da 50-200 vs primes for travel

<p>So I'm planning a trip to central america this spring and I'm thinking about what lenses to bring. I'll be studying spanish at a school in Costa Rica for about 2 months and then meeting a friend in Ecuador for a few weeks more. I tend to shoot more towards the wide end but I'd like to pick up something to fill out the tele end. I'll be bringing my k20d, DA16-45, K135 2.5, plus whatever I decide on buying after christmas, as well as my fuji ga645 rangefinder. I don't have a lot of money to spend because I'm saving to pay for the trip, but I think I can came up with around two to three hundred without cutting into my travel funds. My first thought was the DA 50 to 200, its newer, its very convenient, versatile, and WR(could be important in a rainforest). However, for the same amount of money, I could get an m200/4, and an m50/1.4, which, while not as versatile, cover the important points at a faster aperture without really sacrificing on portability. The major reason I'm leaning away from the 50-200 is actually how fragile the 16-45 feels. I love the IQ from my 16-45, but @16mm its ridiculously long and fragile feeling. Its the most fragile lens I've ever owned. I'm worried the 50-200 is of a similar style. I don't mind a few extra ounces in exchange for a lens I can trust bouncing around a backpack or carabinered to my harness while rock climbing. Really I want a full set of the limited primes, but that's way beyond my budget. What are you thoughts on this? at f5.6 is the 50 to 200 zoom too slow for anything but midday? will I miss the convience of all those focal lengths between 50 and 200 if I go with the primes? Should I sell all of my Nikon film gear to get one great pentax lens? I look forward to your opinions!</p>

 

<p>Eli,<br>

I've never owned or used the DA 50-200mm, so I cannot comment on its image quality. But I've gone on similar trips as yours. Your K135 f 2.5 is a stellar lens. Consider a high quality 1.5 teleconverter like a Kenko. They are lightweight and will get you the same 200mm reach. TCs on fine prime lenses produce very acceptable shots.</p>

<p>An alternate way to get cheap, decent reach for shooting monkeys and birds in the rain forest is the Pentax DA 55-300mm. If that's too pricey, the Tamron or Sigma 70-300mm work well enough too. What's also beneficial about these cheaper lenses is that if you damage one, or it gets stolen, your risk is low. Just graft that 135 f 2.5 onto a body part, however. </p>

<p>I also wouldn't worry about the DA 16-45mm. You own it to use it so be it. But I don't know if I'd want any of this stuff dangling off my climbing harness. If you don't use your Nikon film gear, sell it, and get a Lumix LX3 for climbing.</p>

<p>That Fuji rangefinder is a very cool camera, BTW.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 16-45 is probably better built than the 50-200 as it's one class above. So if you find it fragile, the 50-200 may be similarly confidence-uninspiring. That said it's supposed to be a pretty good lens for its price, and very small / light. I second the LX3 though! very useful 24mm wide end (might make that 16-45 useless!) and at base ISO it's as good as a DSLR quality-wise. The f/2.0 lens is also quite useful.</p>

<p>I like my 50-200 a lot. The images are a bit soft at the edges at wide apertures, but very sharp in the center, and with very good contrast. The lens is small and light and handles well, and has been an ideal hiking lens.</p>

<p>Rick</p>

<p>The 50-200 has nice contrast and bokeh and it's very compact and light. When zoomed all the way, it feels a bit klunky, but it's solid enough and you shouldn't worry about it falling apart in your hands. I wish it was a bit sharper at 200mm, but then maybe I'm wishing for too much from a kit lens. And the fact that there's a WR version of it is very appealing.<br>

I also looked for a replacement for it. The 55-300 appears to have slightly better resolution at 200mm. The Tamron 70-300 is supposed to have even better resolution, but also has a problem with purple fringing. Neither of them appears to be a perfect alternative.<br>

I've also done some comparison shots with a K200/4, using some targets and a tripod. The old K is considerably heavier and has less contrast, but its resolution is better in the borders - there's little difference in the center, however. So, the 50-200 didn't do as bad as I expected and it should be easier to handheld and carry around.<br>

