[jatrax]

What in between, I don't see a gap?

Ha ha, yes you are correct I have it covered. Don't tell my wife. I guess I am looking for something in between. I do like the 50-500 but for the Yellowstone trip I'm looking for a kit that can all go in a sling bag and get carried all day. Maybe I should just stick with the 55-300, I carry it around in the bag all the time and don't know it is there.

[joe.penn]

Yes, the Sigma is a FF lens, comes with an adapter for the hood when using with a cropped sensor.

[crewl1]

Sigma says

DG
DG for Digital
Designed to deliver the ultimate in performance on full-frame digital SLRs, Sigma DG lenses also bring out the best in 35mm SLR film cameras and APS-C size DLSRs.

[Sandy Hancock]

I had both, and after a while comparing I kept the Sigma. I know there's a lot of love out there for the DA*60-250, but it never really grabbed me.

The Sigma has faster AF, faster aperture (and mine is quite acceptable wide open), and I greatly prefer the internal zoom. It also focusses much closer, and at longer distances the difference in reach between the DA* at 250 and the Sigma at 200 didn't seem to be much at all. It also pairs with the DA*16-50 better, as it shares the same filter diameter.

[jatrax]

I can't believe you'd plan to carry both the Bigma and a 60-250... you must be built like an OX. I love my DA* 60-250. I can't really recommend against it. Even if I do find it a bit heavy to carry.

Actually I was looking to carry the 16-50 and then either 60-250 or 70-200 and leave Bigma in the car. I am definitely not ox-like and the Bigma goes on a tripod. I plan on taking it along because certain areas have a lot of wildlife and can be viewed from the road so Bigma will work there. But hiking, no way I'm packing Bigma all day.

[Rustiebin]

Yes



The FLD coatings seem to really shine on their lineup now - I think the main advantage and where it excels is the lack of pf/ca (which affects sharpness), it is nearly non-existent now. I also have the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and as sharp as that lens is the 70-200 is still sharper, it's almost as sharp as my Sigma 300 2.8. I just bought another 70-200 for my Nikon kit.

As for size and handling (just noticed the OP mentioned that), the 70-200 handles like a dream and super well balanced on a k5 with a grip - although it looks as though it is a big lens, it is not all that heavy; however, I do lug around the 5+lb Sigma 300 2.8 throughout the day.

Don't the FLD use proper Flourite glass, i guess hence the F designation. Which is vastly superior to the usual LD glass element. I'm only just getting into photography but this is all familiar from astronomy and buying the best Apochromat refractor. It's the same thing. The cheaper scopes use a low grade low dispersion lens element and designate it as ED glass (or FPL51). It does an okay job suppressing ca in slower scopes (f7 or slower). But it struggles with fast focal ratios. A decent apo will use a proper Flourite (or equivalent) element and will focus all the light to a tight point, including the blue channel. Those FLD Sigma's should be really nice.

[bdery]

I had the same wonderings some time ago. Here is the thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/203233-another...-question.html

As you can see I went with the 60-250. I never for one second regretted the choice, never missed the 1 stop, but often was glad for the reach, weigth difference, WR, build quality. That is an outstanding lens. Reports on the Sigma suggest it is lacking at the tele end, not so with the Pentax. My Nikon friends are all jealous of that lens

Tamron 70-200 F2.8. Definitely better optics than the Sigma and at least on a par with the Pentax 60-250

That is true, but the build quality is below the others. And AF is quite slower.

[normhead]

Given the reach comment posted by Sandy Hancock above... that would tip me towards the Sigma 70-200. If there is one thing that is disappointing about the 60-250, it's the reach. For a lot of my images, taken from 10-12 feet away, because of the internal focus, the DA* 60-25- is functionally about a 135mm lens. At infinity it should have more reach, but, I'd even question that. I tend to think of "more reach" in terms of a least 50% more reach. That's how much you need to be noticeable in every day use. 50 mm is only 25% more reach so half what I'd want to be considered to be a step up. Also the FL glass in my SIgma 8-16 gives amazing control of CA. I'm not sure pentax makes a lens that can match it. If the new SIgma has it, it could be a lens of the future. Meanwhile, Tess reported some purple fringing from the 60-250 yesterday, making me even more aware of this issue.

