DA* 50-135 or 60-250?

photoholic · 07-26-2010, 11:13 PM

I'm looking to get a longer lens and am torn between these two. I like land scape and people street/candid photography. I've never done wild life so I'm not sure I would need the length of that 60-250. Which would I get more use out of?

I'm currently using (more like learning) a K-7 with DA*16-50mm.

brecklundin · 07-26-2010, 11:26 PM

when I was shooting Canon and had a 40D my most used lense was the 55-250mm...that is a very useful zoom range. I did a lot of discrete candid people shooting with it...but the thing was light as a feather and only a couple hundred bucks. Still, when I cam to Pentax I had a heck of a time trying to decide between the 50-135 and a 60-250...I decided on the 50-135 simply because at the time I knew I would need the extra stop but that lense failed on me so I returned it...that issue aside I think I would go with the 50-135 again because the IS is so great....but if you want a nice general purpose lense it would be very hard to argue against the 60-250 even though many Pentax users would complain about weight but they are spoiled from the great lightweight primes...try lugging a BIGMOS (Sigma 150-500) around for 6-9hrs for a week straight and then come whine about weight...otherwise the 60-250, while a bit on the heavy side, is a supurb lense, then again so is the 50-135...talk about six-of-one, half-a-dozon-of-another....

But my original plan, before last year's price jump was to keep the 50-135, add a 200mm or 300mm or in a perfect world, both. but since the price jump on glass I have not bought any new glass. Still I think the 50-135 covers a nice range though it is not very quick to focus. The nice thing about the 60-250 is when you need that extra 115mm of length it's there...the cost is the loss of a whole stop.

**Rondec** · 07-27-2010, 04:29 AM

I would go with the 50-135. I find that with "people photography" huge lenses tend to make people anxious. The 50-135 is pretty decent sized with the lens hood, but the 60-250 is quite a bit bigger than that. If you want to shoot wildlife, 250 is probably a little on the short side anyway. Better to look at either a DA 55-300 or (if you really want to spend) a DA *300.

I don't know how useful either of these lenses would be for landscape photography. Probably about the same. I have used my DA 70 to shoot panoramas, so I guess it can be done, but I would rather use your current lens (the 16-50) to shoot that type of photo.

johnmflores · 07-27-2010, 06:48 AM

Shooting street with a long lens is cheating, isn't it?

Buy a DA21 or DA40 of DA70 - heck for the price of one of the DA*s you can buy all three! - and step into the river of life. The water's fine!

Seriously, I've got a DA* 50-135 and while it's a great lens it's a little slow to focus and I'd feel self-conscious picking that thing up and pointing it at a complete stranger. With the DA70 I can be across the street (2 lanes, parallel parking) and capture something interesting on the other side. To give you a sense of what fits:

A little cropped left, right, and top

brecklundin · 07-28-2010, 01:27 PM

John:

Man that is a gorgeous photo of that 'vette!! And the B&W conversion works far better than I would have expected...if I am around long enough I need to try out B&W conversion on digital. It just never works well when I've tried it so far.

As to your comment about a larger sized lense for "street shooting" or candids...I used a BIGMOS as well as other long glass all the time when I was shooting my 40D...it's simply a matter of using what it gives and one thing a long bit of glass gives is distance which I feel is important when after candid shots. So, I guess I am saying in a way that you have a good chance of getting a truer candid with something long vs. shorter glass up closer where you are more obvious. I have a series I took with my old EF-S 55-250 (granted not a HUGE lense at all) but because I was able to keep distance I could follow this couple for what I feel was a nice natural sequence...but once she saw me shooting you could see her trying not to notice me, which btw turned out to be a nice addition to the sequence...so I guess my point is there is validity to both ideas...

I also agree as well as maybe not about buying the three Ltd's for the price of the 60-250...the thing is, the convenience of a zoom cannot be dismissed, especially if someone is not used to swapping primes quickly. I know it has taken me ages, and I am still not used to the quick & discrete lense swap though it's likely due to not much practice.

No matter at the same time I completely agree with your logic and suggestion...then again...hehehehe....boy, it's sure easy to debate oneself in circles, huh?

Reportage · 07-28-2010, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by photoholic

I'm looking to get a longer lens and am torn between these two. I like land scape and people street/candid photography. I've never done wild life so I'm not sure I would need the length of that 60-250. Which would I get more use out of?

I'm currently using (more like learning) a K-7 with DA*16-50mm.

well...Sigma supposedly will restart the 70-200mm HSM II production after August. If the price is the same at $799, one benefit is longer warranty.

and of course longer range with the aid of teleconverters.

CWyatt · 07-28-2010, 01:53 PM

Personally, I'm very strongly against long focal lengths for street/candid photography (on most occasions).

In my opinion, street photos are often weaker with long focal lengths, and it is usually obvious when a photo is taken at a long focal length. The photographer becomes more detached from the scene, and this is evident in the output.

