Pentax 50-200 WR- user experience
Posted 01/03/2014 - 18:45 - Helpful Comment
Link
Mac,
The 55-300 is a hidden gem. If I get some time over next week I will post some results eg shooting an air display in Poole from Brownsea Island and a Snipe on a river bank. In original frame both were a speck - cropped (that's all) magic results.
The 55-300 is a hidden gem. If I get some time over next week I will post some results eg shooting an air display in Poole from Brownsea Island and a Snipe on a river bank. In original frame both were a speck - cropped (that's all) magic results.
Posted 01/03/2014 - 19:26 - Helpful Comment
Link
The DA50-200 WR is absolute rubbish. Far too light and simply not good enough compared to the mighty DA55-300. Waste of time, people will laugh at you for having such an ugly useless inferior cheap lens.
I struggle to get a good sharp shot with it.
Get the DA55-300 like everyone else
Seriously though, I have both and I can't see that much difference optically between the two, no matter what people say. It depends if you like dragging big lenses around ...
I struggle to get a good sharp shot with it.
Get the DA55-300 like everyone else
Seriously though, I have both and I can't see that much difference optically between the two, no matter what people say. It depends if you like dragging big lenses around ...
Posted 01/03/2014 - 19:31 - Helpful Comment
Link
AndrewA wrote:
Hi Mac, the 55-300 is so much better than the 50-200 I wouldn't even think about the latter.
Not sure I have too much else to say to be honest
Cheers, Andrew
+ 1Hi Mac, the 55-300 is so much better than the 50-200 I wouldn't even think about the latter.
Not sure I have too much else to say to be honest
Cheers, Andrew
I got the 50-200 with a kit. Took a few photos with it, never really happy. Traded up to the 55-300. Absolutely no contest IQ wise. The 50-200 is really light and compact BUT IQ is far far behind my 55-300 which I love. Might have been a bad copy of the 50-200, but consensus seems same as mine.
Posted 01/03/2014 - 20:12
Link
Thanks again
Especially for the amusing replies!
I have chewed this over- after responses from another thread I am upgrading my Kr to a K5 IIs- I think the 70 2.4 will go nicely- in all honesty I am not one for telephoto zoom work- I was trying to cover all options.....I prefer discretion hence my initial leaning to the smaller zoom!
Cheers
Mac
Especially for the amusing replies!
I have chewed this over- after responses from another thread I am upgrading my Kr to a K5 IIs- I think the 70 2.4 will go nicely- in all honesty I am not one for telephoto zoom work- I was trying to cover all options.....I prefer discretion hence my initial leaning to the smaller zoom!
Cheers
Mac
Posted 02/03/2014 - 00:14
Link
Don't know if there's much difference between the kit lens and the WR but I love my 50-200WR. I bought it for my sons first Trooping the Colour and took it down to the event without first trying it. I loved the results.
These were taken with the 50-200WR on my K-r and carrying it for the day was no trouble due to it's light and compact form. Despite the recommendations for the 300mm version I knew I would be hand shooting and anything over 200mm is not that easy for me without a 'pod. (not forgetting the bargain price of the lens)
Having previewed the post these images don't seem to be as sharp as the originals or the Flickr Set I copied them from so if your interested some of the pics are in my Flickr set at link
These were taken with the 50-200WR on my K-r and carrying it for the day was no trouble due to it's light and compact form. Despite the recommendations for the 300mm version I knew I would be hand shooting and anything over 200mm is not that easy for me without a 'pod. (not forgetting the bargain price of the lens)
Having previewed the post these images don't seem to be as sharp as the originals or the Flickr Set I copied them from so if your interested some of the pics are in my Flickr set at link
Steve
Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?
Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?
Posted 02/03/2014 - 09:56
Link
THanks Steve
A very helpful post!
Cheers
Mac
A very helpful post!
Cheers
Mac
Posted 02/03/2014 - 13:23 - Helpful Comment
Link
Mac,
I too have a 50-200WR lens, and believe that if you get a good example its performance belies its somewhat bargain price. It's a well-built and lightweight lens (I know from some of your recent posts that weight, or more accurately a lack of it is important), which has performed well for me - I should use it more! These were all taken on my old K20D - I don't think I've used it on my K5iiS yet. The first one I lightened a touch, but the others are Jpegs straight from the camera as I recall..