The DA* 60-250's control of CA is acceptable for 5 mu sensors (K-5- D800) only at 135mm. The Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM was worse than the 60-250, I've yet to see tests done on the APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM, but if it's surpassed the DA*60-250's CA control, it could well be the lens of the future. But, buying it before someone has tested it for CA is probably a bit of a gamble. Looking at older tests, it had quite a bit of ground to make up before it reached 60-250 standards. The 60-250 @ 4 mu @135 mm is an exceptional lens and good enough for 24 MP APS-c sensors. I'd want to see numbers saying the SIgma is better before jumping in whole hog.

Of course as one of Sigma's flagship lenses, the 70-200mm F2.8 boasts a suitably complex optical design, featuring 18 elements in 15 groups, two of which are Extraordinary Low Dispersion (ELD) glass and two Special Low Dispersion (SLD) glass for correction of chromatic aberrations.

The thing with CA at the moment is, it's control is effectively judged by how many pixel widths it is. A lens that performs well on a 7 mu sensor may not perform nearly as good on a 5 mu sensor. WIth 24 MP APS-c sensors coming, my guess is that CA control is going to be a lot more critical. So, having the Sigma FL glass may be more important in the future than it is now.

Not only that but the Sigma 70-200 is said to be the fastest focusing option available on Pentax mount at the moment, at least in terms of long glass.

All those things are starting to add up. Buying today, I definitely go with the Sigma 70-200 over the DA* 60-250. For all the above reason, any one of which would be enough to swing me towards up. Taken together, it's a pretty convincing package.

But we won't know if it's the latest thing since sliced bread until we see some independent numbers verifying CA control. I own a 60-250 and I haven't seen enough from the SIgma yet to want to sell it. But, I' haven't been in the position Sandy Hancock is in, having had the chance to use them side by side, and that has to count for a lot more than my ramblings.

[Sandy Hancock]

How many of you have actually compared the Sigma 70-200 with the DA*60-250?

[bdery]

Also the FL glass in my SIgma 8-16 gives amazing control of CA. I'm not sure pentax makes a lens that can match it.

Tess reported some purple fringing from the 60-250 yesterday

I have noticed CA with my 60-250... never. I have found it once, when looking specifically for it in a difficult situation. Nearly all the time there is no noticeable CA. For me that's enough.

[normhead]

I have noticed CA with my 60-250... never. I have found it once, when looking specifically for it in a difficult situation. Nearly all the time there is no noticeable CA. For me that's enough.

Well I have to admit, we've only noticed it a few times... never for me, a couple times for Tess. And the CA stats on the older Sigma 70-200's aren't that impressive (as in worse than the 60-250's numbers). I'd want to see new better numbers with the 3 new FLD elements before I'd consider it, at least from the position of already owning the 60-250. But with two shooters in the family, if the new numbers are good, we may end up with both. Who knows?

[joe.penn]

How many of you have actually compared the Sigma 70-200 with the DA*60-250?

I have not (as noted in my post) - I have however compared the 70~200 OS FLD to the *50~135 and the *300, at f/4 the 70~200 is sharper than the *300 at f/4, at 5.6 and above really couldn't tell a difference; the 70~200 replaced the *50~135 for me although both seemed to be comparable in sharpness, the AF speed and extra reach tipped it in favor of the 70~200...

[normhead]

Good info as per usual joe. You can never have too much real world information.

[Lowell Goudge]

I can't comment on the Pentax lens or later sigmas, but the first APO70-200/2.8 EX (non DG non macro) is as sharp as they get. Later offerings from sigma got softer both wide open and at 200mm. I can't comment on the latest lens but it reports to be optically equal to or better than. The original.

I like the original because you can use sigmas screw drive TCs with it. As a silt I have 70-200 at F2.8 and up to 400 at F5.6. Tis gives me the best of both speed and reach with minimum weight (if you can call 1.6kilos plus the TCs minimum)

I am conspiring also for trips like this to go with the Q and my 135/2.5 because at 750mm (full frame equivalent) it is pretty light for the length and speed

[bdery]

But with two shooters in the family, if the new numbers are good, we may end up with both.

Good times