You should check with Jack Davis for sample shots with the 55-300. It seems to be a much better lens than I would have thought.
I can tell you that unless you are prepared to spend some big bucks, you are not going to get any better than this one at the 300+ end. You really need to decide whether the difference in weight is going to be an issue for you. The 55-300 is more versatile with more reach. I think either choice is good - better than what you have now. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 6:53:27 PM, you wrote: EK> I'm in the market for a new lens and looking for sage advice from the list. EK> I'm currently using a K100D with the following zoom's... EK> FA 70-200 4-5.6 EK> FA 100-300 4.5-5.6 EK> I find that the longer 100-300 is a little heavy so I tend to lean to EK> the smaller 70-200. My problem is that the shorter lens decided to go EK> belly up with some internal mechanism problems and I fear it's beyond EK> repair (or can be repaired, but not sure it would be worth it). EK> I shoot the kids playing sports. They're still young so I can get EK> pretty close to the action. I've attempted birding, but find even the EK> 300 to be a little short (another day will bring a discussion on EK> converters). EK> I'm looking at replacing the broken lens (or both) with either the DA EK> 50-200 4-5.6 or the DA 55-300 4-5.8. Does anyone have real world EK> experience with these two lenses? I'm leaning to the shorter 50-200 EK> due to cost and equivalent replacement. EK> Thanks! EK> Ed EK> http://picasaweb.google.com/ewkphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
