Pentax 50-200 WR- user experience
Posted 03/03/2014 - 00:35
Link
Is there any differenc in te optics in te DA50-200 and DA50-200WR?
The WR version is 2mm greater in overall diameter and 1mm longer but uses a 49mm filter compared to the 52mm on the non-WR.
The slight increase in size may be (probably is) due to including various seals, but the reduction in filter size made me wonder.
BDs sit gives the same number of element and groups, magnification and blades.
The WR version is 2mm greater in overall diameter and 1mm longer but uses a 49mm filter compared to the 52mm on the non-WR.
The slight increase in size may be (probably is) due to including various seals, but the reduction in filter size made me wonder.
BDs sit gives the same number of element and groups, magnification and blades.
Posted 03/03/2014 - 04:15
Link
Gamka wrote:
Is there any differenc in te optics in te DA50-200 and DA50-200WR?
The WR version is 2mm greater in overall diameter and 1mm longer but uses a 49mm filter compared to the 52mm on the non-WR.
The slight increase in size may be (probably is) due to including various seals, but the reduction in filter size made me wonder.
BDs sit gives the same number of element and groups, magnification and blades.
I didn't realise there was any difference except for the metal mount. You have surprised me. Makes you wonder.
Is there any differenc in te optics in te DA50-200 and DA50-200WR?
The WR version is 2mm greater in overall diameter and 1mm longer but uses a 49mm filter compared to the 52mm on the non-WR.
The slight increase in size may be (probably is) due to including various seals, but the reduction in filter size made me wonder.
BDs sit gives the same number of element and groups, magnification and blades.
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 03/03/2014 - 07:49
Link
I'm pretty sure the lenses both have a 49mm filter diameter.
Best regards, John
Posted 03/03/2014 - 10:02
Link
johnriley wrote:
I'm pretty sure the lenses both have a 49mm filter diameter.
The non-WR is definitely 52mm.I'm pretty sure the lenses both have a 49mm filter diameter.
Gravelrash wrote:
I didn't realise there was any difference except for the metal mount. You have surprised me. Makes you wonder.
Both have metal mounts.
I didn't realise there was any difference except for the metal mount. You have surprised me. Makes you wonder.
Posted 03/03/2014 - 11:26 - Helpful Comment
Link
The WR is a 49mm and the non-WR is a 52mm - I've got them both in front of me. I can't say I've noticed any real difference in optics, but then again it has been some time since I've used the non-WR version. The WR is a constant in the general kit-bag
Edit: Just been and weighed them - both bare (no caps, filters etc) the Non-WR comes in at 258g and the WR at 288g on my trusty set of scales.
Edit: Just been and weighed them - both bare (no caps, filters etc) the Non-WR comes in at 258g and the WR at 288g on my trusty set of scales.
Posted 03/03/2014 - 12:21
Link
Very helpful comments all!
Regards
Mac
Regards
Mac
Posted 03/03/2014 - 12:21 - Helpful Comment
Link
I assumed there were only two versions but am obviously wrong. Gamka says they both have metal mounts but the kit lens I have seen had a plastic mount. Anyway I'm bored now. Laterz
Edit...Pentax Forums list 4 in their database! They are all rated in the 7's by consensus but I think that's a travesty in my experience!
Definately going now lol
Edit...Pentax Forums list 4 in their database! They are all rated in the 7's by consensus but I think that's a travesty in my experience!
Definately going now lol
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 03/03/2014 - 13:41 - Helpful Comment
Link
The 50-200 WR is a hidden gem, smallish and very affordable - I have the WR - got it as a kit lens, much less costly than the new 55-300 WR.
I have the non WR 55-300 which is good for the extra reach, but at 300 I can hardly manage without a tripod. It also has a tendency to focus hunt when light isn't so good.
My advice is to go for the 50-200 in the first instance, and if it meets your needs, fine, you have saved yourself a tidy sum. There are plenty of 50-200 WR versions come up for sale here and on ebay.
Initially I did not take the best shots with it, but that was me and not the lens. Both lenses need to be stopped down a tad, something I didn't fully appreciate in my early days of digital.
You mention the 70 2.4 as well, it is a fantastic lens but more portrait than telephoto. The limited primes are a different philosophy, eventually you will no doubt acquire a few, but until then, enjoy Pentax's affordable primes and kit zoom lenses, they are all fantastic value for money.
The above posted photos say it all.
I have the non WR 55-300 which is good for the extra reach, but at 300 I can hardly manage without a tripod. It also has a tendency to focus hunt when light isn't so good.
My advice is to go for the 50-200 in the first instance, and if it meets your needs, fine, you have saved yourself a tidy sum. There are plenty of 50-200 WR versions come up for sale here and on ebay.
Initially I did not take the best shots with it, but that was me and not the lens. Both lenses need to be stopped down a tad, something I didn't fully appreciate in my early days of digital.
You mention the 70 2.4 as well, it is a fantastic lens but more portrait than telephoto. The limited primes are a different philosophy, eventually you will no doubt acquire a few, but until then, enjoy Pentax's affordable primes and kit zoom lenses, they are all fantastic value for money.
The above posted photos say it all.
Posted 03/03/2014 - 16:12
Link
----The End---- lol
THanks all
Mac
THanks all
Mac
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1136 posts
17 years
West Berks
The 55-300 is a better lens but larger, heavier and more likely to be left at home. WR versions are available for both now but the 50-200 will be a lot cheaper.
One in my gallery taken with the 50-200 link