[Fl_Gulfer]

Neither the Sigma or the Tamron will hold a candle to the Pentax 60-250 so why don't you guys just wait for the Pentax to be released in a week or 2.

[m8o]

Neither the Sigma or the Tamron will hold a candle to the Pentax 60-250 so why don't you guys just wait for the Pentax to be released in a week or 2.

And how much shall we wager on "delivery real soon"? :ugh:

[maxwell1295]

Better yet, what will the price point be on the 60-250. And even more important (for my use) how big/heavy is it going to be?

[omega leader]

The Tamron may be weak at 135mm and f/2.8, but I will wager money it will be better then the 60-250mm. Especially at /2.8.

[Fl_Gulfer]

We have all seen photo's taken with the 60-250 before they were removed for political reasons and they were awesome in clearity and color and the person just loved how smooth the lens worked. The Tamron has a poor AF system unless it's a bright sunny day. and the Sigma's is worse. Just read the reviews around the net. And my guess they will release the final version of the 60-250 at the show.

[Arpe]

Neither the Sigma or the Tamron will hold a candle to the Pentax 60-250 so why don't you guys just wait for the Pentax to be released in a week or 2.

Because it's f4, not f2.8. That's a big difference for some of the stuff I've been doing.

[gkopeliadis]

And how much shall we wager on "delivery real soon"? :ugh:

How in heavens do you know all that?
I mean the release date and that it would be better to both of them?
Besides it would be f4, not f2,8
Edit:I am considering buying the DA* 60-250 for wildlife for it is weather sealed for the field. But for low light conditions f2,8 is a must.

---

Last edited by gkopeliadis; 09-10-2008 at 02:18 AM.

[gkopeliadis]

...The Tamron has a poor AF system unless it's a bright sunny day. and the Sigma's is worse. ...

I thought that the AF is something done by the camera body. Lens motors have to do with AF speed and noise. Maximum aperture also is relevant (wider the better)
Please, don't make me lose my mind

[egordon99]

Re. the autofocus on the Sigma, have you EVER used a true "ring" HSM lens? (1)It smokes the heck out of anything screwdriven, and (2)It should be quite a bit faster than the micro-SDM that the 60-250 uses.

Also, the 60-250 is f/4, non-internal zoom, and is NOT available to purchase NOW

(been trying to come up with a reply to your "doesn't hold a candle to the [mythical] 60-250 f/4" comment for a little while now.....)

PS - I've seen shots with both 70-200s that were awesome in clearity[sic] and color as well

We have all seen photo's taken with the 60-250 before they were removed for political reasons and they were awesome in clearity and color and the person just loved how smooth the lens worked. The Tamron has a poor AF system unless it's a bright sunny day. and the Sigma's is worse. Just read the reviews around the net. And my guess they will release the final version of the 60-250 at the show.

[egordon99]

Don't listen to Mr. Gulfer (I'd like you to keep your mind)....If you need an f/2.8 telezoom TODAY then I'd go for the Sigma, based purely on my experience with HSM (on Canon) and my reviewing lots of shots from this lens on other mounts.

If you just want a telezoom sometime in the future, the 60250 f/4 might might be a decent choice as it has a wider zoom range, but as I mentioned in my last post it's
-not yet available (when was this announced? 1973? )
-uses the inferior micromotor SDM
-non-internal zoom
-It's f/4

Back when I was with Pentax, I debated between the 50-135, the 70-200, and the 60-250. In November, only the 50135 was available so I got that (and it was a great lens!) Now with Canon, I opted for the excellent 70-200mm f/4 IS. Remember, a lens on your camera will take much better pictures than a lens on a roadmap

I thought that the AF is something done by the camera body. Lens motors have to do with AF speed and noise. Maximum aperture also is relevant (wider the better)
Please, don't make me lose my mind

[m8o]

How in heavens do you know all that?
I mean the release date and that it would be better to both of them?
Besides it would be f4, not f2,8
Edit:I am considering buying the DA* 60-250 for wildlife for it is weather sealed for the field. But for low light conditions f2,8 is a must.

I will adddress the 'release date' point as that is the only thing I was talking about. (hope it will be better regardless)

My thinking is 100% in-line with what you put in your 'edit' and I've posted it in different places before. I think you mis-construed my statement... I've been keen to buy the lens for a bit over a 1/2 year... others for a year longer, back from when it was 1st shown. Many are 'jaded' in expecting to actually be able buy it regardless of when they see it in Pentax's possession during shows and what they say about availability.

[claude21]

If you just want a telezoom sometime in the future, the 60250 f/4 might might be a decent choice as it has a wider zoom range, but as I mentioned in my last post it's
-not yet available (when was this announced? 1973? )
-uses the inferior micromotor SDM
-non-internal zoom
-It's f/4

I'll add :
- it's no full frame means more vignetting on aps-c, and not future proof...

Common Pentax release FF lens, even if the body is not ready.

[maxwell1295]

Remember, a lens on your camera will take much better pictures than a lens on a roadmap

Truer words have never been spoken...

[nulla]

Because it's f4, not f2.8. That's a big difference for some of the stuff I've been doing.

My line of thinking on this is if it was a constant f2.8 it would make the DA 50-135 obsolete.



Neil

[egordon99]

If the 60-250 was constant f/2.8, it would be ALOT bigger and ALOT more expensive. In Canon land, going from 300mm f/4 to 300mm f/2.8 costs you around $2500! (~$1000->$3500). Obviously 250mm is a little less than 300mm, but you'd still see a similar increase in size/weight/price.