DA50-200mm WR less compelling now with the DA55-3.. ?

Some shots from the DA50-200mm ED WR. Not too bad for a lens that gets such horrible reviews from some reviewer(s), but not all pro or consumer reviewers! I would not rate this lens up with the DA55-300mm or Tamron 70-300mm DI (old ver). I would not rate it as good as the Sigma 70-300mm up to 200mm. From there the Sigma gets a bit soft, but the Pentax is stuck at 200mm anyways.

What the Pentax is, is a 75-300mm lens in FF land. This lens basically replaces the much bigger classic 70-300mm FF zoom in a much smaller package. Now if you put the Sigma 70-300mm on a FF body or the Tamron and leave the Pentax on its APS body overall they will all have their good and bad areas of performance and overall equal performance. For what its worth the DA50-200mm WR has a solid feel as well. It feels well made when holding it and using it; above the DA18-55mm WR. Pentax was quick to take advantage of the benefits of an APS sensor in most of its lens. Which is smaller size, cost savings. And used that cost saving to add weather resistance in its kit lens. A very bold move that has proven reliable and satisfying for users.

Pentax just introduced after several years of making the DA50-200mm WR, the DA55-300mm ED f/4.5-5.6 with weather resistance. Soon its price will be about the same as the none WR model. This makes recommending the DA50-200mm WR harder. The lens has only two benefits now as a consumer telephoto and that’s its half the size and half the cost. That could work for those who need it however.















--
jamesm007, Pentax K5, K20D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesm007/
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/

I agree James - good evaluation.





Here's one I took that I didn't think was too bad back a while.

--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
N.B. All my Images are Protected by Copyright

Considering it is half the price and half the size (but not half the quality optically), I think the 50-200 will still have a market. I know when I hike I always leave my Sigma 70-300 behind. The Sigma is a bit bulkier than the DA55-300 (which I don't own), but they are close enough in size and weight to make the choice to reach for the 50-200 a no brainer in that situation (when I'm just driving around to shoot I use both lenses). I have taken some very nice photos with the 200 and have always felt it is very underrated.

Yes very good.

Hi James,

I don't own any of these DA lenses but I have seen a lot of images from both. My take is that 55-300 can be sharper as I have actually seen some really sharp photos at 300mm at apertures between f6.3-11, f6.3 included. 50-200 seems to be a little soft wide open at 55 and 200mm, but it improoves in the middle FLs.

However, what I have not seen from the 55-300 is the nervous-free bokeh that the 55-200 has. And as your pictures clearly show, 50-200wr at 50mm is just a little bigger than the 18-55wr at 35mm and the practically similar as the 18-55wr at 18 or 55mm. That is small.

I have the Tamron 70-300 Di macro f4-5.6. Whenever I considered possible "upgrade" to the DA 55-300 I stumbled in the OOF rendering of the 55-300 and the fact that the have similar dimensions. I believe the 50-200 is closer to the Tamron regarding background smoothness, lacking the LoCas that Tamron has in specific scenes and FLs.

Apart from the Lo CAs the most difficult part for me using the Tamron is that I can not use it indoors as it starts from 70mm and its MFD is 1.5meters. That is too tight for small rooms. Both 50-200 and 55-300 are much easier to use indoors. But if distance from the subjexts allows, or when actually I need the reach, I find my 70-300 a great portrait lens in many situations. I believe that I could easily use 50-200wr with similar results in smaller rooms.

I do not consider 55-300 a bad lens, quite the contrary. Seeing it's new WR edition is great news and for most FLs it probably is a sharper than the 50-200. But I believe that 50-200 has its uses and in a smaller package too.

Glad that Spyros shares my feelings about the bokeh, which I've also felt can be a bit nervous on the 300mm. I'd also list the significantly faster AF on the 200 as a plus.