I can't speak about AF much as I mainly use MF. MF is tricky with this lens, but can be done with pretty good results. I was thinking of selling my copy at some point, but I changed my mind - it's very hard to find something equivalent that is more compact and lighter.<br>

Here's a shot I got with the 50-200 at 200mm, just for an idea. It's a crop. There are a few more in my <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=933744">Fauna folder</a>:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9890232-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="511" /></p>

<p>The 50-200mm is a nice lens. I have one, and its small size is great for compact portability needs. The DA 55-300mm lens is definitely better, but it is somewhat larger, though compact for the zoom range it offers. Perhaps the best lens out there with that range. If you find your DA 16-45mm to seem fragile, the DA 50-200mm will seem moreso. The DA 55-300mm is of sturdier construction, but is still not of pro style build.</p>

<p>The Sigma 70-300mm DG APO macro is of pretty good build quality, and optically quite good, though a bit below the pentax 55-300mm. Its front element does revolve when focussng, while the Pentax does not. But it is full frame and can be thus used on a film body.</p>

<p>I tend to gravitate toward wide lenses too and want a decent but not expensive long lens. It appears that a good copy of the Pentax 55-300 has the best IQ for the $$. When I purchase it I will be sure to get it from a vendor that allows returns as the QC can vary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The 16-45 is probably better built than the 50-200 as it's one class above"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since I own both, I'll comment on this. I find the 16-45 to be no better-built than the 18-55; the original DA 50-200 does seem to be a step up from this standard. Zoom and focus are smooth and feel good. The more recent 55-300 on the other hand feels better than any of these, though not as good as a DA12-24/4 or DA17-70/4 which are the best-feeling DA (non-star, as I don't own any) that I've encountered. I place the 10-17 somewhere in the middle. I'm still not completely convinced by my 55-300 optically; I haven't reallly verified this but have been suspecting that it's not particularly good on the borders at the shorter part of the zoom at shorter distances. I mention this because I have so-far found it better to use the long end of a short zoom than the short end of a long zoom for portraits.</p>

<p>Good things about the 50-200: Very small and light, just slightly bigger than the kit lens. Minimum focus distance is closer than any of the tele zooms that extend to >= 300mm.</p>

<p>I haven't handled the new DA 50-200 WR so I can't really comment on that, though obviously the build changed even if the optics may not have so it could feel better or it could feel worse.</p>

<p>Another alternative: <a href="http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/long/F70-210f4-5.6.html">Pentax-F SMC 70-210/4-5.6 ED</a> . Optically one of Pentax's better zooms, has 9 aperture blades, and like most of the classic Pentax-F releases, has a more solid-feeling build; though there's more plastic than the old manual focus lenses, there's still a lot of metal. Also uses 49mm filters like many Pentax primes. Cons are typically narrow manual focus ring, no quick-shift manual focus touch-up, rotating front element, and no bayonet-mounted lens hood--but if you want AF functionality with good performance and a solid build, this isn't a bad choice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't mind a few extra ounces in exchange for a lens I can trust bouncing around a backpack or carabinered to my harness while rock climbing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As someone who has dropped a lens from a lens "pouch" attached to my backpack while hiking, I would suggest spending some time looking at some camera bags (i.e., backpacks, not the "fanny" or shoulder packs) to give you a bit more protection. I tried dangling some lenses from my belt when hiking, that was a mistake... my cheap kit lens accidentally fell-- luckily it still works. Had it been my DA*50-135mm lens, I would have cried. My lowepro bag was very good when day hiking in China. It has a "hidden" side zipper for the camera and lenses -- helpful for keeping pickpockets at bay.<br>

And at the risk of stating the obvious, pack plenty of ziplock bags (and perhaps even some silica gel in the bags) to keep your lenses dry from the rainforest humidity or sudden rainstorm.</p>