[freerider]

The 60-250mm is a fantastic lens. I think it could very well work for candid portraits: the bokeh is pleasing and you have the flexibility of shooting from a distance. You may want to try it out before you spend money on another lens. I have a 50-135mm also and it's a terrific lens, but I decided I could part with it because I also have the 77mm.

[bassek]

Hi!

You lack fast lenses, DA50 or 55 1.4, SIgma 18-35/1.8 or some 85/1.4. Pick your suitable focal lenght.
Then you lack MF lenses. And macro lenses. You need those.
Need... must have... (drool)
My precious... (rubbing my K35/3.5)

Seb

[DSims]

The 60-250mm is a fantastic lens. I think it could very well work for candid portraits: the bokeh is pleasing and you have the flexibility of shooting from a distance. You may want to try it out before you spend money on another lens. I have a 50-135mm also and it's a terrific lens, but I decided I could part with it because I also have the 77mm.

As much as I advocate the DA*50-135 over the DA*60-250 because I see better IQ and better portrait ability from it, I have to agree with you here. You can replace the DA*50-135 with the FA77 or FA*85 because the faster aperture, faster focusing, and smaller size more than compensates for the lack of zoom in most instances.

[MikeD]

So I have the 16-50 and just ordered the 60-250 (after weeks of agonizing over reviews). In fact, I'm still second guessing the decision. I was tempted by the Tammy 70-200 and the 50-135. I'm not sure how much I will miss the 2.8 for isolated subjects. If I had gone with the 50-135 I would have also wanted the 300*. I'm afraid I would have missed both the wide and long ends of the Tammy - the reason why it fell from the list.

I finally decided that the 60-250 was the most versatile option - especially if I get a teleconverter.

I'm in Europe for another few weeks so won't get to play with my new lens until home. However, I'm really feeling doubt about my potential satisfaction for its mid-range portrait ability. I'm thinking mostly candid outdoor shots - wife, kids, and limited money making events.

So, WR not essential, but a plus.

DA* 55? 100WR Macro? Maybe one of the limiteds?

Any advice or input would be appreciated.

Thank you!

Nakomis

---------- Post added 04-06-14 at 03:42 PM ----------

Or maybe there is room for both the 50-135 and the 60-250 in the same camera bag. The 135 when space is limited or portraits will dominate, the 250 when there could be the long wildlife opportunities... Hmm, they would look nice together

I have the 60-250 and just love it. It has great IQ, very sharp, really nice bhokeh. I also have tamron 17-50 and and 90mm macro. The 16-50 and 60-250 covers the range really well. Also I prefer a 90-100 macro for portraits. They can be too sharp but that's easy to fix in post. Also many portrait pros like the longer length as they like the perspective better. My feeling is to stick with what you have and get a 100mm macro. Next on my list is 1.4 tc.

[Sandy Hancock]

The DA*55 is just begging to be shoe-horned into the gap between your zooms. Everyone needs a fast fifty(ish). Add the DFA macro and there's not much you can't do, in any weather.

Like DSims, I went with the DA*50-135 and DA*300 rather than the 60-250, but there are enough fans of the latter to counter any argument I might put up.

Whatever you do, don't get the FA77 - that will take you too far down the slippery slope of LBA, from which there is no return

[wtlwdwgn]

An FA* 250-600mm f/5.6 for a little longer reach.

[savoche]

An FA* 250-600mm f/5.6 for a little longer reach.

...and for excellent physical exercise!

[zzeitg]

Speaking about 60-250, I think you made a good decision. IMHO in this range of focal length there's no need to worry about subject isolation.
50-135 is a very good lens, too, but it's not bad to have at least one longer lens in the kit.


For portraits I'd consider DA*55 (which fits right into the small gap between your existing lenses), FA77 or (little cheaper, but sharp!) DA70.
But what about something on the wide end? Sigma 8-16, DA 12-24 or 10-17 (if you'd consider fish eye) or DA15 x FA20 if you prefer primes?

[normhead]

I have been trying to justify selling my 60-250, for a year. It's not going to happen. Amazing IQ. The thing with the 60-250 (with both the HD 1.4 and FA 1.7 TCs an it works great with both of them) is it's great landscape lens, and an adequate ilife lens. It's resolution and IQ are pretty much unmatched. As a landscape wildlife lens, it's better than the 50-135 except at 60mm but the lens is pretty much a stack of primes type lens.

I have a SIgma 70 macro that I think perfect for portraits, but if I was shooting a lot of portraits, I'd get the 77 and the 55 1.4.

But the way I see it with the 16-50 and 60-250 I'd sit pat, and then fill in with primes.

DA* 60-250

Birds




Action


Lanscape








Wildlife










Lots of images....
DA-60-250 Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket

You just don't get this kind of pro glass versatility and WR in any other lens.

Add a 55 1.4 or 50 1.8 and a 77 ltd and you're laughing. Although for me, I use the 18-135 not the 16-50. Those wife and kid shots, being able to zoom in for a close up and zoom out to capture the whole scene, you have way more flexibility with the 18-135. Especially if you have a 15 ltd to cover the wide end.

[zzeitg]

I have been trying to justify selling my 60-250, for a year. It's not going to happen. Amazing IQ. The thing with the 60-250 (with both the HD 1.4 and FA 1.7 TCs an it works great with both of them) is it's great landscape lens, and an adequate ilife lens. It's resolution and IQ are pretty much unmatched.

Sorry for the off-topic, but for me comparison of 60-250 resp. 60-250 with 1.4 TC and Sigma 120-400 (or even 150-500) would be interesting. I have no experience with these long Sigma lenses - is there something I miss out?

[normhead]

The Sigma 120-400 is longer, more magnification especially close in, but it's long end is really soft at 400mm and infinity. The 150-500 and 50-500 might be better, I don't know about those two.