| Author: | | 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.
| | | | | 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: August, 2010 Location: Hilton Head, SC Posts: 2 | | Review Date: December 2, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | light weight, sharpness, weather resistence, cost | | Cons: | slow AF, plastic lens mount | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 5
Handling: 8
Value: 10
New or Used: New
| |
I believe I got an especially sharp lens; I was pleasantly surprised since I paid so little for it. I got it for my g/f to use on her K-10 because she is small. Once I started editing and saw how sharp the images were, I stuck it in my bag! It has a pleasing bokeh and renders good colors.
After reading so many reviews rating it only so-so, I realize my luck at getting one so precisely constructed as to surpass the thoughts of other users. The AF is a little slow for action shots, but adequate for my needs. I seldom shoot at an aperture less than f8, so cannot comment on sharpness at lower aps.
| | | | | | | Closed Account Registered: March, 2011 Location: Ingham,UK Posts: 229 | | Review Date: August 2, 2011 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Well built, small and light | | Cons: | None | |
I bought my copy this week and have been testing it out based on what other reviewers have said about it apparent shortcomings. I can find none. Yes its not as a good as a prime lens and yes it needs good light to give its best but I knew that beofre I bought it so cannot mark it down on those two counts. Other have said it soft wide open at 50mm and 200mm again I beg to differ. My copy is still quite sharp at these settings and I have made a comparison between this lens at 50mm and 135mm against my SMC - M lenses, a 50 f1.7 and 135 f3.5 both of which are sharper when photographing the same subject - but not by much. This lens is a cracker and well worth the £89.99 I paid Currys for a brand new old stock copy.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2011 Location: Minahasa, North Celebes (Sulawesi) Posts: 586 | | Review Date: January 13, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp. Colors are great. Can be cheap. | | Cons: | For me its a little too small | | New or Used: New
| |
A great combination to DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL. With these two you can shot just about anything photographic. I had this lens with my first first purchase of K100DS and it's kit lens. Sold it for a longer range lens, and still regrets 
Here's my shots:
(Non working links deleted)
| | | | | 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: October, 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 258 | | Review Date: July 5, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp and Light | | Cons: | not long enough. | |
Awesome Lens. Great for portrait and mid range telephoto. The lens is light as the 18-55mm kit lens, but very sharp, color is rich and focus is fast on my k-x, it still able to create nice bokeh at f5.6 or higher. 200mm is not long enough for a telephoto lens, but for the price, performance and weight, this is a bargains for under $200.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: March, 2010 Posts: 207 | | Review Date: March 29, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $145.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | lightweight, affordable, quality | | Cons: | none | |
This lens is the perfect compliment to my K-x's 18-55mm kit lens. Its price could not be turned down. I cannot afford the pricey lenses, so this was the perfect choice to go with my K-x. I tried the similar Sigma and Tamron lenses first, but they felt to be lower quality. Plus, once I found this lens for $145 new, the other brands were no longer cheaper. Also, the non-rotating front element was a plus over the other brands, as well as having the same filter diameter as the kit lens.
I've been completely satisfied with the image clarity to the extent of my current shooting abilities.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: July, 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 1,100 | | Review Date: March 21, 2010 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Light weight, small, very useful focal range, contrast and sharpness | | Cons: | the hood (see my review) | |
Just like the 18-55 kit lens the DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 is another winner.
This lens deserves more attention and respect. For $200 Cdn it's as good as anything out there under $700 and just as fast aperture-wise. I really don't care for lens charts and resolution tests, look at the photo and decide from there. The DA 50-200 has very good contrast and sharpness along with a great focal range. If I needed something considerably better I'd be after a f/4 prime or something faster like a f/2.8 zoom.
The only fault I can find is the hood. It vignettes some images. I've stopped using the stock hood and just use the hood off the 18-55 lens, works great and saves a little more space in the bag.
| | | | | 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.
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: Lockport NY Posts: 6 | | Review Date: April 28, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $193.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Lightweight. Uses 52 mm. filters. Sharp. Good value. | | Cons: | Just a bit slow in aperture. | |
When I bought my K100D Super it came with the 18-55 mm zoom. A decent lens
but didn't have enough 'reach.' I like to photograph butterflies, birds, and nature
scenes. This 50-200 mm gives me addes distance to my subjects. The lens seems
to be a bit sharper than the kit lens too. I bought it through Amazon.com. I really
wanted to give my business to my local camera shop, but I saved $85 bucks at
Amazon. I think the lens will really improve my photos with less cropping.
Very pleased indeed.
| | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2009 Location: Bodø Posts: 5 | | Review Date: February 24, 2009 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Its light weight, its cheap and it takes nice pictures | | Cons: | Noise is bad | |
Maybe its not possible to get more lens for the money? I think it is a nice lens that takes nice pictures.
The noise is bad..
In good light the 50-200mm takes really good pictures!!
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2007 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 233 | | Review Date: January 16, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Light and Compact. Great Price. Good Color. | | Cons: | Rather slow. | |
I've had this lens for a while (as you can see from the price I paid), but even at $200, I thought it was worth it.
Perhaps I was just lucky, but my sample is quite sharp. Much better than the 18-55. Colors are well saturated and snappy. Focus is fast and sure in good light. (Given the aperature, this is a fair weather lens. People really should try not to use it indoors or when light is poor, that's too much to ask). Even though it is relatively slow at f4 on the short end, I find that it is brighter than some comparable consumer zoom lenses at the same aperature.
This lens goes great with the 18-55 kit lens. It makes for a super compact 2 lens set. It is really light and doesn't protrude any more than the kit lens so it fits in the same bag. This lens shows of the advantages of APC quite well over FF. It is much smaller and lighter than the same lens in a FF format. It is also priced very competitively.
Normally, I'd only give this lens an 8, but recently with the steep drop in price, you can get this lens used for under $100. You cannot find a better piece of autofocus glass at this price range. For less than $100 (or $150 new), it definitely deserves a 9 based on value alone (provided sample variation isn't too far off).
This lens should definitely be in every low-priced kit.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: July, 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 30 | | Review Date: November 17, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $105.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Small, well-built, satisfying IQ, bang-for-the-buck | | Cons: | None, considering the price | |
I bought this lens after having used the DA 55-300 (a great lens for the money). I find that the 50-200's size is great for my backpacking/everyday setup. I don't feel that I give that much in IQ--certainly worth the trade-off for such a small, lightweight lens. Not only is the picture quality satisfying, but the feel of the lens--the zoom ring and focus--is super for the money. I would say that for around $100 nowadays on the used market, this is one of the best bargains going--certainly the best bang-for-the-buck lens I have ever had.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
