Regarding the Pentax 60-250

*Clem Nichols* · 09-04-2008, 08:15 AM

Does anyone have any reliable info on how much this lens will weigh?

CN

*k100d* · 09-04-2008, 08:17 AM

if i were to guess it'd be about 1000g or 2.2 pounds?
the canon 70-200 f4 is about 800g

soccerjoe5 · 09-04-2008, 08:27 AM

i'm pretty sure the answers will come in a few days. i heard/read that the design changed so let's wait and see! can't wait to see it.

Erasmo · 09-04-2008, 08:54 AM

A lot, that's for sure...

ftpaddict · 09-04-2008, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by soccerjoe5

i'm pretty sure the answers will come in a few days. i heard/read that the design changed so let's wait and see! can't wait to see it.

It changed to be FF compatible. It's slightly bulkier.

dkittle · 09-04-2008, 08:59 AM

ftpaddict, is that a guess or inside knowledge?

ftpaddict · 09-04-2008, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by dkittle

ftpaddict, is that a guess or inside knowledge?

There was a thread here posted by someone, with a working pre-production sample. The thread got pulled because it somehow broke the NDA the poster was bound to.

This is what it looked like at first:
(I like this version better, myself)

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

and what it'll come out looking like (most likely. I mean.. how many times can you redesign a lens?)

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

dkittle · 09-04-2008, 09:11 AM

Ah, thanks. Ya, I saw Chris' (pulled) post on this lens, looked at the sample shots but didn't get through a lot of the details...

I thought that the redesign was primarily around slapping a tripod mount on the lens. I didn't realize that making the lens FF compatible was part of the rework... Thanks for the info.

bdery · 09-04-2008, 10:28 AM

Am I dreaming or is the new design smaller? If so, then it's highly desirable for me...

soccerjoe5 · 09-04-2008, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by bdery

Am I dreaming or is the new design smaller? If so, then it's highly desirable for me...

i think it's smaller but now its barrel extends when zooming

IsaacEastgate · 09-04-2008, 10:35 AM

nope, looks bigger at the rear end to me.

i might get this lens to replace my 55-300. i never really use the 300 end, too much quality loss when i could just crop it. Of course, i have no where near enough money to afford this if its even a penny over £500.

Groucho · 09-04-2008, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by soccerjoe5

i think it's smaller but now its barrel extends when zooming

Is that definite? Wouldn't that affect the weathersealing?

I've been anxious for the lens for a while, but weathersealing is an important part of the equation for me.

dopeytree · 09-04-2008, 12:44 PM

the 16-50mm da* f/2.8 extends too so no it doesn't affect it or it shouldn't anyway!

mk07138 · 09-04-2008, 12:45 PM

The 16-50 's barrel extends when zooming and it doesn't seem to hurt anything on that lens, so I'm assuming an extending barrel on this one won't hurt its weather sealing either.

soccerjoe5 · 09-04-2008, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by mk07138

The 16-50 's barrel extends when zooming and it doesn't seem to hurt anything on that lens, so I'm assuming an extending barrel on this one won't hurt its weather sealing either.

true, but it slows me down in telephotos. it's like comparing the zooming feel of the 70-200s and the 50-150/50-135 to the cheaper 70-300 lenses out there. i just don't like the barrel extending for telephotos, the zoom action is much smoother if the lens is IF (internal focusing). i mean, canon was able to make a sealed 70-200/4 lens with IS (i think) and IF in a small, light, affordable package. i'm sure pentax can make a 60-250/4 that's a little bigger, a little bit more expensive, with IF. and maybe i don't like it because it's a DA* and i think of DA*s as the equivalent of canon's L lenses and nikon's gold ring lenses.

anyway, it's just my opinion though