Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-31-2010, 10:24 AM   #16
Senior Member
Loren E's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington and California
Posts: 274
Original Poster
Seems nobody has had a failure though with the sealing of DA* glass.....atleast not reported. Fullterton images didn't sweat a wave breaking over his DA*....just rinsed the salt off in the sink later....

12-31-2010, 10:35 AM   #17

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,976
QuoteOriginally posted by Loren E Quote
What about complementing the DA* 16-50 with the DA* 200???
I wouldn't describe the DA* as much lighter than the DA* 60-250 or the DA* 300. The latter lenses are around 2.5 lbs, while the former is about 2 lbs. The real issues may turn out to be (1) how are you going to carry the camera with one of these lenses attached? and (2) are you going to shoot these lens hand-held or with some kind of support? I have the DA* 300 (which weights about the same as the DA* 60-250), and it's not exactly a walk around lens fit for hand-held shooting (there's a reason why these two lens have tripod rings). The DA* 200 is more suited for hand-held shooting (that half a pound can make a difference as far as hand-holding it is concerned), but you'll have to have some strategy for how you're going to carry the lens when attached to your camera (holster? bag? backpack?), as it won't be comfortable carrying around your neck.
12-31-2010, 01:30 PM   #18
Senior Member
Loren E's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington and California
Posts: 274
Original Poster
Hey thanks for the perspective Greg, that really helps. I will be shooting hand-held 99% of the time, so it sounds like if it has a tripod collar (aka 60-250 and 300) then it is not likely to be an easy lens for handheld shooting. Since I want some tele reach, and won't do portraits, I doubt I'd have much use for a 50-135.....leading me back to the 200.

I will usually carry the camera with the 16-50 attached and the tele lens in my backpack. Would you say the 200 would suit me well? (as tempted as I am by the range of the 55-300 I hate to give up the weather sealing). Also nice that both the 16-50 and 200 have the same filter size.
12-31-2010, 03:29 PM   #19
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
For fishing out in the elements, I like the idea of the 18-135 WR. I doubt that the difference between that lens and the 16-50 would be all that significant in bright, outdoor conditions, and you would avoid most lens changes.

01-01-2011, 06:32 PM   #20

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,976
QuoteOriginally posted by Loren E Quote
Would you say the 200 would suit me well?
That depends on how important it is for you to control the FOV to get the shot you need. While the 200 would be easier to handhold and therefore more ideal for that type of shooting, it's not impossible to hand-hold the 60-250, it's merely more of a challenge, and it's not something I would want to do for an extended period of time. I do occasionally hand hold my DA* 300, but my keeper rate is significantly lower hand-held compared to shots taken with a tripod. Of course, that has more to do with the narrow FOV of the DA* 300 than its weight (though the weight is an issue). You may not have major problems with shake issues at the wide end of the DA* 60-250.
01-02-2011, 06:44 PM   #21
Clarkey's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton, ON, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,766
Two bodies. One with the 18-135mm, the other with the 16-50, or 50-135mm (depending on what you are shooting). I tried the 18-135mm and will be getting it. Nice, fast (focus) lens and good ability to generate OOF.
If you are worried about weight, consider the 50-200mm WR as well. Highly under-rated, cheap and light (and obviously WR). The second body could be a K200d if you want to keep the weight down a little.

My old kit involved 21, 40mm ltds and 50-200mm, or the 16-45mm and 50-200mm. The issue for me when taking pictures of people in harsh light was the absence of a waterproof flash for fill, but honestly, I find the on-board flash good enough, most of the time.

Getting salt spots off lenses has been my major challenge with gear.

Edit: I Re-read everything. a 16-50 and a 50-200wr might sort you out fairly simply.

  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da, da*, glass, k-mount, lens, lenses, light, pentax, pentax lens, setup, slr lens, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Perfect 5 Lens System Eagle_Friends Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 171 05-26-2011 04:57 PM
The future Perfect Lens Kit? Advice from more experienced Pentaxians please Loren E Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 10-29-2010 12:45 PM
The Perfect Set of MF Lenses Frogfish Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 07-10-2010 12:29 PM
The Perfect Normal Lens Nerdold Nerdith Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 68 04-16-2010 08:49 AM
Perfect subject with perfect light codiac2600 Post Your Photos! 13 07-20-2008 06:35 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 AM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]