Cheap Small and Light 55-200 Lens

[Tonto]

Looking for a cheapie to take with me while I save for a 70-200 2.8
Will be used on a K7 in addition to a Sigma 17-70. Emphasis on as small and light as possible.
However must be autofocus. 2nd hand ok.
So what lens should I look out for?

[Kym]

The Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO is not bad.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Si...-DG-Macro-4569

Ebay for around $300

[Tonto]

I was keener for a 50/55-200 as it gave me a better FL to take the lens out by itself (or later on with a 32-35 limited )
I did abit of reseaching and found these lenses of interest.

SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR
Weight: 230g Length: 79.5mm
Is this a typo? I din't think the WR would be this light! This would be the best for the spec as I would use the WR in inclement conditions but probably most expensive of the list.

SMC Pentax-DA L 50-200mm F4-5.6 AL
Weight: 235g Length: 78.5mm
The favourite so far as most likely to be able to be found cheap as part of KX kit lenses. So possibly a few cheapies on ebay.

SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED
Weight: 255g Length: 70.8mm
Another good option but probaly not much less to buy than WR. However did see it on site sponser dirt cheap cameras for only $269 so still in the running.

Sigma 55-200mm F4-5.6 DC
Weight: 310g Length: 87.1mm
Due to size only in the running if very cheap.

[Kym]

The weight of the WR is incorrect! 10.1 oz (285g) without hood, 11.5 oz (325g) with hood
The 18-55 is 230 g

With your K-7 means that you won't be overly worried about the rain

[Cage]

I'm having a serious look at the DA 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED. It gets very good reviews from it's users.

Have a look at this link:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...Zoom-Lens.html

Cheers

Kevin

[Tonto]

Yes the 55-300 is tempting but eventually I REALLY want a 70-200 2.8 and the more saved means I get to this lens quicker! (however if I see it for a bargin...... )
The otherthing is if I really want this lens it would be worth the extra if WR (makes sense as a long lens is seldom used inside anyway.

I looked at ebay last night and saw Sigma 55-200 for $1 no reserve!!!! Contrary to my findings there are more 50-200 DA available cheap than 55-200 DAL.

DA L still sounds like the goods but even at the corrected weight 50-200 WR still looks interesting. I might try scouring Camera Marketplace for some prices.

Please let me know on your cheap small and light longish lenses!

[KevPride]

I'm having a serious look at the DA 55-300mm f4-5.8 ED. It gets very good reviews from it's users.

Have a look at this link:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...Zoom-Lens.html

Cheers

Kevin

Be aware there are 2 versions, the L version apparently made a little cheaper and sold as a kit lens. I have looked to getting 1 myself as a lighter lens than my Sigma f4 100-300.

[tim71]

I have the WR, its not bad and i am happy with it. Just to throw a curve ball in, have you also thought about the DA* 60-250 f/4? Ok its a bit slower than what you want at f2.8 but is water proof. Only problem its twice the price of the tamron 70-200 f2.8

As Kevin suggests maybe stay away from the L version (you want the ED glass) and then get whichever of the other 3 lenses on your list comes up for a good/lowest price on ebay and save for the f2.8 as I do find the WR a bit slow/dark.

[Tonto]

Definitly looking at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 for the f stop particulary as I will probably grab a TC for it. I will be using it alot as me and my wife love visiting zoos and some enclosures get pretty dark aswell as plenty of hand help use so having a faster lens helps with this.....and its a bargin!

Still hedging between 50-200 DAL and 55-200 DA WR (even at proper weight) guess it will be down to price.

Does anyone have the Sigma 55-200?
How is it for size/weight as it seems to be cheap as.

The great thing is all the options weigh in less than my reference lens which is a SAL55200 which is a Sony lens which I found very light yet good quality.
(equivilent to Tamron 55-200 not avail in Pentax mount)

[tim71]

ebay has some zooms for auction at the moment in your preferred focal length range, but watch the prices, some listings are not much of a saving on new

the WR is good but its the same optically as the ED but better than the L

[tim71]

Tonto, there is a as new (used twice) 50-200mm ED WR on ebay at the moment in West Ryde

[Tonto]

Thanks Tim, I'm watching it

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day all

Like the discussion...

Just a qwikkie ... ask the ebay seller "used twice, now for sale" why??? is it for sale after only 2 uses

Regards, Phil

[Tonto]

Yeah was wondering that, if bad sample why not exchange under warrenty? I'm guessing 55-300 like most was better for them. I will ask sooner the end date.

[Ozzi Paul]

When you can, why not get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM II. They have been updated now to the OS version but maybe still available. The HSM makes a big difference and even though the Tamron is supposed to have better IQ its not by a great amount.

[Tonto]

I'm going to see if any more Pentax DA 50-200 WR come up. Other wise will just grab a 55-300. Both seem to tick all the right boxes and will still be usefull once I get a 70-200 2.8

50-200 Light and weather resistant
55-300 Lighter than 70-200 and longer.

[Adam]

I'm looking at these two lenses as well.

Did you have any luck finding one?

[Tonto]

Not yet- it is looking more and more like I will get the DA L 55-300 as I have used the camera on two wet days now and a non WR lens stands up well. I also miss the 18x zoom of my Olympus!
Might grab one for a trip to the zoo next weekend

[Kym]

Super zooms are ok, but there is always a tradeoff in speed and IQ
No free lunches with good glass

[Tonto]

As an update I have an old Pentax SMC A 70-200 f4, works great and giving me a feel for th 70-200 length for later on- have to admit it is a gem but can't handle ANY close focusing and I really need AF for walkaround, just fine for dedicated photowalks though. Pretty sure a 55-300 is still in the mix as it is nice and light and will fit in well with my NEW KX that I have just got for my wife, lol