[mills]

Well... looking at picking up a lens and wanted to talk it through, ask a few questions and such.

I'm lookin at a few things. its part LBA, part function.

My main question is how do the DA*200 f2.8 and 300 f4 compare to the 60-250? I have a 60-250 and thoroughly enjoy it... but, I always bump into the long end and the max aperture. Is there much of a gain in length with the 300, or is a crop outta the 250 pretty close? Do you notice a difference in practice re: focal length at less than infinity (I always read thats an issue with IF) and is it less noticible on the primes?

Realistically, I'm lookin at lenses for 2 different reasons... the 300 for wildlife/long stuff and the 200 more for a reasonably sized long lens when traveling or in lower light. I'll probably end up with only one of them, so I'm debating the two.. right now the way I see it I can crop outta the 250 (how much more can you crop a 300) but I can't fake the extra stop of light.

Part of the reason I'm looking at the 200 is that its long-ish and relatively compact... Kinda looking at picking it up for travel. Looking at focal lengths I use on the road, its almost always wide (10mm-50mm) but sometimes zoomed in as far as possible. I can usually zoom out with my feet easier than in, so the 200 is looking not bad right now. I could see kits being (16-50, 200, 35 f2.4) (18-135, 200), (15, 35, 200) depending on travel. Does anyone do something similar or mostly stick with zooms to cover that range? I've read about purple fringing as the only serious complaint about it... it it that bad in practice? I feel like I would probably be stopped down a bit shooting most things that are that high contrast and itd be less of a problem... is that an accurate assessment in peoples experience with it?

I think I hesitate as it seems odd to spend about 1k on a 200 prime when a sigma 70-200 or even an fa*80-200 is not really that much more. I know I lose the compact thing, but a 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f4 would probably get the job done as well or better than 60-250 and 200 f2.8... Is the 200 noticibly "better" than the zooms, or just smaller?

Comments on the quality of the 200 are appreciated. pictures that'll convince me to buy it are even better.

... or I guess I might just give up and say forget long lenses and buy a fancy 25 or 100 macro for something completely different.

[LaurenOE]

I don't own the 60-250mm, but I do own the 200 and 300 and the Tamron 70-200mm.

I absolutely LOVE the 200 and 300 as they are different enough to use together, and I've started using them that way.



The 200 gives you f/2.8, the 300 gives you a tripod mount and rotating collar, but is slower. Both give you WR.

The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 gives a tremendous versatility!

Here are some images with a combination of ALL three.

Chinese New Year Gala 2013

[StigVidar]

Is the 200 noticibly "better" than the zooms, or just smaller?

On my K-5 IIs, I would say my FA*80-200/2,8 is similar in sharpness as my DA*200/2,8. But it is heavy and I prefer to take my DA*200/2,8 with me on trips.

[rvannatta]

Well I have a 60-250, and did have the DA* 300, but sold it when I bought a FA*300 f/2.8. I also had a DA* 200 at one time but gave to my daughter.

Based on what I've done, you can guess what I'm going to say. I am very fond of the 60-250 as an intermediate range telephoto. It's size is manageable
and it is easily hand held but comes with a tripod mount if you so desire. I in fact have/use as a walking around lens a DA* 16-50. and as you speculated
it makes a nice 2 lens kit, though I can't resist carrying a macro as well.

to me I think of the 200 prime as a sports lens. It's about right if you are in the bleachers with bad light. With higher ISO;s working better the 60-250
has much to offer. It's optical quality is plenty good and the zoom range for indoor photography is more than adequate. If it's a school program, you
can zoom from the whole stage to an isolated character with the flick of a wrist...

On the extreme end of things, I'm not quite sure why I would ever want an FA*250-600, because long primes rock, but in this intermediate range I find
the 60-250 just a good thing.

[baro-nite]

My main question is how do the DA*200 f2.8 and 300 f4 compare to the 60-250?

I own the first two and spent some time with the 60-250. The 300 is a substantial gain in reach over the 60-250 at shorter range; the 60-250 actually has a lower magnification than the 200 inside 6 meters or so. The 200 has more longitudinal CA than either of the other two. You really can't go wrong with any of the three, so it depends on how you value the extra speed and smaller size of the 200, the extra reach and all-round exceptional performance of the 300, the versatility of the 60-250.

[mills]

Don't know how to post several quotes so...

Lauren: Very nice photos. Thanks!

StigVidar: Thats good to know... I've been leaning toward the 200 for that reason. With a really nice 80-200 does the mostly come out for travel and the zoom picked up instead when closer to home?

Rvannatta: If WR will be needed or im not sure where I'll be going, 16-50 and 60-250 is my usual combo for close to home... a good combo for sure. But I think that I've realistically used the 60-250 about 90% at 250mm and often wished it pushed out a bit more. Hence the lusting after a 300. I think I just dont find myself shooting long indoors much now (no kids yet...) so travel and that little extra reach are probably my main goal. but like you said, the 60-250 is great at a reasonable size so its tough to think about parting with it.

baro-nite: Do you find the longitudinal CA distracting in actual use of the lens? I keep reading how incredible the 300 is, but see less about the 200 other than "its good" and the CA thing. Thats interesting that the 200 actually ends up with higher magnification that far out. Id expected the difference to be minimal and only closer to the MFD. I appreciate the comment, they definately help. I think I can justify keeping 2 of the 3 around, the problem is just which 2.

[GaryH]

I had the 16-50 and 50-135. Then I bought the 60-250 and 300. Decided I did not need all 4 lenses, I sold the 50-135. I have always said that the 60-250 and 300 are lenses for different uses. Personally, for travel, I would rather haul zooms for the long end. I use my DA300 closer to home for wildlife. Lots of times using it with the AFA 1.7x. Which by the way, I also use with the 60-250 when traveling and anticipate needing more reach. The 60-250 and 16-50 allow for a two lens kit with minimal lens changes.
YMMV

[baro-nite]

Do you find the longitudinal CA distracting in actual use of the lens?

Generally not, except when using the lens on the Q, and even then it's not too bad. I have had heavy PF occasionally.

[zapp]

Started with the 300DA and thought a 200DA would be nice for normal tele work. Bought the 200 due to lack of an 2.8/80-200 from Pentax - I dislike all other zoom types. Needed the 300 due to a lack of a 2.8/300 from Pentax. The 300DA really makes sense - adding the 200DA is really duplicating a lens - call it LBA. The last lens that still interests me in the Pentax linup is the 15DA. I am desperately waiting for new designs for APS-C 2/24, 2.8/300, 2.8/80-200. The last two would even be nice fullframe options for a future Pentax camera...