DA 60 - 250 or DA 300 ?

kiteman · 02-02-2013, 07:29 AM

Greetings to ALL,

If you could select from only 1, which would you chose? Going to be used for traveling, landscape, nature, and wildlife basically. I know both are great lenses, but hard to pick. 300 probably sharpest and more compact, but other has maybe more versatility.

What do you think?

UncleRed · 02-02-2013, 07:40 AM

I can't say for sure........I just received my DA 60-250 yesterday. I like zooms and it doesn't seem as much like a specialty lens as the 300. I like versatality and I think the 60-250 will be perfect for me.

For instance, if I go on a few hour hike I only need one lens. For me, not everything I shoot can be shot at 300mm.

I will probably carry my Sigma 17-70 to cover the bases............

halfspin · 02-02-2013, 07:58 AM

I have the 60-250. Marvelous lens but I'm thinking about switching to the 300 for the extra reach for wildlife. With your requirements the zoom would be your best bet.

Anvh · 02-02-2013, 08:05 AM

2 very different lenses if you ask me, and so it comes down to a personal choice.

slip · 02-02-2013, 08:40 AM

After reading the reviews for the 60-250 it sounds like it is one amazing lens. I would get way more use out of it for birding, sports, and even weddings. The reviews say it is sharp from one end to the other....close enough to a prime for me.
If the optics are as good as my 50-135 2.8, then I would not need any primes except a macro and 14mm possibly.
Like others say, it all depends on what you are using it for, but for me personally it is how many times it comes out of the bag that counts

Thanks

Randy

topace · 02-02-2013, 08:49 AM - **1 Like**

I chose between these for a good tele a year ago or so. It was definitely not an easy choice, but it all came down to what I wanted from it, and since I wanted a non-limiting WR AF tele, I chose to go with the zoom, despite otherwise preferring primes. I've so far never tried the 300, but the 60-250 is insanely good. Excepting full-frame compatibility, I can think of nothing it lacks. It's too bad that winter in Sweden is so dark and lifeless, or I would be out shooting with it right now.

audiobomber · 02-02-2013, 09:13 AM

I chose the DA*300 because of slightly longer reach and sharper, especially @ f4. Both of these become more important with a TC added. Regarding reach, both are Internal Focus lenses, which means they lose some focal length at subject distances below infinity, but my research said that zooms suffer more range loss than primes.

The final deciding factor for me was magnification, .24X vs .15X. I like to shoot flowers, butterflies, dragonflies, etc with a long tele, and I value close focus ability more than zoom.

northcoastgreg · 02-02-2013, 09:42 AM - **1 Like**

I chose the DA* 300 for a very simple reason: I knew from past experience with tele zooms, that if I got the 60-250, I would be using it at least 90% of the time at 250mm, while wishing the lens went longer. In other words, you get the zoom if you think you're going to make liberal use of its entire range. If you're mostly going to be using the long end of it, you're better off with the DA* 300.

GaryH · 02-02-2013, 10:05 AM

Had both. Sold the 300... Now have both again. I feel that they are both fine lenses with different uses. The 300 has great close focus for bugs and flowers and handles well for wildlife. The 60-250 is my choice for travel paired with the 16-50. It is good for some wildlife and portrait work. I really like having them both.

**baro-nite** · 02-02-2013, 10:12 AM

They're both outstanding lenses. As an IF zoom, the 60-250 has the usual issue of a shorter effective focal length at the closer end of the focus range, to the extent that for relatively close-in birding (5 to 10 meters), it's really more like a 200mm lens at the long end. I want the reach so I'm selling my 60-250. YMMV.

haaldemir · 02-02-2013, 10:19 AM

I have da * 300 and will receiving soon da * 60 250. If only wildlife off course da 300 but closer objects need zoom. So i plan to buy 60 250. Also keep da 300 for long distance.

kiteman · 02-02-2013, 01:35 PM

I did not disclose that I already have an F 70 -210 which is not bad for an older lens. The comment made about shooting more at the long end of the 60 -250 is probably right on correct. Therefore, probably smarter to go with longer reach of the 300.

Any other decent teleconverters that would work with the 300 besides the 1.7x ?

Thanks,

Larry
www.colorthewind.org

steve1307 · 02-03-2013, 06:25 AM - **1 Like**

I chose the DA*300 since I generally like primes and wanted all the reach I could get.

Price & weight didn't come into it. They weigh about the same & where/when I bought it the the price was about the same.
I don't particularly like to pack heavy, the 300 is my heaviest lens by far

I've used it specifically for hiking (wildlife), birds and some outdoor sports & motorsport.

Landscapes? not really unless all of the interesting landscape is in the 3 degree angle of horizon directly in front.

For photographic birds, 300mm is generally accepted as the minimum starting point, unless you are very stealthy and patient.

