[bdery]

While there is no real replacement for your 50 1.7, I also adore my DA* 55 1.4 - yes also SDM.

We do have a SDM 50mm lens that performs as well (or better than the F50 1.7)

I know I'd like to see a comparison but I doubt it would really be better optically.

Bigger though - and some say the AF is a bit slower

AF on the F50 is blazingly fast, the 55 is not renowned for its quick AF. And it is much bigger. So it's not really an option

Congrats on your purchase, I personally want a DA*60-250 also, but I bought my Tammy 70-200 a while ago and don't want two lenses over the same range.

If I had a Tamron, I'd keep it too. As you read, I hesitated between multiple solutions, but I think I made the right choice for me.

[everydaylife]

I been following a similar thought process as you only I was including long tele primes. Originally was interested in the 60-250 because I saw it at a very good special offer price but I just missed it. DANG. So then I started looking at the same zoom options as you plus primes. In Japan used fa " primes and zooms come up often and I found a used fa"300 f4.5 but even though the advice on the forums was it's a very good lens get it. I CHICKENED out because of its age and no warranty.

Anyway I have come full circle and now I have decided to dig deep and buy new. My choice will probably be the 60-250 but the da"200 keeps whispering in my ear.

Anyway, congrats on you lens and hope it gives you many wonderful images.

[bdery]

In Japan used fa " primes and zooms come up often

I wish it was true in Canada... We have no shortage of F50 f1,7 but the most exciting lenses come up only once a year or so.

Anyway I have come full circle and now I have decided to dig deep and buy new. My choice will probably be the 60-250 but the da"200 keeps whispering in my ear.

I have owned a A*300 for a brief period of time, and sold it because a fixed focal length was to restrictive for me on that range. I often work with my 21, 50 and/or 100, but for tele the field of view can get too narrow too fast.

Having used the 60-250 only briefly (it gets dark fast at this time of year!) I can say the comfort of that range is surprisingly nice. 60 is actually wide enough for many applications, and 250 brings you very close. The 70-200s on the market are one stop faster, but compromise on the range, and you loose WR. The tripod foot is also very, very well designed. The lens is a joy to use. My colleagues at work who shoot Nikon keep on being jealous of Pentax's lineup, the range, the size of the lenses...

Anyway, congrats on you lens and hope it gives you many wonderful images.

I'll make sure to post some examples soon.

[bdery]

I ran my first test of the lens at a college football game last Saturday. We were far from the action, and it let me see how nice the extra 50mm can be. the range from wide to tele is extremely useful, lets you grab a quick portrait and then zoom on the action.

The lens is gorgous in its craftsmanship, surprisingly easy to handhold (I've had it around my neck for half the game without problem), AF is very fast especially for small adjustments, AF tracking works well, in short it's exactly what I expected. samples will come as soon as I can sort through them.

[normhead]

I wish it was true in Canada... We have no shortage of F50 f1,7 but the most exciting lenses come up only once a year or so.

I got lucky, I got my Tammy 90 macro and 21 Limited second hand at fair prices, but it's tough up here. Often for what people want, I'd rather pay the new price and have a warranty. Congrats on your purchase by the way. I tend to think of this lens as a telephoto, but it's really stront frm 60-100 as well. It's way more "all purpose" than many give it credit for.

[bdery]

I got lucky, I got my Tammy 90 macro and 21 Limited second hand at fair prices, but it's tough up here.

Yes, I got honest deals here on the forum for my 100 macro WR and 21 too (we seem to have comparable kits).

I'd rather pay the new price and have a warranty.

At the price I paid, it was a no-brainer to get it new.

I tend to think of this lens as a telephoto, but it's really stront frm 60-100 as well. It's way more "all purpose" than many give it credit for.

Indeed, it,s one of its main qualities, I think. I am really impressed by the convenience, I can see myself carrying only this lens with me for a day and managins well enough. Or that and the diminutive 21

[VisualDarkness]

I ran my first test of the lens at a college football game last Saturday. We were far from the action, and it let me see how nice the extra 50mm can be. the range from wide to tele is extremely useful, lets you grab a quick portrait and then zoom on the action.

The lens is gorgous in its craftsmanship, surprisingly easy to handhold (I've had it around my neck for half the game without problem), AF is very fast especially for small adjustments, AF tracking works well, in short it's exactly what I expected. samples will come as soon as I can sort through them.

That sounds great! The only thing that kept me away from that lens is the extracting zoom as I open shoot behind glass and would bump into it too often.

[bdery]

The only thing that kept me away from that lens is the extracting zoom as I open shoot behind glass and would bump into it too often

I can see that being a problem. In my case it isn't, I didn't notice the extracting zoom when my eye was on the viewer.

[VisualDarkness]

I can see that being a problem. In my case it isn't, I didn't notice the extracting zoom when my eye was on the viewer.

