50-200 or 55-300?


Status
Not open for further replies.

bunegg

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2009
662
0
16
32
North East
#1
;) which one do you prefer?

200 one got WR while 300 doesnt have
but 300 has a longer reach

Both are equally as attractive to me ;p cant make up my mind which one should i get
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#2
Having owned and used both, both are good. :thumbsup:
If you need affordable long tele up to 300mm and you always want to shoot at 300mm, no need to decide - DA 55-300mm. However because of long focus throw, the AF can hunt, especially with older bodies or in falling light. Tested it on K20D and K-7 and there is definitely a difference in AF response. It is much bigger in size and weight compared with the DA 50-200mm WR.

The 50-200mm WR is really nice and compact and focuses quite fast. Where the regular DA 50-200mm has a tendency to show light falloff at the corners wide open, on my test shots with the new WR version, it is not noticeable. I like this lens because from my experience of owning two previous DA 50-200mm lenses, I'm pretty confident to shoot hand held at 200mm with no issues. With the DA 55-300mm, shooting at 300mm handheld can be a hit or miss affair as any hand shake is magnified and can be obvious. Using a monopod with it at focal lengths above 200mm definitely helps with the image sharpness.

Value wise I think the DA 55-300mm is the better option, but prices locally have gone up a bit lately. Seriously, don't buy just because of WR tag, because one can shoot non-WR lenses in light rain with no issues. WR is nice but overhyped imo. DA 50-200mm WR is nice but local prices for it are... :sticktong
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,934
85
48
#3
Like Creampuff said. The 55-300mm, gives the option of 300mm when you need it.

The previous price made its lens a no brainer.

I got no experience with WR though. Camera is WR, but I am not :D
 

bunegg

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2009
662
0
16
32
North East
#4
:D thx creampuff for the information.
looks like ill be going for the 300 one
 

istDeS

Senior Member
Dec 7, 2005
4,249
10
0
"River end"
#5
concur with creampuff, the DA 55-300mm is better option.:)
 

Vulpix0r

Senior Member
Oct 2, 2002
3,136
0
0
West
#6
Having owned and used both, both are good. :thumbsup:
If you need affordable long tele up to 300mm and you always want to shoot at 300mm, no need to decide - DA 55-300mm. However because of long focus throw, the AF can hunt, especially with older bodies or in falling light. Tested it on K20D and K-7 and there is definitely a difference in AF response. It is much bigger in size and weight compared with the DA 50-200mm WR.

The 50-200mm WR is really nice and compact and focuses quite fast. Where the regular DA 50-200mm has a tendency to show light falloff at the corners wide open, on my test shots with the new WR version, it is not noticeable. I like this lens because from my experience of owning two previous DA 50-200mm lenses, I'm pretty confident to shoot hand held at 200mm with no issues. With the DA 55-300mm, shooting at 300mm handheld can be a hit or miss affair as any hand shake is magnified and can be obvious. Using a monopod with it at focal lengths above 200mm definitely helps with the image sharpness.

Value wise I think the DA 55-300mm is the better option, but prices locally have gone up a bit lately. Seriously, don't buy just because of WR tag, because one can shoot non-WR lenses in light rain with no issues. WR is nice but overhyped imo. DA 50-200mm WR is nice but local prices for it are... :sticktong
I personally don't think WR is overhyped, because it works insanely well. Not sure about the kit lenses with WR, but the DA* lenses have uber WR.
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#7
Well this one is nice too... compact, light, nice build quality and err... WR too... :angel:

 

sircam

New Member
May 21, 2007
731
0
0
#8
Is there any web site where I can find more detailed info regarding Pentax lenses such as weight, etc.
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#10
Is there any web site where I can find more detailed info regarding Pentax lenses such as weight, etc.
You can look at the official Pentax websites like:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/

http://www.pentax.co.uk/en/Photo_Lenses.html

or a third party website like this one:
http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/

One good way to find out about a lens is to join in during our Pentax monthly meet-ups and get a first hand tryout from another Pentax user and getting actual user experiences and feedback with a particular lens.
There is a lot of information that you can't get just from reading specification sheets alone. Much like buying a car, looking at catalogue specifications can only provide data, but not experiential feedback.
 

Last edited:

timo

New Member
Jun 10, 2005
276
0
0
Serangoon Ave. 4
www.pbase.com
#11
;) which one do you prefer?

200 one got WR while 300 doesnt have
but 300 has a longer reach

Both are equally as attractive to me ;p cant make up my mind which one should i get
Depends on the individual example you get of each. Get a good one and it will be great. My 50-300 was terrific - originally.

It is now totally 'different' - i.e. worse - than it was before I dropped it (totally my fault) and it had to go to Pentax for servicing. It is now 'in spec', but completely useless at 300mm below f11. That is not what you would call a usable fast lens.

Based on my experience and forum feedback, either can be great or ghastly. Just thoroughly test the individual copy you are tempted to buy.

That's the downside of buying inexpensive zooms, and the reason I am gravitating to primes. Less to go wrong.

If I got a good one, I actually thing the 50-200 would be the better bet for me, as it is very much smaller and lighter.

For practical purpose unless you are an explorer of the Amazon, I don't think WR should be the decisive factor.
 

fengwei

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 25, 2004
14,462
12
0
Queenstown
www.pbase.com
#12
;) which one do you prefer?

200 one got WR while 300 doesnt have
but 300 has a longer reach

Both are equally as attractive to me ;p cant make up my mind which one should i get
As creampuff said above, if you need longer reach, get the 55-300. If you like it lighter and smaller, get the 50-200. WR or not it, shouldn't be too much concern I guess, at least to me it isn't :)

I tried Lawrence's DA55300 last weekend, the lens was a very good performer. ended up I got one for myself too :)
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#13
i'm not sure about the price, but like i said elsewhere, why not give the tamron 70-300 a try? ;)
 

alanswan

New Member
Aug 23, 2005
963
0
0
Seng Kang
#14
Was faced with similar choice earlier this year too...
I went with 50-200WR for the following reasons:
1) My bodies are K-7 and K100D Super. Both supports WR.
2) For such a wide range, I would typically use for travelling, so smaller will be better.
3) I don't typically shoot between 200-300.
 

alanswan

New Member
Aug 23, 2005
963
0
0
Seng Kang
#16
No problem... It was the key reasons for getting the WRs to begin with... Just a nice to have... :)
 

poppyer

New Member
Jun 24, 2009
217
0
0
#17
No problem... It was the key reasons for getting the WRs to begin with... Just a nice to have... :)
What really attract me about the "weather-sealed" is not water but dust-resistant.

we seldom take photo at rain (what? you do? LOL) , but accidentally get dusts in/under viewfinder/LCD etc is really annoying.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom