Is 300mm much better that 200mm?

Error
  • You need to be logged in to vote on this poll

aldoose

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:29
I do quite a lot of wildlife and sports photography and so zoom is quite important but is the price of the extra 100mm worth over $200? I am considering the
Pentax 55-300mm (Expensive)
Tamron 70 - 200mm (Very cheap)
and the Pentax 50-200mm lenses (Quite cheap)

What is your opinion?

p.s. the pound key is broken so i have to write in dollars

pentaxian450

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:30
aldoose wrote:
I do quite a lot of wildlife and sports photography and so zoom is quite important but is the price of the extra 100mm worth over $200? I am considering the
Pentax 55-300mm (Expensive)
Tamron 70 - 200mm (Very cheap)
and the Pentax 50-200mm lenses (Quite cheap)

What is your opinion?

p.s. the pound key is broken so i have to write in dollars

Lucky you! I don't even have a pound key on my keyboard.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)

aldoose

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:31
that wasn't what i was hoping you were going to help me with...
K20D
18-55mm II
55-300mm
Panasonic FZ-50
DMW-LT55

Mannesty

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:33
If you've done "quite a lot of wildlife and sports photography", what lenses have you used so far. If you are happy with the results, stick with the lengths you've used so far.

My opinion, a 300mm prime is better than any of the lenses you've listed. If I had to choose one, it'd be the Pentax 55-300mm because yes, the extra 100mm reach is worth it.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

aldoose

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:36
as i said in another topic, this will be my first DSLR. I have had a Panasonic FZ-50 which goes to 420mm eqiuv. A 300mm lens will be the same as 450mm so that suits me.
K20D
18-55mm II
55-300mm
Panasonic FZ-50
DMW-LT55

johnriley

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:40
It looks like you've really answered your own question.

I can tell you that the Pentax 50-200mm and 55-300mm lenses are both excellent.
Best regards, John

Mannesty

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:40
If you have the money, have a look at the Sigma 100-300mm EX DG lens, it might suit you. It's bigger and heavier than those you have listed, but it's also faster with a max aperture of f4.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

scottthehat

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:41
well if zooms important to you then you gotta shell out the money the more you spend the better pics you will get.
1 thing to remeber is it aint no good having a top dslr and putting a s**t lens on it
if you have to save a little more it will be worth it in the long run and if you have ever brought a s**t lens you will know what i mean i no
i have before and regreted it hope this help
find the lense you want shop round for the best price not
jessops ie 18-200mm tamron = 299
18-200mm bristol cameras = 179 delivered
just keep snapping,

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/scottbenson

http://s727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/


CAMERAS = k200d + battery grip.
nikon d300 + battery grip.
LENSES = tamron aspherical DII 18-200mm f3.5/6.3,
nikon 18-200mm afs vr f3.5/5.6 g dx
sigma 150-500mm apo dg hsm os
sigma 170-500mm apo dg
FLASH = samsung sef36pzf flash + more.

polchraine

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 22:48
Go for the 55-300. The extra 100mm will be useful - I have bought a 50-200 but only because it was very cheap 47.50 ... and is half the weight of the 55-300. I also have a DA*300.





A few pounds for you - cut and paste when you need one!

aldoose

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 23:17
how much was that? and why are the fixed lenses so much more expensive than the zoom ones. I might be being naive here but apart from possible massive quality differences, it makes no sense.
K20D
18-55mm II
55-300mm
Panasonic FZ-50
DMW-LT55

scottthehat

Link Posted 27/10/2008 - 23:25
fixed lenses are expensive because there is no comprimise its set for the maximum performance at its range ie 100mm will be a far better lens then a 28-105 if you use 100mm lots and are normally faster focusing .

iceblinker

Link Posted 28/10/2008 - 00:42
aldoose wrote:
I do quite a lot of wildlife and sports photography and so zoom is quite important but is the price of the extra 100mm worth over $200? I am considering the
Pentax 55-300mm (Expensive)
Tamron 70 - 200mm (Very cheap)
and the Pentax 50-200mm lenses (Quite cheap)

What is your opinion?

You don't have to pay 200 extra to get 100mm extra. You might want to, you might even be justified in doing so, but you don't have to!!!

There is the Tamron 70-300mm and Sigma 70-300mm. These are cheap but pretty good lenses, though of course not as good as more expenses lenses in every way.

Certainly it's worth having the extra 100mm for wildlife and sports.

Quote:
p.s. the pound key is broken so i have to write in dollars

You could write: "200 pounds", "200 GBP", "200 quid", "twenty big bens", "eight ponies", "ten score", "a couple of biscuits", or even "two and three-quarter doughnuts", but please not "$"!
~Pete

polchraine

Link Posted 28/10/2008 - 02:19
Quote:

You could write: "200 pounds", "200 GBP", "200 quid", "twenty big bens", "eight ponies", "ten score", "a couple of biscuits", or even "two and three-quarter doughnuts", but please not "$"!

Or he could use insert symbol in word, create a post there and copy it across ... plenty of ways to do it without insulting us. Although it could be worse and the OP could have said 200
.
K20D, *istD, MZ-S, Super-A, ME Super, MX
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, DA* 300,
DA 50-200, FA 24-90, FA 20-35,
M 400-600, A 50 f1.4, A 28 f2.8, A 70-210, M 35-80, M 50 f1.7
A x2S teleconverter and a few others ...

Unlocker

Link Posted 28/10/2008 - 11:07
No offence, but you say that you do a lot of wildlife and sports photography, then go on to say that the Pentax 55-300 is expensive! Not sure what your expectations are!

The 100-300 F4 mentioned here is very good, but listed at around 750

The DA* 300 F4 is around 800

An FA* 300 F2.8 if you could find one would probably be around 1500 - 2000 2nd hand!

The big lenses you see on TV if you watch football tend to be 600mm F4, 500mm F4 or 400mm F2.8, all commanding prices of around 5-6k and upwards

The DA 50-300 at 219 (SRS price), from the reviews I have read and from other users comments here, seems to be an absolute bargain, and that would be my choice within that kind of budget!

PS, it might take you a while to get used to the sense of humour on here, but they are all decent guys, honest!

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

LiamD

Link Posted 28/10/2008 - 13:25
Hi aldoose,

if you can't afford the 100-300 F4, then the 100-300 F4-5.6 is a very good lens for the money. I have one and it's a very nice lens.

One here on ebay for 99 + postage.***

Just found this one complete with a Z20 body, starting at 10. May be worth keeping an eye on as well. Might get it for silly money.***

The 80-320 is also highly recommended, one for sale here, pretty cheap so far.***


Re: The broken sign button. Hold down the left hand Alt button, while typing 156 on the number pad. Doesn't always work, but give it a go. Don't need to spend lens money on a new keyboard then.

Cheers

Liam


***Disclaimer: Nothing to do with me, and not a recommendation, or otherwise, of the seller(s).
Liam


"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James

Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
Last Edited by LiamD on 28/10/2008 - 13:26
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.