I wish that it wouldn't be a problem but I can't deny it. I think you're right on that you don't notice it when shooting normally, although my Sigma 150-500 get's a bit unbalanced when fully extended. WR in such a versatile lens must be awesome!

[bdery]

Here are a few samples shot last Saturday. I was too far from the field to get close-ups of the players, but I still got plenty of action.

Colours, saturation, sharpness are all top-notch, not aberations visible even though I shot wide open most of the time.

[omega leader]

The 50- 135 mm covers an odd focal length. You can't walk around with it on your camera, it doesn't go wide enough, but only going to 135, it's not really a long telephoto either. It's a mid range telephoto. I haven't had the pleasure of owning a 50-135 so I can't say my opinion is based on direct experience, but for myself, I can't see it being in my camera bag when I walk out the door. I don't need its short end, and it's long end is too short.

I'm sorry but I have to vehemently disagree. I don't own the 50-135mm, but I do own the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and it's a fabulous walk around lens. I just got back from a week in Vagas (West rim of the Grand Canyon, Red Rock, Valley of Fire, the Strip, the Hoover Dam, etc.) and the 50-150mm lived on one body and my 12-24mm lived on the other.

I has a 35mm in my pocket but I don't think I shot more than a hundred images with it.

As for the 50-150mm being too short, there was only one real instance where I wished it was longer. We spotted a big horned sheep high above on a cliff at Red Rock silhouetted against the sky. But having a 70-200mm wouldn't have mattered, heck even a 300mm wouldn't have made much difference.

I'm a believer that you have to double the focal length to really make a difference in the image. So the next lens in my kit is a 300mm. If you can find the old Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 (67mm dia) pick it up. It is excellent at everything it does.

[normhead]

I'm sorry but I have to vehemently disagree.

Vehemently eh?

I have the 18-135 as a walk around, and as I've noted continuously, you won't find a better lens from 20-40 and it's still very good at 50mm. The rest of the way out (from 50-135) it has excellent centre sharpness. The DA* 60-250 is on our second body. And the most appropriate prime is on our third body. (Two shooters in the family.) Eventually the fourth body will house the Sigma 8-16. As far as I'm concerned the DA* 60-250 takes away the need for anything up to 400mm. The only other lens I'd even consider at this point would be the FA* 250-600. We have 18-250 covered on two excellent lenses both water and dust sealed. Adding the 15 ltd and Sigma 8-16 I don't see a weak spot in that line up, that would be covered with the DA* 16-50 or the 50-135.

We have the Tammy 90 macro for medium telephoto , macro and 2.8 and we could conceivably add some faster primes... we already have the DA 35 2.4 and FA 50 1.7. I'm just not seeing the need for either of the other DA*s. The only thing we haven't decided on is a good fast low light wide angle prime.

[bdery]

I don't own the 50-135mm, but I do own the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and it's a fabulous walk around lens.

I believe there is no perfect lens for everyone, we each have different needs, styles, desires.

To me the 60-250 is surprisingly versatile. To many friends of mine, any camera that doesn't enter in their pocket is too cumbersome. I personally would see the relevance of a 50-135 if I was doing many weddings a year, otherwise for me it wouldn't work. But I'm glad others like it.

As far as I'm concerned the DA* 60-250 takes away the need for anything up to 400mm.

Agreed. Actually it makes me want to get more resolution on my sensor so I can use it at its peak.

My personal kit is balanced enough now that I don't feel anything's missing. I've got great studio lenses (17-70, 50), great primes for all situations (21, 50, 100), a walkaround (17-70), a macro (100), a tele (60-250) and a WR kit (18-55, 100, 60-250). I can travel light, I can shoot in the dark, I can shoot under the rain, I can leave with only one lens. and all of my lenses are among the best available in Pentax mount (except the 18-55, but since the purpose of that lens is to be light and small, it's the best in that regard).

Now, let's go shooting!

[bdery]

I just thought of something, and since it came up in that thread I thought I'd post it.

some people have mentionned that they dismiss the 60-250 because the aperture (f4) does not give the same shallow DOF as a f2.8 lens will.

While it's true on the 70-200 range, , of course, it's not always true. Here's the simple calculation I made

For a subject 100 meters away (plausible tele shooting situation), the DOF behaves like this.

70-200 lens at 200mm, f2,8 :

Near limit 87.6 m
Far limit 116.4 m
Total 28.8 m

60-250 lens at 250mm, f4

Near limit 88.7 m
Far limit 114.6 m
Total 26 m

Of course the focal lengths are different, but given that the field of view between 200 and 250 is not dramatically different, it's entirely plausible to choose to use the 60-250 at full tele, widest aperture, and get a shallower DOF than what you get with the 70-200 at full tele.

And if you select a subject closer to you, say 50 meters, the DOFs are 6,4 and 7 m, again a slight win for the 250mm lens and no big difference in any case.

Food for thought.