. Sharpness aside (which was acceptable if you stayed with fl of lower than 135mm), what this lens really is lacking is contrast. Adding insult to injury on 200mm it shows quite a lot of CA, distortion and vignetting, even on f/11. On lower FL CA and vignetting or less, but still present.
Since it came together with the K-5 that I bought I am not complaining, but I really can't recommend it if you are serious about your photography...
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: May, 2014 Location: Rovaniemi, Finland Posts: 76
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 27, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $95.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | cheap, surprisingly sharp, lightweight | | Cons: | no fast switch to manual focus | |
I got this lens recently. I think it performs really well considering its a very low end piece of equipment. I like the sharpness. Its very plastic but still feels more solid than the 18-55 WR kit lens I have with K7.
The worst thing about this is that you don't get the fast switch with focus. If I walk around, my camera hangs on my neck or on my shoulder. So if I've been zooming around and focusing the whole thing is expanded so I need to do an extra focus to infinity before putting the lens cap back on to get the focus to retract itself. I guess it wouldn't matter how I leave it for carrying, but its a mild annoyance for me.
I might keep this or get the WR version (also to get rid of focus annoyance) or switch to DA 50-300 WR instead. Only time will tell what I will need. This is better lens than I'm a photographer.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2014 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 890
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 12, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $82.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, light and gives you a bit more reach when needed. | | Cons: | Pretty soft at the extremes. Slow. | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 9
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K500
| |
All-in-all a pretty good lens for shots that are not too demanding -- especially given the going price for this lens. It's light, compact and easy to tote around. Handy as it definitely adds reach for those shots where you need a bit more zoom. Definitely a lens that does better in relatively well lit situations and a hood is recommended. Pictures have nice contrast and the expected excellent Pentax color rendition. A little light Post-processing via Photoshop and it really does make for pictures that are rather appealing.
Surprisingly good as close-up, too...
 IMGP0659.DNG by Ripper2860, on Flickr
 IMGP0656.DNG2 by Ripper2860, on Flickr
 IMGP0668 by Ripper2860, on Flickr
 IMGP0060 by Ripper2860, on Flickr
 IMGP0464 by Ripper2860, on Flickr
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: August, 2011 Location: Slovenia Posts: 73 | | Review Date: February 21, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $75.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Compact, sharp (stopped down), good aberration control | | Cons: | Slow, soft wide open, slow AF | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K200D, K-7
| |
Good image quality in a lightweight, compact package and a good zoom range for a very low price make this lens a very appealing option indeed.
All-in-all a good lens, colours are nicely saturated with a natural tone, sharpness is very good when stopped down to f8, alhtough AF speed is lacking - very slow on K200D and only a bit better on K-7. Chromatic aberrations are well controlled along with distortion.
| | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2013 Posts: 7
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 20, 2013 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Nice colours, decent bokeh, sharp enough stopped down | | Cons: | Focus hunting, needs good light | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: New
Camera Used: k100d
| |
I've taken some of my best pics with this lens. I know it's not a classic, but it is awesome value. If you get a good copy it's sharp enough, the bokeh can be nice and the colours render well with decent contrast in good light. When the circumstances come within its limitations, it ticks a lot of image quality boxes and you can get some very expensive looking results when you hit that sweet spot.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2012 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 464 | | Review Date: August 20, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $75.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | size,price | | Cons: | for this price? nothing. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K5/K7/*ist DS
| |
My comment to this lens is easy: If you want to get the lightest zoom range from 18 - 200, get this lens with the 18-55 II.
I purchased this one with the 1855II from KEH. Spent $150 total, and needless to say this is the most capacity/price lenses I have ever purchased.
For around this range I had Tammy 70-200/2.8 and Pentax 55-300. However you can't complain anything about it----this one only cost me around $75!!! and thinking about the size and its performance it is a steal. I just can't believe a zoom lens with 50-200 can be made so compact (a little bit taller than 1855). And it does has metal mount which is a big plus for this price.
Compare with tammy 70-200: the price is about 1/10, and the performance is not 1/10. from 50-150 is is pretty amazing when FO, and from 150-200 is soft.
Anyway!! this time I'm gonna keep both the kit lens and not selling them.. 
UPDATES:
So today I used this lens and 1855 for an event shooting. Amazing! Very sharp even wide open, and its size was just soooo small for handling.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: December, 2012 Location: Kristiansand S Posts: 250 | | Review Date: August 18, 2013 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Good value, quick shift | | Cons: | A litle slow | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 9
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K200D/K30
| |
Good value and nice starter lens. Sharp if you use it right. | | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2013 Location: Lakeland, FL Posts: 6 | | Review Date: April 25, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 10
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 9
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K200D, K-30
| |
It produces nice photos. Not the best, but better than zooms I've used from Tamron and Sigma.
It's great for portraits and concerts. It doesn't get used as much as my trusty 18-55 AL II.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: March, 2011 Location: Windsor, Colorado Posts: 196
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 19, 2013 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | size, weight, sharpness | | Cons: | It gets little respect | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-r, *istDL
| |
This is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Pentax lineup. No question. It gets upstaged by the 55-300 because of the extra length. I think the IQ is close enough to justify the 50-200 for its other attributes.....mainly size and weight. It is so compact and light. I often confuse it with the much shorter focal length 18-55 I own. If you want good quality telephoto images in the smallest package possible, this is the lens for you.
From further reading up on lens variations, I have found there is some distinction possible from "copy to copy". But that those distinctions are not as pronounced as the somewhat subjective responses from the various owners/reviewers would seem to indicate. And something else that is not usually accounted for is the difference from body to body. A particular lens will "match up" better with a particular body. Not just because a particular body delivers better IQ in an absolute fashion.....that is a given. Rather it is more the relative differences between the varying bodies and how they respond to the lenses beyond what is the typical difference between the bodies. Evidently the 50-200 must work well on the K-r because mine has produced some excellent shots with that combo. Here are some examples:
BTW, all three of these are original JPEG's, two of the three are at the supposed soft end at 200mm, and the last shot of the elk is not only at 200mm, but at ISO 800 in low light with shadows. I really think you would need one of the prime lenses to get significantly better.
| | | | | New Member Registered: May, 2011 Location: lONDON Posts: 6 | | Review Date: April 23, 2012 | Recommended
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 2
Handling: 7
Value: 8
New or Used: New
Camera Used: Kk10
| |
I was fairly happy with my lens until a couple of weeks go when the focus went up the creek completely. My local camera shop says that if it's about 4 years old then I should expect things to go wrong. Is this the normal life of a zoom lens??
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: July, 2011 Location: Sligo Posts: 1 | | Review Date: March 4, 2012 | Not Recommended | Price: $160.00
| Rating: 3 |
| Pros: | size and weight | | Cons: | soft a true waste of money | | Sharpness: 2
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 4
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 4
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: Pentax k-r
| |
When I got my Pentax k-r it came with the DA L 18-55 lens which is superb : so I thought I would go with the DA ED 50-200 to say I was disappointed is a under statement Everytime I used the lens it only seemed to produce soft pictures in the end it just sat in my camera bag if you have no confidence in a lens then there is no point in keeping it so it has now been sold and I am waiting for my Pentax-fa 70-200 to be delivered lets hope it is better than this lens!
| | |
;)
;)
;)
