| Author: | | 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
| | | | | | | 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.
| | | | | 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
| | | | | 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.
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2007 Location: Prague Posts: 1,199
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 22, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | small and light, cheap, gets work done | | Cons: | image quality is average | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 6
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 9
New or Used: Used
| |
I wanted to add a lightweight telephoto zoom for travels to my kit. I priginally had F70-210 for this purpose but it was not that light and AF was quite slow. Now with this lens the AF is acceptable already, it is not worse optically and the zoom range is more convenient. It also focuses quite a bit closer.
Similar as the 18-55 kit lens this is not a bad lens, but needs aperture closed down 1-2 stops for good sharpness and contrast. Also the bokeh could be better, but when you take care to choose good backgroud, it is acceptable.
This lens doesn't stant comparison to my heavier and more expensive tele lenses, but it now belongs to my light travel kit.
If weight and size is not an issue and you can spend few hundred more, I strongly suggest to look at DA55-300 instead.
| | | | | 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.
| | | | | 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.
| | | | | 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: October, 2008 Posts: 550
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 9, 2010 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Great Lens | | Cons: | depend on weather | |
This lens are so wonderful but depend on weather and change setting. I did shot the hummingbird that i learned so much.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: May, 2010 Posts: 106
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 3, 2010 | Not Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Light weight | | Cons: | Unimpressive photo quality | |
I purchased this lens with my K100d and the regular kit lens. Within a week I ordered a Sigma 70-300, so I can compare the two quite readily. I now use both with my K-x. Although the Pentax lens is much smaller, lighter and faster handling than the Sigma, in almost five years of off and on use I am still disappointed with the picture quality. Although I use the supplied lens hood 100% of the time, I still get significant flare and loss of contrast at 50mm when shooting into bright light. CA seems much more evident with the Pentax. With both lens at 200mm, and the camera settings identical, photos from the Sigma seem much sharper, with better color and contrast. With a little help from Elements I can improve the color and contrast but nothing really helps the sharpness.
At about the same price, a comparison the the Pentax and the Sigma is interesting. The Pentax is much smaller and lighter than the Sigma, and the difference between 50 and 70 mm starting points is significant. I mostly photograph horses, and in a small paddock the 70mm is just too much. 50mm is more useful. In a larger field, the 300mm top end is worth the switch. The Pentax has a focus clutch, the Sigma does not. Focus times seem about equal
The Sigma is a large and heavy lens. The zoom is "stiffer" than the Pentax, and not quite as nimble. No focus clutch, so if you need the manually test the focus you end up manually rotating a lot of machinery is the camera. Not good, I'm thinking. The Sigma has a close focus feature, not a MACRO, but very useful anyway. The Sigma feels better mounted on the larger K100 than on the K-x, and for some reason seems to give give better photos if I don't need the extra pixels
I keep trying the Pentax lens, but cannot get over being a little disappointed. I use it as a "walk-around", and if I'm shooting in a smaller area, but the Sigma gets the most use. Visit ocalahorsepix.com. for samples, mostly with the sigma.
After I posted this review I captured our neighborhood eagle. Not too bad I guess | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: September, 2009 Location: Atlanta Posts: 18
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 7, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp, clarity, lightweight | | Cons: | I don't have any | |
I recently purchased this lens brand new on Ebay and I could not be more satisfied! I sold my Sigma 28-200 because it was not very good in helping the already struggling K200D to focus in sort of low light/contrast scenes. In addition, the Sigma lens simply did not have the clarity/sharpeness I was looking for. However, since I've acquired the 50-200 DA ED lens, I have been more than happy. My first photoshoot with that lens produced amazing results. Viewing the images @ 100%, every detail of the model's skin was visible...something the Sigma only produced 50% of the time w/ a quick fall off even at apetures 8 or above. I can only imagine the quality of te DA* lenses, but those are out of my budget right now.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2009 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 1,270
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 15, 2009 | Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | light, compact, cheap, decent color & contrast, very little PF | | Cons: | not terribly sharp even stopped down, a little CA | |
I have the DA-L version of this lens, which came bundled with the K2000 2 lens kit. The DA-L differs from the standard DA in that it has a plastic mount, no lens hood, and lacks quick-shift capability. I find the general color and contrast generally pleasing, although sharpness is not great, even stopping down 2 stops. The lens is wonderfully small and feels nearly as light as a feather, the zoom ring has a great feel, although the MF ring is a little light for my taste. The K2000 "2 lens kit" was $80 more than the K2000 + 18-55, so I figure this lens costing $80, which is a good deal IMHO.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2009 Posts: 1,291
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 17, 2009 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Very cheap for decent build quality, Very light and small for its range. Useful range. 52mm filters and cheap and it mataches the DA 18-55 kit zoom. Front element doesn't rotate when focusing. | | Cons: | Very soft and fringed at 200mm. Slow maximum apertures. Manual focus ring would be difficult to use. | |
Note on the 'no' for recommending this lens: I swapped it for a Sigma 70-300mm (non-APO) which I got for the same price and I prefer. The Sigma is bigger and heavier, but much more useable up to 200mm. I still think the Pentax is a decent lens though.
This lens gives OK image quality but at the 200mm end it is really almost unusable, becoming very blurry and with a lot of fringing. I got some good shots in the middle of the zoom range, and sold in 2nd hand for a decent price.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: February, 2009 Posts: 43
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 21, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Price, color & contrast | | Cons: | soft | |
I bought this lens from here on this forum for ~$100 CDN. I normally shoot on the wider end of the focal length spectrum, but wanted to increase my photographic versatility. This was the logical lens to buy - best bang for the buck.
This lens is definitely soft - to get the sharpest photos one must stop down to around F8. Despite the lack of sharpness, the colors and contrast are really good and make up for it.
If I decide to shoot more in the telephoto range of focal lengths, I would definitely upgrade to a sharper telephoto zoom.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
