[Lowell Goudge]

Back in the SLR days, the longest lens I had was an 85mm. Now I have a Tamron 90 equalling approximately 135mm on an APS-C sensor. I am thinking of giving away my 50-200; never ever used it (don't even know if it works). Are there others here who lead a happy life without a long telephoto? If so, what's the longest you've got?

If I wasn't a nature and sports enthusiast , maybe.

When I travel, if I am city bound I routinely take nothing longer than 85mm and usually span 8mm fisheye through 85mm. BUT, for general outdoors activity including outdoor portraits I do like longer telephoto lenses because the hokeh is better . My current favourite long portrait lens is a tele-takumar 200/3.5 preset. So to go without 200mm no way.

Add in wild life where I routinely shoot with +400mm and I could not go without a long tele, but, what you shoot and how you shoot are personal choices. If you don't have a use, why bother, but the lens is only worth about $40 so there is nothing lost if you keep it

[jatrax]

Do you know the focal length of this rumored telephoto?

According to the lens road map it is 120-380ish. But who knows. I just hope it is not a slow consumer zoom. The IQ has to be better than the DA*60-250 plus 1.4x TC or it makes no sense.

[carrrlangas]

telephoto lenses are big, heavy and expensive. If you are using Pentax, size and weight is probably a priority for you so it kind of makes it difficult to sort out.
I do have the 55-300 but don´t find it very good above 200mm (at least my copy). I like making landscapes with it but reducing vibrations is almost impossible (the artifact sold by Manfrotto would solve this I guess). I have fun with the ocational bird shot but never made one I really liked with this lens.
I also have DA70 and recently FA100/3.5 so I don´t need the 55-300 as much. Honestly, it rarely gets used. I´d love a DA60-250 for landscapes but too bigheavyexpensive for me now

telephoto lenses are big, heavy and expensive. If you are using Pentax, size and weight is probably a priority for you so it kind of makes it difficult to sort out.
I do have the 55-300 but don´t find it very good above 200mm (at least my copy). I like making landscapes with it but reducing vibrations is almost impossible (the artifact sold by Manfrotto would solve this I guess). I have fun with the ocational bird shot but never made one I really liked with this lens.
I also have DA70 and recently FA100/3.5 so I don´t need the 55-300 as much. Honestly, it rarely gets used. I´d love a DA60-250 for landscapes but too bigheavyexpensive for me now

ja, that's the thing; good telephoto costs serious money and is too heavy. If I had been a telephoto guy, I would probably have invested in m 4/3 because of the portability. No sure about the quality of the m 4/3 telephoto lenses though.