[leungclj]

Hello fellow pentax users,

I am letting go my 8 year old K10D and getting a K3 very very soon.

I also want to pick a nice lense with it, but don't know what to go for.

I am very interested in the DA* 50-135mm since it has a nice f/2.8
But I feel it doesn't have enough flexibility compare to the DA* 60-250mm.

Would I be called a very silly person if I get the 50-135mm f/2.8 with the upcoming x1.4 converter?
Or even the 60-250mm with x1.4 converter?

What do you guys think?

Before you ask me what type of photos do I want to take, well, anything really.

Gear list:
DA 16-45mm f/4
DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6
SMC 50mm F1.4

[adpo]

Why does 2.8 matter to you? If its extra shallow DoF, you're set with your 50/1.4 and would better be served going to a dedicated portrait lens such as the FA77. If its the extra speed for exposure, then definitely go for the 60-250mm, since the amazing high-iso handling on the K-3 is so good that the extra stop of exposure you'd gain from the less versatile lens would be more or less negligible in most situations.

[Heie]

Personally I would forgo the 50-135 and go straight to the 60-250. I've owned both, and after a horrible experience with USPS damaging the lens and paying an embarrassing reimbursement for their error, the only thing that upsets me is that at the end of the day it's like I sold it for peanuts. But the actual lens itself? Don't miss it, and as soon as I got the 60-250, not once was the 50-135 mounted. Literally not a single time.

Others will disagree with my personal opinion regarding the 50-135, but after owning and using the DA* 60-250, my feeling is this - if you plan to eventually get it or even have the slightest inkling that you may want it, just save yourself the money and headache by skipping the 50-135 entirely.

That being said, another option might be the 50-135 + the HD 55-300 WR so you have the f/2.8 portrait/low light lens and the weather sealed telezoom. If you shop around, you should be able to get both those lenses for around the same price as a brand new 60-250.

A third option might be to get the 50-135 now and compliment it with Pentax's still-to-be-announced 135-375mm (ish) super telezoom that will hopefully be announced by the end of the summer. If that type of lens appeals to you and you are ok with putting faith in the unknown

-Heie

[ChristianRock]

The 1.4 converter will make you lose a stop, so when you are using the 50-135 f/2.8 with the 1.4TC you get a 70-189 f/4 lens. The TC turns the 60-25 f/4 into a 84-350 f/5.6 lens. Lots more flexibility in the latter option if you ask me...
Whichever one you choose, you'll get a huge step up in quality compared to your 50-200. You just need to know if you'll really need that 50 2.8 because, as pointed out, you already have a 50 1.4. Unless 2.8 at 135mm is what you are after, but there are cheap options for that

[VisualDarkness]

My brother didn't want to borrow one of my lenses as he said that now his 50-135 is basically glued to his camera and almost only comes off for his 10-20mm.
When it comes to size I consider the 50-135 a walkaround lens while the 60-250 is not.

When it comes to IQ I find both great, 50-135 for really nice portraiture and the really good OOF for a long telezoom of 60-250 makes for some good nature pics.

Though I've been thinking about the 60-250 instead of my current Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM II for some extra range and the WR, but I always say no. The 60-250 has a ridiculusly slow focus for sports and together with the slower aperture it's brutal, and I'm actually one of the guys that says that hyperfast AF often is overrated. Also the fact that it doesn't have internal zoom kills it for me as I would bump into the plexi at hockeyrinks all the time.

[leungclj]

Thank you all so far for the comments, still, I am being torned apart which lense to get...

[fgaudet]

If you're only interested in the bokeh, the 60-250 will be very similar to the 50-135... You lose one stop but you gain on reach, take a few step back, zoom in and you've got your bokeh back. The 50-135 is nice enough at 2.8 but it only start to shine at f/4, I don't know about the 60-250.

As other said, both lens are big, the 50-135 is sizeable enough but the 60-250 is very big, far from ideal to carry around on the camera. the 50-135 is already pushing it regarding portability IMO.

It's a tough choice to make. Personally I went with the 50-135 since I rarely use anything over 135. It leaves the door open for a "truer" tele-zoom (150-500 for example) if I ever feel the need for one.

[leungclj]

So I have decided to go for 50-135mm f/2.8 and the new x1.4 TC, thanks you all for your input.