50-200 - An Underrated Lens?

I recently bought a used K-x on ebay, mainly because it had a mint Sigma 105mm DG EX Macro lens with it. As part of the purchase I got a DA L 50-200mm lens. My first impressions (before using it) were:

- Wow it is so small and light (almost fragile)
- It has a 52mm filter thread - good
- It must be compromised on IQ

I used it yesterday for the first time and WOW what sharpness and colour rendering it has! It even has good bokeh!

I haven't seen too many good reports about this lens and I'm wondering if I've just been lucky to land an exceptional copy, so I'm interested to know what everyone else thinks? You can buy these for about £40 or £50 - at that price they are an absolute steal if they are all as good as mine.

I look forward to reading your responses.

Regards
David

same thoughts also in my opinion quicker to focus than 55-300 (AF that is ) and MUCH better for burst shots of moving things like kids sledging, cars etc (in terms of AF accuracy)

I regret selling my metal mount version oh and so small!

I got one from a forum member and I''m very happy with it. Don't have as much experience as others but I find it light and compact. I have a picture on my profile page of a leaf I took with it. Only adjusted levels on it and think its a great image. I would recommend this lens to anyone on a budget looking for some distance.

Will

I used my copy for the first time in ages yesterday along with my K-m. I had a purpose in mind for the trip and wanted a lightweight kit. The kit lens and DA-L 50-200 were ideal for the purpose. The 50-200 is roughly the same size and weight as the DA-L 18-55.

The purpose of the trip may become a little more obvious seeing the image below, but here it is. (I chose an alternative image for that purpose but it was a tricky call to choose.)




Still wondering if I made the right call!

John

Looks OK to me John! I am in the process of selling the K-x with either just the 18-55, or to include the 50-200 and I'm sort of hoping the buyer won't want to buy the 50-200!

Regards
David

I have had 50-200mm lenses and got on with them just fine.

Oh, perhaps I was not clear? I wasn't knocking the lens, my issue was choosing which image to use (for the fortnightly comp.) as I was pleased with both!

Why sell it David if you think you might still want it? Probably cost more to replace it later and one you know is better than a new unknown copy.

It is underrated, but overshadowed by the 55-300.

One issue when deciding to take it with me for a lightweight outing is that the DA-L 18-55 plus DA-L 50-200 weigh much the same (combined) as the Pentax 18-250. I think the 50-200 balances better but it is nice to have the combined range in an all in one lens. It's always decisions decisions!

John

Thanks for your explanation and assistance John. Unfortunately I have already offered the K-x to someone together with the 50-200, otherwise I definitely would be keeping it. I also have the 55-300 which is a great lens, but is twice the size and to my eyes, not quite as sharp as the 50-200 copy I have.

Regards
David

I found the 50-200 was a great lens when traveling light. I swapped my original copy for a WR version and it is still as good.

I think it is underrated and I prefer it to the 55-300. It is just much more comfortable on the camera. I must admit it doesn't get the use it did, since I got an 18-135 wr but it still gets packed in the rucksack more often than the longer lens, if I'm off to the mountains.

I got the DAL 50-200 as part of my K-r twin lens kit and have to agree that is is an excellent light 'carry around' lens.
I got the DA 55-300 later for bird photography and appreciate the extra length. However, I can't say that I've noticed much difference between them in IQ ? But that is probably down to MY poor performance !

However, the lightness of the 50-200 makes this my preferred 'jack-of-all-trades' for convenience when I want to take the camera with just one lens.

I've just posted another shot using this lens - the JPEG straight out of the camera 'warts n all', but I can't see any warts ! (If there is any blur it would have been me shaking with the cold !)

Peter

Hi, I have a 50-200 WR version. It is truly a great lens. I have contributed a thread, if I am not wrong, about it. I got it from one of our PU members. Earlier I had a 50-200 non-WR version, which too, I found to be really nice.

Regards,

Jeeess

i to have a 50-200 and think its a great lens a good size and has returned some sharp photos i must have a good copy

You know what, I reckon it might be one of those lenses that performs not-so-well when shooting test charts, but well enough when shooting real-life, three dimensional subjects. Hence the disparity between the reviews and user reports.

This lens should really NOT be overlooked - especially as it effectively cost just £70 as part of the twin lens kit !

I've just posted another shot from this lens on the gallery. This time with the lens at 50mm. The gallery view doesn't do real justice to this lens as when viewed at full size the writing on the red banner is clearly visible giving the phone No & website and the views inside the cabin are also clear. And all that in an untouched JPEG straight from the K-r on 'learner mode', i.e. P !

Peter

I have both the 50-200mm WR and the 55-300mm. The 55-300mm is a heavy and clumsy beast. There is actually very little difference in IQ.

But all the tests and reviews can't be wrong, can they ?

Some of my recent shots with the 50-200