Buy it or rent it Pentax lens

[MAJPLO]

I wanted to rent a Pentax 55-300 for a week but it isn't available. I can rent a 18-250 instead which would be less but I don't know if I should bother since that only gives me 50mm more than what I already have. I was told the rental company would give me a deal on renting the 60-250 instead.

So I guess my question is should I rent the 18-250 even though it will only give me an extra 50mm or should I buy the 55-300 (or something else) and maybe decide I don't like it and return it?

This is for kids' little league baseball in broad daylight/evening so I don't really need a really wide aperture. This is the season when I use my long lens the most and if I were going to spend $400 on a lens I don't know that this would be the next priority on my list.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

While the 55-300 has a great reputation, the question I ask is about the lighting. You stated daylight, which is not an issue but, you also stated evening. That could be problematic, depending on the available light, with the 300mm being f5.8. Depending on your camera body, it could be an issue getting a clean image due to high ISO noise. Until the recently released K3, the Pentax bodies have been using the Sony 16mp sensor. I have four cameras using that sensor and because I really hate post-processing I don't like to go above 3200 ISO. I will go higher and PP if it requires it, however I would rather be shooting than sitting in front of a computer screen! At $447 (BH price) that lens is relatively inexpensive compared to the f2.8 lenses that pros use for lowlight sports. The question you need to answer, is the lighting sufficient enough to use 5.8(at 300mm) and still allow for fast shutter speeds without jacking up the ISO too high. You could always use an external flash, however many kids sports events discourage or forbid flash photography.

 

[MAJPLO]

Early evenings starting at 5:30 and not going too much later than 6:30. I haven't had any problems with the aperture on my kit zoom so I doubt it would be a problem on the 55-300. Or do I rent the 18-250 since it's available? Or do I take a "deal" on renting the 60-250? I guess I'm just not sure an extra 50mm is worth the rental price. What do you think?

 

[beachclub]

not sure what rental co you are checking with but just in case check
www.cameralensrentals.com
I rent from them all the time, Pentax as well...They are very nice and are offering a discount for this month special. the 2 week rental for that 55-300 is 57.00 minus the 15%

I would personally recommend renting an SDM 60-250 instead of that 50-300..

I wanted to rent a Pentax 55-300 for a week but it isn't available. I can rent a 18-250 instead which would be less but I don't know if I should bother since that only gives me 50mm more than what I already have. I was told the rental company would give me a deal on renting the 60-250 instead.

So I guess my question is should I rent the 18-250 even though it will only give me an extra 50mm or should I buy the 55-300 (or something else) and maybe decide I don't like it and return it?

This is for kids' little league baseball in broad daylight/evening so I don't really need a really wide aperture. This is the season when I use my long lens the most and if I were going to spend $400 on a lens I don't know that this would be the next priority on my list.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Early evenings starting at 5:30 and not going too much later than 6:30. I haven't had any problems with the aperture on my kit zoom so I doubt it would be a problem on the 55-300. Or do I rent the 18-250 since it's available? Or do I take a "deal" on renting the 60-250? I guess I'm just not sure an extra 50mm is worth the rental price. What do you think?

I agree the 60-250 is the better lens for sports. It gives you an extra stop for light at the 250 being f4 throughout the range and it has the SDM (ultrasonic motor for fast focusing). Image-wise it has a better rating than the 55-300 (it should, since its retail price is more than twice the 55-300!). If that 50mm is not needed, that is the lens I would choose.

 

[MAJPLO]

I agree the 60-250 is the better lens for sports. It gives you an extra stop for light at the 250 being f4 throughout the range and it has the SDM (ultrasonic motor for fast focusing). Image-wise it has a better rating than the 55-300 (it should, since its retail price is more than twice the 55-300!). If that 50mm is not needed, that is the lens I would choose.

I guess I don't really know if the additional 50 is needed. I can usually get about ten to fifteen feet behind first base and shoot all over the field but mostly the batter's box. First base is 60 feet away from home plate. I'm sure the better although shorter lens will amaze me. I just don't want to spend a whole lot. Even though they are offering me a deal I know it will still be quite a bit more expensive than the 55-300. Decisions, decisions....

 

[MAJPLO]

Rented the 60-250 and I'm loving it. Great quality and although I'd like a touch more reach I am able to get pretty close to the field so the extra 50 is adequate. Thanks for all the advice.