DA 50-200mm vs. DA 55-300mm

I've done a quick search in the forum for views on these 2 lenses but other than all round praise for both I feel I'm still looking for user views on how they perform.

I'm off to Cuba before the end of the year and am trying to keep the weight of my kit down... I am already covered in these focal lengths with both the DA* 50-135mm and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with 1.4x & 2x converters. Ideally I'd like to leave these at home otherwise I suspect they'll stay in the hotel room the entire trip (70-200mm more than the DA*). My preferred focal lengths are typically in the wider end of the scale than at the tele end.

In their place I'm thinking of picking up, possibly 2nd-hand, either a 50-200mm of 55-300mm. It might be just a temp addition to the kit or kept just for travelling.

Anyone own either or both of these lenses? What are they like? Am I really likely to miss my DA* 50-135mm?

Interested to know what others think or what they would do?

I would go for the 50-200mm WR for travel. Smaller, lighter, cheaper.... and WR! I had a 55-300mm once but didn't like the size, noisy AF, or the way the lens extended when you zoomed.

I don't have the 50-200 but it's about the same compact size as the 'good enough' Pentax-A 80-200mm I have, and I can hardly imagine it would be worse!

The extra reach of the 55-300 appeals... I did have a FA 80-320 until 3 months ago but let a mate that is travelling round the world for 12 months nab it to go with his K-x as SRS were out of stock of cheap tele's.

Your comments about the size and zoom extending might be big plus points for the 50-200...

Hmmmm decisions, decisions...:

The 50-200 is very compact and light. Cheaper too and you can have the WR as well. I have been very happy with mine, especially when I have to carry it all day in the mountains. I sold mine a short while ago, only after I got hold of the WR version.

I've not had the 55-300 so long and am not so attached to it. Still not a heavy lens but it is quite a bit more to carry, both weight and size.

Lots on here recon the 55-300 is a better lens but I've got attached to my 50-200 and take it when I want to travel light.

Not wishing to add confusion - but have you considered picking up a used DA 18-250? or even the Samsung or Tamron versions

I have the DA18-250 and the DA55-300. I have had the 18-250 for several years and bought the 55-300 last month. I really like the 55-300 and the IQ beyond 200mm is definately better than the 18-250 IMHO - but the 18-250 is still my 'take anywhere' lens of choice if I only want to carry one lens - all the bases covered from wide to long with perfectly acceptable results given the compromises

Carl

Well I reckon you would miss the 50-135 as it is a stunning lens which can do things the cheaper lenses cannot - especially if you like shooting wide open in order to minimise depth of field.

I'd take the 50-135 and a decent wide angle zoom to complement it (in my case it would be the 16-45, but there are a number of other good/better options).

An alternative suggestion - a very good versatile option if you're not massively bothered about telephoto would be either the Sigma or Pentax 17-70 offerings. These would be easy to sell on if you decided that you didn't want to keep them.

I'll be alright at the wide end, prioritising weight in my bag to my DA* 16-50, maybe the trick might be to sacrifice taking a prime and keep the 50-135 with me? But then I won't have anything available in the 200mm and above range which is why I was thinking of the 50-200 or 55-300 to cover those bases in a cheap & light solution.

I've got a couple of weeks to work things out... might try a few different combinations.

OK here's another suggestion!

Take your 16-50.
Buy either the DA 70 Ltd or FA 77 Ltd
Rent a 200mm DA* from SRS!