Monty by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Bella by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Bella in the flowers by Andrew~H, on Flickr
IMGP2349 by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Monty by Andrew~H, on Flickr
I was pleasantly surprised by its performance - sure, you can spend much more, and maybe get better results, but I would say it's worth a go, as these appear to be going for well under the £95 that I paid for mine on here.
I also have the 55-300. Obviously that gives greater reach, but is heavier, and in terms of results I personally haven't found there's that much in it.
Good luck
I too have a 50-200WR lens, and believe that if you get a good example its performance belies its somewhat bargain price. It's a well-built and lightweight lens (I know from some of your recent posts that weight, or more accurately a lack of it is important), which has performed well for me - I should use it more! These were all taken on my old K20D - I don't think I've used it on my K5iiS yet. The first one I lightened a touch, but the others are Jpegs straight from the camera as I recall..
Monty by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Bella by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Bella in the flowers by Andrew~H, on Flickr
IMGP2349 by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Monty by Andrew~H, on Flickr
I was pleasantly surprised by its performance - sure, you can spend much more, and maybe get better results, but I would say it's worth a go, as these appear to be going for well under the £95 that I paid for mine on here.
I also have the 55-300. Obviously that gives greater reach, but is heavier, and in terms of results I personally haven't found there's that much in it.
Good luck
Posted 02/03/2014 - 13:34
Link
Brilliant cat portraits Andrew and I don't feel so lonely extolling the virtue of this lens now
No.3 is especially charming.
No.3 is especially charming.
Steve
Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?
Sometimes I'm serious and sometimes not, but I consider sarcasm an artform. Which is it today?
Posted 02/03/2014 - 13:41
Link
Brilliant shots (I am a cat lover!). These have swayed me.
Cheers
Mac
Cheers
Mac
AndrewH wrote:
Mac,
I too have a 50-200WR lens, and believe that if you get a good example its performance belies its somewhat bargain price. It's a well-built and lightweight lens (I know from some of your recent posts that weight, or more accurately a lack of it is important), which has performed well for me - I should use it more! These were all taken on my old K20D - I don't think I've used it on my K5iiS yet. The first one I lightened a touch, but the others are Jpegs straight from the camera as I recall..
Monty by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Bella by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Bella in the flowers by Andrew~H, on Flickr
IMGP2349 by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Monty by Andrew~H, on Flickr
I was pleasantly surprised by its performance - sure, you can spend much more, and maybe get better results, but I would say it's worth a go, as these appear to be going for well under the £95 that I paid for mine on here.
I also have the 55-300. Obviously that gives greater reach, but is heavier, and in terms of results I personally haven't found there's that much in it.
Good luck
Mac,
I too have a 50-200WR lens, and believe that if you get a good example its performance belies its somewhat bargain price. It's a well-built and lightweight lens (I know from some of your recent posts that weight, or more accurately a lack of it is important), which has performed well for me - I should use it more! These were all taken on my old K20D - I don't think I've used it on my K5iiS yet. The first one I lightened a touch, but the others are Jpegs straight from the camera as I recall..
Monty by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Bella by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Bella in the flowers by Andrew~H, on Flickr
IMGP2349 by Andrew~H, on Flickr
Monty by Andrew~H, on Flickr
I was pleasantly surprised by its performance - sure, you can spend much more, and maybe get better results, but I would say it's worth a go, as these appear to be going for well under the £95 that I paid for mine on here.
I also have the 55-300. Obviously that gives greater reach, but is heavier, and in terms of results I personally haven't found there's that much in it.
Good luck
Posted 02/03/2014 - 13:51 - Helpful Comment
Link
Thank you, gents - the cats were in a photogenic mood that day, and the light was perfect too! These shots were the first time I'd used the lens...I'd recommend it without hesitation as a lightweight lens that will deliver good all-round results at a very affordable price point. I'm not sure why it gets knocked the way it does, but if you're buying that simply pushes demand (& therefore prices!) down...every cloud and all that
Happy hunting!
Happy hunting!
Posted 02/03/2014 - 22:03
Link
I've had some excellent results with mine and the non WR before that.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
715 posts
14 years
Birmingham
I am just looking for your experiences with this lens.
I don't want to get a 2.8 zoom because of the weight- the 55-300 is a possibility.
Any experience, advice would be welcome. I currently have a Kr but will shortly be upgrading to a K5 II (or 's') with which a Tammy 17-50 will be my main lens.
Many thanks
Mac
www.500px.com/simac