Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-22-2011, 01:45 PM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BC
Posts: 219
DA*60-250 or DA*300?

Does anybody out there have both these lenses? I'm currently feeding my LBA. I'm planning on using the lens for sports (hockey and soccer) I love the zoom range of the 60-250, but I wonder if the IQ of the *300 will make up for a few lost pics. So, how much difference in sharpness and IQ is there between these 2 lenses? BTW, I just tried the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM OS, and did not like the IQ, so it's going back. I have the 50-135 and love it, but it's short for what I want.

08-22-2011, 01:56 PM   #2
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Well I did my test with the 60-250 on hocky, wich is still at the time on the first page.

The 300mm is sharper (I never owned it) at f4 then the zoomlens is on the long-end at f4. I don't think that the difference is big when you stop down. Then there is DA*200mm/f2.8.
08-22-2011, 02:06 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
I tested both of these before I made a decision (*300 - for birding) but the IQ difference is not that much, the 60-250 is still a great lens and for sport more versatile. Note that the AF is not stunning on the 60-250 (much better on the *300) but good enough !
08-22-2011, 02:11 PM   #4
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Note that the AF is not stunning on the 60-250 (much better on the *300) but good enough !
and faster then DA*50-135mm or DA*200mm.

08-22-2011, 03:34 PM   #5
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BC
Posts: 219
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
and faster then DA*50-135mm or DA*200mm.
So the 60-250 is faster than the 50-135? That would be nice. I tried the DA*200 but found it wasn't enough of a further reach than the 135mm. Plus the SDM on that lens was questionable.
08-22-2011, 03:47 PM   #6
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 763
I have both of those lenses. The 300 might be a little sharper but not enough to worry about. I sold my 50-135 to fund the 60-250 and with the K5 's higher iso capability, I have not missed the 50-135 at all. I actually use the 60-250 a lot more and just got back from Alaska where it along with the Pentax afa 1.7x was my go to long lens for our whale watching tour. I was very satisfied with the results. I use the 300 for wildlife work at home and do not travel with it. I feel that the versatility of the 60-250 is to great to leave it at home when you do not know exactly what you will encounter. I keep wondering if I will need my Bigma long term though. Both of the Pentax lenses work well with the AFA and certainly give the Bigma a run for its money. I bought both within a month of each other planning to keep one. As of now, both are staying.....
08-22-2011, 04:07 PM   #7
jac
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada
Posts: 2,363
I traded the 50-135 for a 60-250. Both are great lenses but the extra reach was important to me. And I have the 300mm. Birds, wildlife and pseudo-macro with it's close focus ability. The DA*300mm has marginally better IQ but from your post I don't see that you would sacrifice much getting the 60-250. Hockey. You're along the boards at one end and the face-off is on you side of the rink. The 300mm is only going to give you faces or the puck dropping. If you could back out 60-70, you could capture the whole scene. And you still have adequate range to at least centre ice. Many more choices. IMHO, get the zoom advantages over a marginal sacrifice in IQ and a major sacrifice in options during the action.
08-22-2011, 08:45 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BC
Posts: 219
Original Poster
Thanks for all the input! I found a store close-by that actually has it in stock ( a rarity around here ), so I am going to try out the 60-250mm. The zoom does appeal to me, so if it's only marginally better in IQ, then its worth a shot! thx again

08-23-2011, 12:34 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by mokey Quote
Thanks for all the input! I found a store close-by that actually has it in stock ( a rarity around here ), so I am going to try out the 60-250mm. The zoom does appeal to me, so if it's only marginally better in IQ, then its worth a shot! thx again
I'd definitely take the 60-250 over the 300 for your intended use. No question.

However you may also like to consider the Tamron 70-200/2.8 (faster, maybe better for ice hockey/football) or the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (fast HSM AF and quiet, fractionally faster than the Tamron but more expensive - both are much cheaper than the 60-250).
08-23-2011, 08:50 AM   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BC
Posts: 219
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
I'd definitely take the 60-250 over the 300 for your intended use. No question.

However you may also like to consider the Tamron 70-200/2.8 (faster, maybe better for ice hockey/football) or the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (fast HSM AF and quiet, fractionally faster than the Tamron but more expensive - both are much cheaper than the 60-250).
I did try the Sigma 70-200 HSM OS version (non macro), but I wasn't impressed. Colors just aren't what I like, and it wasn't near as sharp as my 50-135. I think I'm a Pentax kinda girl.
08-24-2011, 10:10 AM   #11
Site Supporter
rvannatta's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Apiary, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,171
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
I'd definitely take the 60-250 over the 300 for your intended use. No question.

However you may also like to consider the Tamron 70-200/2.8 (faster, maybe better for ice hockey/football) or the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (fast HSM AF and quiet, fractionally faster than the Tamron but more expensive - both are much cheaper than the 60-250).
I bought a 60-250----it's one nice lens. Plenty flexible enough that if you are wanting to travel fairly light, you can take it along with a wide angle, Kit lens or other short zoom, and have a 2 lens package that is really nice.
08-27-2011, 07:06 AM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BC
Posts: 219
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rvannatta Quote
I bought a 60-250----it's one nice lens. Plenty flexible enough that if you are wanting to travel fairly light, you can take it along with a wide angle, Kit lens or other short zoom, and have a 2 lens package that is really nice.
I just bought the 60-250 to try out- and I love it! I am camping right now, but can't wait to try it out in an arena(that's where the f4 may become an issue) Love the colors, sharpness, but it's a bit heavy. Definitely a monopod assisted lens!
08-27-2011, 08:40 AM   #13
Pentaxian
liukaitc's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,005
Is any sample show the focal difference between 135mm and 250mm?

I personally feel the difference between 135mm and 200mm is very small..

Is that better to get 300mm and longer one since u have 50-135??
08-27-2011, 09:15 AM   #14
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
I have the 50-135 and the DA-300.

I think for sports events and outdoor wildlife work, the 60-250 would be very ideal.

On the other hand, i do a fair amount of live theatre shooting as volunteer work for the organization, including an outdoor Shakespeare in the park event every year. The 50-135 is much better suited to that type of environment because of the wider 50mm end of it. I once shot with a friend who showed up with a new Canon 70-200. He soon changed it out because the 70 end was just not wide enough. If i need longer with the 135, i can just crop with these higher megapixel cams like the k5, k20.

The 50-135 i'll never give up, The 300 is a great lens, just not as useful many times because of the lack of a zoom. Have taken it whale shooting and missed a lot of in-close shooting because of the lack of a zoom. I'm going to get a 55-300 just for that purpose.

Different courses, different horse
09-07-2011, 09:10 AM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BC
Posts: 219
Original Poster
FYI, I got the 60-250, and I LOVE IT! Now I just have to decide if I want to keep the 50-135!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • 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!
iq, k-mount, lenses, love, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Trade my DA*60-250 for a DA*300 (or maybe an F/FA*300) (Worldwide) dgaies Sold Items 6 02-08-2011 07:46 PM
DA 50-300 Compared with DA 18-250 Sailor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 11-21-2009 09:38 AM
DA 18-250 v. DA 55-300 flippedgazelle Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-10-2009 05:58 PM
The Quest for 300 (or 250) daacon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 09-30-2009 12:45 PM
18-55 II, 18-250, & 55-300, and last APO 70-300 LeDave Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 07-12-2009 09:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:30 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, 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?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top