DAL 50-200

Hi, chaps,

I moved into the wonderful world of DSLRs a few months ago with a Samsung GX-10 and just love the instant access you get to your pix compared with film. I'm delighted with the 16-45 I bought as a main lens, although the Samsung 18-55 is a far better performer than I thought it would be. On the long side, I thought a Pentax 50-200 would be just the thing during the credit crunch after looking at sample shots on the Pentax Photo Gallery and ordered a bargain-priced "unboxed" one. It arrived today and turned out to be the DAL version, a lighter design, I understand, designed to complement the KM. Does anyone know how its IQ compares with the standard DA version? I'm reluctant to take it out for a thorough test in case I decide to send it back and get a DA instead. Anyone tried the DAL 50-200? Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Hello Alastair, welcome to the forum.

The DAL is the same as the DA the only difference is that it hasn't got quick-shift, lenshood and a metal mount (the fitting from the lens to the camera).
They have done it to make the lens lighter but in my eyes they also make it less atracive.
You have the DA 16-45 so you know how handy quick-shift is.
The lens hood is handy for protection and also helps against flares.
The plastice mount will wear out over a coulpe of years.

See this website for reassurance that the optical formular is the same for both lenses:

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/long/index.html

I believe those quoted weights exclude caps and hoods, so the actual DA L lens is 25 grams lighter.

I wouldn't mind swapping my DA for a DA L, but I'd keep the hood!

Many thanks, Stefan. I can probably live with the shortcomings for the £99 price-tag. Most of my efforts are wider angle, so I would use it only occasionally. That's interesting about the lack of quick-shift. I just assumed it was broklen and was going to return the lens for that reason. After your comments, I'm off into the sunshine now (without a tripod) to see how it performs. I expect to get some great results rendered useless by camera shake. Many thanks again.

Alastair

And thanks for that reassuarnce, Pete. Your post appeared while I was typing (as we used to say).

Alastair

Here is an artical about the DAL serie link

This is getting confusing There are now three versions of the 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 and the DAL is not a MkII, but is the same as a MkII Plus there are the Samsung versions.

shim

Why did they even bring out the DAL version, the diffrence in weigth isn't that much and most users would miss the things they have taken out

Probably costs, plastic lens mounts must be a lot cheaper than metal. Plus the lens won't last a long.

shim

That's a bit of a bold statement considering the plastic mount hasn't been out that long.

Some Pentax FA and FA-J lenses have plastic mounts. They are not heavy lenses and they wear very well.

I have a mint boxed DA version I was going to put on the forum for sale next week when I return from Spain if you would rather have one of those.
Will be cheaper than what you paid for the plastic mounted one as well.

Just what I need ... another lens! I'm tempted, Mike-P, just for the Quick-Shift, but I must be strong. Tried out the DAL this afternoon and it's not bad at all. It's that old problem of pixel-peeping and trying to decide if it's sharp enough. I've run out of A4 photo paper and I'll have to wait till tomorrow to see how they print out. Looks good for the price, though.

Al

I believe weight is the main reason. 25 grams may not seem like much, but it's enough to make a noticeable difference with an already light lens.

I like light things and I wouldn't be terribly bothered by the plastic mount of lack of QS. It is bad for a hood not to be included though.

Yes maybe a bit, it comes from the well used kit lenses from other companies, most of them also have a plastic mount and they wear over time.
Also when two materials are forced against each other the weaker one lose material. With plastic vs metal, plastic will lose material, it's as simple as that.
The couple of year bit should be taken in a broad sence.
Hopefully Pentax proves me wrong though but we will see.

Still 25 gram against the lost of some handy features doesn't seem worth it in too my eyes but that's for everyone personal.