07-26-2010, 11:13 PM	#1
photoholic New Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: California Posts: 12	*DA 50-135 or 60-250?** I'm looking to get a longer lens and am torn between these two. I like land scape and people street/candid photography. I've never done wild life so I'm not sure I would need the length of that 60-250. Which would I get more use out of? I'm currently using (more like learning) a K-7 with DA*16-50mm.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
da50-135 vs da60-250. Need help choosing	bfo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	44	03-06-2010 04:53 PM
Has anyone compared DA50-135 vs DA60-250?	HermanLee	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	05-26-2009 11:50 PM
TAKUMAR 135 vs PENTAX 18-250	charliezap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	04-04-2009 07:35 AM
thinking of switching my DA*50-135 for new Sigma 18-250 OS HSM	laissezfaire	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-30-2009 07:51 AM

07-26-2010, 11:26 PM	#2
brecklundin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,674	when I was shooting Canon and had a 40D my most used lense was the 55-250mm...that is a very useful zoom range. I did a lot of discrete candid people shooting with it...but the thing was light as a feather and only a couple hundred bucks. Still, when I cam to Pentax I had a heck of a time trying to decide between the 50-135 and a 60-250...I decided on the 50-135 simply because at the time I knew I would need the extra stop but that lense failed on me so I returned it...that issue aside I think I would go with the 50-135 again because the IS is so great....but if you want a nice general purpose lense it would be very hard to argue against the 60-250 even though many Pentax users would complain about weight but they are spoiled from the great lightweight primes...try lugging a BIGMOS (Sigma 150-500) around for 6-9hrs for a week straight and then come whine about weight...otherwise the 60-250, while a bit on the heavy side, is a supurb lense, then again so is the 50-135...talk about six-of-one, half-a-dozon-of-another.... But my original plan, before last year's price jump was to keep the 50-135, add a 200mm or 300mm or in a perfect world, both. but since the price jump on glass I have not bought any new glass. Still I think the 50-135 covers a nice range though it is not very quick to focus. The nice thing about the 60-250 is when you need that extra 115mm of length it's there...the cost is the loss of a whole stop.

07-27-2010, 04:29 AM	#3
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	I would go with the 50-135. I find that with "people photography" huge lenses tend to make people anxious. The 50-135 is pretty decent sized with the lens hood, but the 60-250 is quite a bit bigger than that. If you want to shoot wildlife, 250 is probably a little on the short side anyway. Better to look at either a DA 55-300 or (if you really want to spend) a DA *300. I don't know how useful either of these lenses would be for landscape photography. Probably about the same. I have used my DA 70 to shoot panoramas, so I guess it can be done, but I would rather use your current lens (the 16-50) to shoot that type of photo.

07-27-2010, 06:48 AM	#4
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Shooting street with a long lens is cheating, isn't it? Buy a DA21 or DA40 of DA70 - heck for the price of one of the DAs you can buy all three! - and step into the river of life. The water's fine! Seriously, I've got a DA 50-135 and while it's a great lens it's a little slow to focus and I'd feel self-conscious picking that thing up and pointing it at a complete stranger. With the DA70 I can be across the street (2 lanes, parallel parking) and capture something interesting on the other side. To give you a sense of what fits: A little cropped left, right, and top

07-28-2010, 01:27 PM	#5
brecklundin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,674	John: Man that is a gorgeous photo of that 'vette!! And the B&W conversion works far better than I would have expected...if I am around long enough I need to try out B&W conversion on digital. It just never works well when I've tried it so far. As to your comment about a larger sized lense for "street shooting" or candids...I used a BIGMOS as well as other long glass all the time when I was shooting my 40D...it's simply a matter of using what it gives and one thing a long bit of glass gives is distance which I feel is important when after candid shots. So, I guess I am saying in a way that you have a good chance of getting a truer candid with something long vs. shorter glass up closer where you are more obvious. I have a series I took with my old EF-S 55-250 (granted not a HUGE lense at all) but because I was able to keep distance I could follow this couple for what I feel was a nice natural sequence...but once she saw me shooting you could see her trying not to notice me, which btw turned out to be a nice addition to the sequence...so I guess my point is there is validity to both ideas... I also agree as well as maybe not about buying the three Ltd's for the price of the 60-250...the thing is, the convenience of a zoom cannot be dismissed, especially if someone is not used to swapping primes quickly. I know it has taken me ages, and I am still not used to the quick & discrete lense swap though it's likely due to not much practice. No matter at the same time I completely agree with your logic and suggestion...then again...hehehehe....boy, it's sure easy to debate oneself in circles, huh?

07-28-2010, 01:33 PM	#6
Reportage Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 739	Originally posted by photoholic I'm looking to get a longer lens and am torn between these two. I like land scape and people street/candid photography. I've never done wild life so I'm not sure I would need the length of that 60-250. Which would I get more use out of? I'm currently using (more like learning) a K-7 with DA*16-50mm. well...Sigma supposedly will restart the 70-200mm HSM II production after August. If the price is the same at $799, one benefit is longer warranty. and of course longer range with the aid of teleconverters.

07-28-2010, 01:53 PM	#7
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	Personally, I'm very strongly against long focal lengths for street/candid photography (on most occasions). In my opinion, street photos are often weaker with long focal lengths, and it is usually obvious when a photo is taken at a long focal length. The photographer becomes more detached from the scene, and this is evident in the output.