Pentax DA 55-300mm Zoom

[chowdhury_shahriar]

<p>I am planning to buy Pentax DA 55-300mm Zoom. I have several questions:</p>

<p>Q1: Does this lens has different versions such older vs new version, and metal vs plastic version?</p>

<p>Q2: The price of the lens in Amazon.com is $350, whereas you can buy new one at ebay for $250 (the is one listed now). Why such a big price difference? Is it same to buyt from ebay (note that I am not talking about used one).</p>

<p>Q3: Once the lens arrives, how would i know that it working perfectly (like focusing issue or any other issue). What are the criteria to evaluate the a now is good or bad product?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Two versions, optically the same. The DA-L is the one that is generally included in camera kits. I believe the usual DA-L economies vs. the DA are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Bayonet hood/shade not included</li>

<li>No distance markings on focus ring</li>

<li>No quick-shift manual focus touchup</li>

<li>Plastic lensmount</li>

<li>The DA have a green ring while the DA-L do not.</li>

<li>DA includes a padded case for the lens, I am guessing the DA-L does not.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm not aware of any common issues for this lens, so testing it would be like testing any other. Check for any mechanical issues including autofocus. Do all tests on a tripod with good light and the best technique you can muster. Check that autofocus seems accurate--compare standard phase-detect (when using optical viewfinder) autofocus vs. same image taken by carefully focusing manually using zoomed in live view. Is it accurate or close enough that you can adjust it using the in-camera autofocus adjustment custom settings? With that carefully-focused image, is sharpness comparable in all corners, or is one side noticeably better than the other (decentering)? When evaluating this it's important that the image was shot from straight on so that both sides should be in the same part of the focus plane.</p>

 

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Some dealers who work through ebay may not be reliable, and may sell a lens shipped in without going through Pentax USA and not have a normal warranty (grey market).</p>

<p>Possibly also true from Amazon, but they will reveal the actual source and if from the Amazon store it is reliable.</p>

<p>The DA-L kit version may have a plastic lens mount, and perhaps not even a lens hood. Same optics, as far as I know. Maybe not the extra protective lens coatings, maybe not having quick shift to maual focus touchup. As I recall, there were no new versions having a different optical formula. This lens design has a rather long focus throw in the action of its focus ring. This is good for manual focus fine-tuning, but at the expense of faster AF, especially if going from a closer focus to longer distance focus. Things to keep in mind when evaluating performance.</p>

<p>There are a number of ways to check a lens for performance defects. Using a tripod is best for this purpose, but just general hand-held shooting will provide some impressions. For a quick check, one thing I do is take some shots of a vertical expanse containing some edges, contrast, and finer detail to see if the level of sharpness and detail is good, and approximately the same on the right, left, top, and bottom of the frame. This is done at several zoom settings, distances, a wider aperture, mid-aperture, and smaller aperture. Mid aperture is where the lens is often most capable, and likewise for the center area verses near the borders of the frame. A well-lit stone wall can work for such a test, but one must be sure to shoot exactly at right angle to the wall, not on a slant.</p>

<p>Here is one such example taken soon after I purchased my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 lens, here used on my K200D. This is of course reduced for this posting, along with some quality loss.</p><div></div>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>When it comes to testing this lens you may find yourself up against a brick wall.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Here's some user experience for you-<br>

<a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-55-300mm-F4-5.8-Zoom-Lens.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-55-300mm-F4-5.8-Zoom-Lens.html</a></p>

<p>I own it and although I've not used it heavily, when I have it's produced very good results, making me happy about my purchase. My purchase price was about $350. If you scroll about 3/4 of the way down my linked blog, to the fishing scenes, those shots were taken just when I took delivery of the lens. All the subjects are about 200-300 feet away. Some cropping and modest editing performed, but I'm happy with the results. <a href="http://steves-stories.blogspot.com/2010/07/festivals-and-fishing.html">http://steves-stories.blogspot.com/2010/07/festivals-and-fishing.html</a></p>

<p>And here, scroll all the way to the bottom to the rabbit- he was captured from distances of 30-40 feet with this lens in late afternoon direct sun/shade mix, again with modest cropping and editing. <a href="http://steves-stories.blogspot.com/2010/08/photos-from-road-and-back-yard.html">http://steves-stories.blogspot.com/2010/08/photos-from-road-and-back-yard.html</a></p>

<p>It's fairly compact, feels quite solid, and is performing well. Good enough for me to recommend it.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>The 55-300mm is a very solid lens.</p>

<p>Obviously not going to impress anyone with it's specs. But unlike a lot of 70-300mm zooms it gives you an extra 15mm at the wide end, and it's decent overall. The size is impressive, and the price is pretty reasonable for a brand name lens.</p>

<p>I'm not entirely sure it's as good (or any worse) than my Sigma, but that's not being negative. It's just to say it's a good lens for the money. However, after years of being happy with the Sigma, I found some major issues with fringing this summer. I guess the corrolary to that is if it took 7 years to find a major flaw, it probably isn't that major!</p>

<p>Overall, on par with the other 70-300mm zooms (maybe better, maybe not) but gives you an extra 15mm in a slightly more compact package!</p>

[jgredline]

<p>This is has been one of those lenses that has intrigued me as well, but like Justin I have the Sigma 70-300 APO version I am very happy with. Having said that, it is those 15mm on the short end that have been the lure. But at this point, I am thinking that my next pentax lens will be the 18-135WR lens. </p>

[michellemandat]

<p>I bought one in second hand, like new. I'm very impressed by the quality of this lens, sharpness, contrast...</p><div></div>

[dshombert]

<p>Slightly off topic, but this thread brings to mind a question that I've always wondered about. I understand the reasoning behind ensuring that the lens is perpendicular to the wall, as Andrew and Michael have pointed out. What I'm not clear on is (a) what are the limits of tolerance on this requirement, and (b) how do you establish that it's within those limits? Is it good enough to just eyeball the setup, or are measurements required? If the latter, what gets measured, and how?</p>

<p>@Wayne - you're a sick pup, and a man after my own heart.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Hi Dave,</p>

<p>Not sure what acceptable tolerance levels (fudge factor) there would be, but the better your set-up and aiming, the more accurate your test.</p>

<p>If you are shooting against a modern (last... 50 years?) brick wall, you can always but a level against it to make sure it is actually vertical. If there is relatively flat/level concrete paving in front of that wall (sidewalk, driveway, etc), you can use expansion joints between concrete panels as aiming devices to square your lens to look perpendicular to the wall, assuming the concrete guy set his concrete joints perpendicular to the wall. Set the tripod height waist high rather than head high to help in using the concrete joints for aiming. And if you are using a tripod, a hotshoe mounted bubble level (or a construction level used to square the camera mount head on the tripod before mounting the camera, or the level set vertically up against the end of the lens) will assure the lens is sitting level and plumb as well. At that point, I'd think, you can be comfortable that your camera and lens are aiming perpendicular both vertically and horizontally to the wall. I'd be comfortable with that amount of tolerance, which if done carefully, should be pretty darn minimal.</p>

<p>Thoughts? I just thought this up, I haven't actually done it...</p>

[dshombert]

<p>Steve,<br /> Those are helfpul suggestions, all right. I had thought of the level but not the concrete joint idea. Thanks.</p>

[audun_sjoeseth1]

<p>The cheap Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 LD Di macro for Pentax K is an OK lens from 70 to a little longer than 200mm. I have used it with a K-7. Great value for the cost.<br>

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/281-tamron-af-70-300mm-f4-56-ld-di-macro-pentax-k-review--lab-test-report</p>