Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 7, 2010, 4:13 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
guillermovilas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 794
Default Pentax 60-250mm f/4 popularity issue ?

This looks like a pretty amazing lens , i've tried to compare it to other lenses through the famous et reliable "photozone.de" site
Resolution looks phenomenal :
Slightly beats Canon's famous 70-200mm f/4 IS not forgetting that the Pentax starts at 60mm and goes to 250mm
What i found strange is that it crashes the Pentax 200mm f/2.8 which should be better considering it's a prime
I therefore don't understand who wants to buy a 200mm f/2.8 and stay stuck at 200mm for a lens that costs allready quite a lot of money ( in holland : 200mm = €850 , 60-250 = €1200 ) .
Another thing : This 60-250mm beats easy the Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 at focal 135mm , incredible
My question is why don't i see more impressive comments on this lens ? , doesn't seem to be that popular , i bet very few people have it , why ?
Anyway impossible to find it 2nd hand , is it because there are almost none around and is it such a good lens that the few who have it just realise that it would be very difficult to change for anything as good or better ?
If you look at Canon , everybody talks highly over the 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4 series , at Nikon the same happens with the 70-200mm f/2.8.
The thing is i would like to test it , make a few shots before purchase , just to see what it's really all about , again the problem is i don't know anyone who has it and no store have it in stock , you have to order in advance
So even the shops don't have it , why ?? too difficult to sell ?, no demand ?
I'd like to have more opinions on this issue
__________________
PENTAX K3
Pentax 35mm f/2.4 AL SMC DA
Pentax 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 ED IF SMC P-DA Fish-Eye
guillermovilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 7, 2010, 10:20 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

The 60-250 is an awesome lens, and I think that those who make the commitment to buy it won't be selling it off anytime soon - no surprise you don't see many on sale used.

For some of your questions - it's about the most expensive Pentax lens on sale at the moment. So stores are going to be reluctant to stock something like that in any quantity, especially since so many Pentax owners aren't used to spending so much on lenses. All Pentax lenses tend to be low quantity sales items anyway and stores can't afford to carry expensive inventories.

As far as demand goes - here are my personal reasons for choosing to skip the DA*60-250:

First, I have owned the 50-135 since they first came out well before the 60-250 was released. So it wasn't a matter of buying either/or, it was a matter of would the 60-250 offer me enough more to buy it in addition to the 50-135.

Second, I took a look at a whole bunch of Pentax lenses when Pentax did their K7 Tour. I was looking for a high quality lens in the 200 mm range. I had previously looked at the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, found it at the edge of the weight I could manage for hand-holding (an absolute necessity for me). At the tour I tried the DA*200, DA*300, DA*60-250, DA*16-50, and DA 10-17. All of the * lenses are amazing! However, while I could manage both the DA*200 and DA*300, I found the DA*60-250 just too big and heavy for me to handle comfortably.

The third reason for choosing a combination of DA*50-135 and DA*200 is that both of them are f2.8, while the DA*60-250 is f4. For some people that extra speed is very important. That wasn't a big factor for me as I wanted that range mostly for outdoor stuff but it was fairly high on my list of priorities when I bought the 50-135 and I'm often very grateful I have it.

Finally, a last reason for some people is the fact that the DA*60-250 doesn't go out to 300 mm. The DA*300 is almost as much as the DA*60-250 and many people might not want to spend that much for both lenses. So I can see why this lens would be less popular with birders and wildlife photographers.

That K7 tour was quite expensive for me, and if I am any indication Pentax made money on it (I wish they'd come around again, though my hubby wouldn't agree!). I ended up buying the DA*200 and it's become one of my favorite lenses. While it wasn't high on my priorities, I love having f2.8.

Even if I had been able to handle the DA*60-250 comfortably, I still wouldn't have wanted to sell my DA*50-135. I can't imagine walking around West L.A. taking street shots with such a big lens, the 50-135 isn't exactly small (length 136 mm, weight 685 g) but it's more normal sized compared to the 60-250 (length 168 mm, weight 1230 g).

But there's no denying that the DA*60-250 is a brilliant lens, image quality is outstanding.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2010, 5:20 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mornington, Australia
Posts: 697
Default

Hi Harriet,
assuming the IC of the 50-135 & 60-250 were close to the same & weight was not a consideration, does the ability of the K7 to shoot higher iso's somewhat negate the need for the f2.8 over the f4?
I'm going on hol's soon and am wondering if I should lash out on a new lens!
Simon
simowills is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2010, 6:30 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

K7 isn't the greatest at high ISO, not like the Kx, but whether you really need f2.8 depends on your application. There are other reasons to use f2.8 besides slowing the shutter speed - changing the dof. Just my opinion, but if you don't need f2.8 for the dof or the faster shutter speed, and weight/size isn't a factor, then I would decide on which focal length you really needed.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2010, 6:35 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you shoot at night non tripod stuff, the 2.8 is helpful. It could mean shooting at 3200iso vs 6400iso. With the 1.3 stop. Which will greatly reduce the noise with an APS-c sensor. But if you do not shoot in the low light to often. F4 works fine.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2010, 12:41 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simowills View Post
assuming the IC of the 50-135 & 60-250 were close to the same & weight was not a consideration, does the ability of the K7 to shoot higher iso's somewhat negate the need for the f2.8 over the f4?
I'm going on hol's soon and am wondering if I should lash out on a new lens!
Hi Simon,

One consideration that I make when considering a lens is how it is going to be used. DOF and AF capability (and weight allowing for the addition of an external flash) are all factors, as well as how the lens will be viewed by human subjects if shooting people can become important.

The higher ISO capabilities of newer sensors don't make up for the AF sensitivity in the body, and an f2.8 will focus in lighting conditions where an f4 lens struggles. Remember that 1 stop means double the light for the AF system to use. This can be an important factor.

I bought a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 figuring I could use the extra width for groups, and an external flash would effectively negate the slower max aperture at the long end. I planned to use this as a replacement for my Tamron 28-75/2.8 as the short zoom in my indoor events kit. With the K20, at my 40th HS Reunion, I found that the AF struggled too much at the long end (more portrait-like perspectives) in the dimly lit reception hall, and I switched back to the 28-75 for the constant f2.8 after only a few minutes. I used the 17-70 for the wide shots of larger groups, but the 28-75's AF speed to lock made it much easier to use for the great majority of shots.


Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2010, 7:58 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mornington, Australia
Posts: 697
Default

Thanks all for the feedback. Lots of food for thought.

Simon
simowills is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:22 PM.