Used Pentax SMC -DAL 55-300mm F/4-5.8 ED Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens

2013-08-15T21:00:00

So far I've taken bird & butterfly photos. Love the soft bokeh behind crisp details. The hunting isn't so bad as many report but I guess it depends how you are using it. For less than $250 US you would be hard pressed to find a lens with better quality in this zoom range.

RICHARD W.

2013-07-08T21:00:00

I use this for bird photography and video. Very pleased with performance.

RICHARD W.

2013-05-29T21:00:00

Use this lens for wildlife mostly and realy like the results - does hunt sometimes for focus.

Benny

2013-05-20T21:00:00

Good back up lens

DR C.

2013-02-04T19:00:00

Getting back into photography with the digital camera after using film for a long time. I like the autofocus zoom that works with my Pentax K5

Treemonkey

2012-05-07T21:00:00

This is light and has a huge range. The image quality is not as good as my 50-135 f/2.8 but it weighs a lot less, is a quarter of the price and has double the range. It is NOT a quiet lens, but you can take shots from a distance and so it can be less intrusive than a quieter lens would be.

SIMON H.

2012-05-06T21:00:00

This is the bargain version of the more expensive DA 55-300, and what a bargain it is. Despite the $200 price difference, they share the same exact optical formula. The only differences are in the construction quality, Quick Shift focus, and the bundled lens hood. That's it. That's all there is between these two guys. Is the difference worth it? You can buy the hood separately. It's about $40 new. That's too much for a lens hood, but it's still worth getting. You'd be silly to have a 300mm lens without a hood on, unless you live under permanent overcast skies. So: get the hood. Now the price difference is, effectively, about $140. Quick Shift focus is neat, but do you need it? It's just manual focus override. You'd use it to adjust focus on the fly, even with AF turned on. You can do the same exact thing, albeit with less elegance, by flicking the focus knob on your camera. If I had Quick Shift, I'd use it, I guess, but I can't be bothered to pay $140 for the privilege. As for the build quality, the thing about Pentax is that they don't make poorly-built lenses. Even their budget lenses are well-built, and this one is no exception. It's solid and reliable feeling. Compared to Pentax's more expensive lenses, the budget lens doesn't feel quite as nice, but this is only a relative comparison. Besides, neither 55-300 is weather sealed, so it's all sort of moot. Yes, it has a plastic mount, and of course a metal mount would be better, but if you're breaking off your lens in your camera's mount, then you have bigger problems than Pentax can fix. Are you the Hulk, using the camera as a makeshift bat against hordes of enemies? No? Then the plastic mount is fine. Now onto what these lenses share, which is to say that optical formula: for the price, it's stellar. The lens is unreasonably sharp at all focal lengths. From 55-200, it's sharp at all apertures, although from 200-300, you might want to stop down for optimum performance. Compared to the kit 50-200, there's no contest. The 55-300 mops the floor with it, even with the 50-200 stopped down and the 55-300 wide open. Compared with the much more expensive DA* tele zooms, the 55-300 still performs respectably. The DA* lenses are much sturdier, and of course they're weather-sealed, but compared to this budget lens, the optics are pretty close. They're also about 4x-5x more expensive. The 55-300 DA L is a great value, especially when you consider how other manufacturers' comparably priced zooms perform.

Corpulence P.

2012-04-22T21:00:00

This is my third Pentax DA-L lens and I don't have any issues with he plastic mounts. The lens are slightly lighter as a result, but the glass is just as good as the DA. I sue this lens for portraits, distant landscapes, spotting birds and pseudo macros. The lens is well constructed, no focus creep, and absolutely minimal chromatic aberrations, which were ubiquitous with the Tamron 70-300 4\f/4-5.6 Di LD I was using. Focus is problematic only when available light is low, which is to be expected with this level of lens.

STEPHEN F.

2012-04-22T21:00:00

It is better in low light than my Tamron 18-200 mm.

Rick

2012-03-04T19:00:00

I wanted an optically sharp lens capable of reaching out and bringing distant objects closer that wasn't to awful large. It also had to tie in well to my 18-135 WR and my 18-55 mm lenses. With its 55-300 mm reach this lens did. I read a number of reviews and this lens seemed to be pretty good. It's also not too large and used with either of the other two lens allows me to carry only two lens and have a reach of 18-300mm. I'm happy to say that the pictures I have taken so far look very crisp. No obvious defects.

jetboat

2012-01-22T19:00:00

I use this lens for wild life and aircraft photos.

Frank T.

2011-11-06T19:00:00

I did 3 months research before deciding on my latest camera to be a Pentax K-R. I also researched lenses during the whole time. I bought the K-R with a 2 lens package - the 55-300 was included. I also bought a Tamron XR DI LD 28-75 Lens which is SUPPOSED to be incredible. That lens has been a disappointment, though it does produce sharp images at 45-75mm. Shockingly, after getting used to the Tamron 28-75 which is supposedly better than any Sigma, Canon, and Nikon offerings in this zoom range, I put my 55-300 on the other day and shot some landscape pics similar to the work I have done with the Tamron. The 55-300 is equally as sharp, but more consistently and does so for such an incredible zoom range. THIS IS ENTIRELY UNEXPECTED. The images just look so good and accurate, focusing is accurate, color is dead on, though it does lack some contrast which is so easily pumped up in post editing. I do not miss the metal mount for metal shavings of metal mounts being reattached are an issue getting into the camera. The plastic mount is very strong, the 55-300 is lighter than the Tammy 28-75, and zoom is nicely firmer on the 55-300 preventing zoom creep and allowing accurate targeting. I only have one real complaint - that other lenses are not made as good with consistent sharpness and performance as the 55-300. Pentax needs to make their other over priced lenses as good as this one!!!

JON H.

2011-09-05T21:00:00

I use the lens for wild life photography and to photograph airplanes with excellent results

Frank T.

2011-09-03T21:00:00

This lens was a deliberate selection after searching for something like it more than two years. I use it for everything from landscape to macro and portraiture. Excellent range of focal lengths. It is mated to a Pentax K-x DSLR.

ALBERT L.

2011-09-03T21:00:00

All in all a good lens. Seems sharper on the long end than the 55-200mm, with a little more reach. I am using it for a vacation/travel lens so the plastic mount doesn't really bother me, and the lack of a constant/fast aperture is to be expected for the price I paid. Matched up with a K-x, and a short kit lens it gives me an inexpensive, compact, and lightweight camera kit to carry on trips out of country. If you own a K-x/K-r, and just need a lens with a bit more reach than the short zoom that your camera came with, give this lens a look. There is another version of this lens that comes with a metal mount (DA 55-300). The mount appears to be the only difference between the two. Pros: inexpensive, light weight, fairly sharp. Suited for vacations/travel, general knock about snapshots Cons: not a 2.8 or 4 constant aperture, plastic mount. Not suited for weddings, dimly lit indoor work, or for those in search of great bokeh.

SHAWN M.

2011-06-27T21:00:00

I use this lens to get upclose to wildlife and far out landscapes

UFO H.