The only downside, maybe versatility? I went to the zoo the other day with the family, took my 300. I got some nice shots of a Zebra's eyelashes, a leaping trained seal's head, front 1/2 of a Sun Bear, Ostrich with no legs. I used my 18-135 more. The 60-250 could be a better choice in this instance.

Teleconverters? I occasionally use with the 1.7x but this does blunt the performance a bit and it allows only the use of the centre focus point, not so good for tracking.
The DA*300 also has the resolution to handle reasonable cropping.
The AFA 1.7x doesnt use the lenses SDM. Other teleconverters which work using the SDM are Kenko 1.5 PZ-AF TeleplusSHQ and a Tamron-F 1.4x PZ-AF. Haven't tried these but have read that the SDM doesn't always hit first time on the f4 lenses with tele fitted.

Is there anyway to justify both the 60-250 and 300?
I think if I was going on an expensive photography holiday like wildlife safari or similar then I'd want 2 bodies with, the 60-250 for anything closer than 100yards and 300 for anything small or more distant.

Unsinkable II · 02-04-2013, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by steve1307

The only downside, maybe versatility? I went to the zoo the other day with the family, took my 300. I got some nice shots of a Zebra's eyelashes, a leaping trained seal's head, front 1/2 of a Sun Bear, Ostrich with no legs. I used my 18-135 more. The 60-250 could be a better choice in this instance.

Haha!

In a zoo last summer I took both the 18-135 and the 55-300 expecting to use the latter more. In the end the 18-135 didn't come off the camera.

Unsinkable II · 02-04-2013, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by kiteman

I did not disclose that I already have an F 70 -210 which is not bad for an older lens. The comment made about shooting more at the long end of the 60 -250 is probably right on correct. Therefore, probably smarter to go with longer reach of the 300.

Any other decent teleconverters that would work with the 300 besides the 1.7x ?

Thanks,

Larry
www.colorthewind.org

Seeing the images on the colorthewind website I'd say the 60-250 is going to be more versatile for you.

Although you could also consider the 300 and something more compact and versatile on another body (eg 18-135 on a K-01).

02-02-2013, 07:29 AM	#1
kiteman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Clear Lake, IA Posts: 64	DA 60 - 250 or DA 300 ? Greetings to ALL, If you could select from only 1, which would you chose? Going to be used for traveling, landscape, nature, and wildlife basically. I know both are great lenses, but hard to pick. 300 probably sharpest and more compact, but other has maybe more versatility. What do you think?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Da*300, 60-250, 50-135	apisto	Sold Items	5	09-26-2012 09:18 PM
DA* 60 -250 vs DA* 300	evansph	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	01-25-2012 06:59 AM
DA60-250 or DA300?	mokey	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	11-05-2011 10:10 AM
For Sale - Sold: Trade my DA60-250 for a DA300 (or maybe an F/FA*300) (Worldwide)	dgaies	Sold Items	6	02-08-2011 07:46 PM
Help! DA200 or DA300 or DA*60-250?	TTQ225	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	06-19-2009 11:05 PM

02-02-2013, 07:40 AM	#2
UncleRed Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Michigan Posts: 84	I can't say for sure........I just received my DA 60-250 yesterday. I like zooms and it doesn't seem as much like a specialty lens as the 300. I like versatality and I think the 60-250 will be perfect for me. For instance, if I go on a few hour hike I only need one lens. For me, not everything I shoot can be shot at 300mm. I will probably carry my Sigma 17-70 to cover the bases............

02-02-2013, 07:58 AM	#3
halfspin Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	I have the 60-250. Marvelous lens but I'm thinking about switching to the 300 for the extra reach for wildlife. With your requirements the zoom would be your best bet.

02-02-2013, 08:05 AM	#4
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	2 very different lenses if you ask me, and so it comes down to a personal choice.

02-02-2013, 08:40 AM	#5
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	After reading the reviews for the 60-250 it sounds like it is one amazing lens. I would get way more use out of it for birding, sports, and even weddings. The reviews say it is sharp from one end to the other....close enough to a prime for me. If the optics are as good as my 50-135 2.8, then I would not need any primes except a macro and 14mm possibly. Like others say, it all depends on what you are using it for, but for me personally it is how many times it comes out of the bag that counts Thanks Randy

02-02-2013, 08:49 AM - 1 Like	#6
topace Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Stockholm Posts: 198	I chose between these for a good tele a year ago or so. It was definitely not an easy choice, but it all came down to what I wanted from it, and since I wanted a non-limiting WR AF tele, I chose to go with the zoom, despite otherwise preferring primes. I've so far never tried the 300, but the 60-250 is insanely good. Excepting full-frame compatibility, I can think of nothing it lacks. It's too bad that winter in Sweden is so dark and lifeless, or I would be out shooting with it right now.

