Pentax SMC DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED Lens

Hi, just wanted to know your thoughts on this lens and if anyone here has any experience with it, how does it fair to it's competitors? It's hard to find a picture taken at 55mm and then taken at 300mm so I can get an idea of how much of zoom it has.

Probably the best value for money lens in the Pentax range.
Much better than the Tamron/Sigma 70-200mm lenses that are available in the Pentax mount. IQ is excellent for the money.

I have a lot more expensive lenses but the 55-300mm is always in my bag

Great lens for the money, wouldn't be without it.

re your specific on 55 & 300 shots: if you want to get an idea of generally how much more a 300 will 'zoom' than your 200 - and can't find anything on 55-300 itself it may be worth looking at ephotozine or dpreview tests of other zoom lenses to see what they have done.

I can say 300 is much more and unless you want to do wildlife is probably all you need for a while.

Hopefully someone else will come along and give you a better answer.

The Greenfinch I posted this week in my portfolio is the same lens at 300mm (equivalent to 450mm on a 35mm size sensor) from about three metres away in our garden. The robin before it is at about six metres away in our local reservoirs park.

I don't tend to use at 55mm as my standard 18 - 55mm kit lens covers that.

The quick focus ring over ride solves a little bit of hunting sometimes on focus. Screw drive so a bit noisy of course. Excellent value and performance for those of us who can't afford better.

i'm not bored, honest.

Fabulous lens for the money - you will not buy better. The only caveat is that it is noisy in AF and can be a bit tricky to lock onto small subjects (especially in dim light), however, unless you intend to use for sports or for close shots of wildlife this should not be an issue. BTW, it focusses much faster / better on my K-5 than it does on my K-x.

Image quality is superb - I use it quite often for landscapes at its shortest focal length.

Regards
David

Better on the KR than the KX too

Umm, you're not referring to the 70-200 2.8's are you? I don't have ANY experience with the 70-200's so you just might have saved me a lot of trouble, IF those were the lenses you were comparing about.

The tamron 70-200 2.8 is much better for bokeh and is tack sharp. On this focal range the 55-300 really doesn't compare.
You must be trying to compare it to the 70-300 from sigma and tamron ?

Here's a couple shots I took yesterday with my brand new 55-300
[IMG]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg811/scaled.php?server=811&filename=imgp4090.jpg&res=medium[/IMG][full resolution]

[IMG]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg688/scaled.php?server=688&filename=imgp4205x.jpg&res=medium[/IMG]
[full resolution]

JamieT has posted some samples at either end of the range, but this site is helpful for visualising the effect of different focal lengths.

http://tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

Ooops, should have read 70-300mm lenses.

My MKI Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is quite a bit better than the 55-300mm. Saying that it's a hefty chunk of glass and tends to stay home most of the time.

Same lenses - same comments!!

I also am not bored
Just to give an idea of the magnification, the blur is due to the wind and no doubt Flickr
Pete