02-02-2013, 09:13 AM	#7
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	I chose the DA*300 because of slightly longer reach and sharper, especially @ f4. Both of these become more important with a TC added. Regarding reach, both are Internal Focus lenses, which means they lose some focal length at subject distances below infinity, but my research said that zooms suffer more range loss than primes. The final deciding factor for me was magnification, .24X vs .15X. I like to shoot flowers, butterflies, dragonflies, etc with a long tele, and I value close focus ability more than zoom.

02-02-2013, 09:42 AM - 1 Like	#8
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,175	I chose the DA* 300 for a very simple reason: I knew from past experience with tele zooms, that if I got the 60-250, I would be using it at least 90% of the time at 250mm, while wishing the lens went longer. In other words, you get the zoom if you think you're going to make liberal use of its entire range. If you're mostly going to be using the long end of it, you're better off with the DA* 300.

02-02-2013, 10:05 AM	#9
GaryH Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Philadelphia, Pa Photos: Gallery Posts: 764	Had both. Sold the 300... Now have both again. I feel that they are both fine lenses with different uses. The 300 has great close focus for bugs and flowers and handles well for wildlife. The 60-250 is my choice for travel paired with the 16-50. It is good for some wildlife and portrait work. I really like having them both.

02-02-2013, 10:12 AM	#10
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,295	They're both outstanding lenses. As an IF zoom, the 60-250 has the usual issue of a shorter effective focal length at the closer end of the focus range, to the extent that for relatively close-in birding (5 to 10 meters), it's really more like a 200mm lens at the long end. I want the reach so I'm selling my 60-250. YMMV.

02-02-2013, 10:19 AM	#11
haaldemir New Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Istanbul Photos: Gallery Posts: 20	I have da * 300 and will receiving soon da * 60 250. If only wildlife off course da 300 but closer objects need zoom. So i plan to buy 60 250. Also keep da 300 for long distance.

02-02-2013, 01:35 PM	#12
kiteman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Clear Lake, IA Posts: 64 Original Poster	I did not disclose that I already have an F 70 -210 which is not bad for an older lens. The comment made about shooting more at the long end of the 60 -250 is probably right on correct. Therefore, probably smarter to go with longer reach of the 300. Any other decent teleconverters that would work with the 300 besides the 1.7x ? Thanks, Larry www.colorthewind.org

02-03-2013, 06:25 AM - 1 Like	#13
steve1307 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,130	I chose the DA300 since I generally like primes and wanted all the reach I could get. Price & weight didn't come into it. They weigh about the same & where/when I bought it the the price was about the same. I don't particularly like to pack heavy, the 300 is my heaviest lens by far I've used it specifically for hiking (wildlife), birds and some outdoor sports & motorsport. Landscapes? not really unless all of the interesting landscape is in the 3 degree angle of horizon directly in front. For photographic birds, 300mm is generally accepted as the minimum starting point, unless you are very stealthy and patient. The only downside, maybe versatility? I went to the zoo the other day with the family, took my 300. I got some nice shots of a Zebra's eyelashes, a leaping trained seal's head, front 1/2 of a Sun Bear, Ostrich with no legs. I used my 18-135 more. The 60-250 could be a better choice in this instance. Teleconverters? I occasionally use with the 1.7x but this does blunt the performance a bit and it allows only the use of the centre focus point, not so good for tracking. The DA300 also has the resolution to handle reasonable cropping. The AFA 1.7x doesnt use the lenses SDM. Other teleconverters which work using the SDM are Kenko 1.5 PZ-AF TeleplusSHQ and a Tamron-F 1.4x PZ-AF. Haven't tried these but have read that the SDM doesn't always hit first time on the f4 lenses with tele fitted. Is there anyway to justify both the 60-250 and 300? I think if I was going on an expensive photography holiday like wildlife safari or similar then I'd want 2 bodies with, the 60-250 for anything closer than 100yards and 300 for anything small or more distant.

02-04-2013, 02:29 AM	#14
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Originally posted by steve1307 The only downside, maybe versatility? I went to the zoo the other day with the family, took my 300. I got some nice shots of a Zebra's eyelashes, a leaping trained seal's head, front 1/2 of a Sun Bear, Ostrich with no legs. I used my 18-135 more. The 60-250 could be a better choice in this instance. Haha! In a zoo last summer I took both the 18-135 and the 55-300 expecting to use the latter more. In the end the 18-135 didn't come off the camera.

02-04-2013, 02:37 AM	#15
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Originally posted by kiteman I did not disclose that I already have an F 70 -210 which is not bad for an older lens. The comment made about shooting more at the long end of the 60 -250 is probably right on correct. Therefore, probably smarter to go with longer reach of the 300. Any other decent teleconverters that would work with the 300 besides the 1.7x ? Thanks, Larry www.colorthewind.org Seeing the images on the colorthewind website I'd say the 60-250 is going to be more versatile for you. Although you could also consider the 300 and something more compact and versatile on another body (eg 18-135 on a K-01).