[UncleVanya]

It grows about 2 1/8th inches between 60 and 250. The hood makes it seem more long than it is.

Please ignore the focus - not a lot of light and I was using my K100D Super to take a picture - 800 ISO is about the top of the limit and even then I was at 1/10 second - handheld so camera shake is more at play here than anything.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 03-04-2015 at 01:22 PM.

[RGVPentax]

I have the 50-135, DA200, DA300 and the 1.4 TC that I use on all of them at times. Several months ago, I ordered the 60-250 (not sure why) and tried it on my K-3 for a few days. It is a fine lens and does everything that it is supposed to do, but I decided that I was not getting any "bang for my buck" over what I already had. Granted, with that lens, I don't have to change lenses as often, but the three lenses that I mentioned are excellent lenses and fit my usage very well. The 60-250 is a little big lens and I eventually returned. Don't get me wrong, it is a very high quality lens but didn't fit what I needed. BTW, I had the Sigma 100-300 several years ago and sold it because it was a monster of a lens and I kept finding excuses to leave it at home.

[emalvick]

I just got the 60-250 (a month or so ago). It is way better than I expected. I probably could have purchased a 300, but I mostly got it because I like shooting around 200 mm quite a bit, and it has actually spurred my use of a Tamron 17-50 because the 60-250 makes the longer end of the 18-135 redundant. A recent trip to Florida, and my kit consisted of the Tamron, a 60-250, and a 15 mm lens. It was a great combination. The 60-250 is bigger than I'm used to, but it is quite usable, and I had no problems using it handheld. I was even able to fit it into my small little Domke bag (just not necessarily mounted on the camera).

[UncleVanya]

I struggle with the fact that I have the 18-135, the 50-135, the 55-300, and the 60-250 - ummmmm... can you say focal overlap?

The 50-135 is stellar. I don't own anything over 135 except for the 60-250, and the 55-300 and a Sigma 400 AF f/5.6 that has some optical challenges over and above the base design. (EDIT: And an old barely functional 80-320!) DANG

If I had the DA* 200 (my dad owns that) and the DA* 300 I doubt I would own the 60-250.

[jayman_1975]

It grows about 2 1/8th inches between 60 and 250. The hood makes it seem more long than it is.

Please ignore the focus - not a lot of light and I was using my K100D Super to take a picture - 800 ISO is about the top of the limit and even then I was at 1/10 second - handheld so camera shake is more at play here than anything.

Excellent! Thanks so much for those pics. Geez that looks small compared to my 100-300F4. I like that when youre not using the zoom it's actually quite compact. I think I'll get one and run it against the Sigma

[bdery]

I understand that the 60-250 is quite long when fully zoomed in....come to think of it I haven't seen any spec of exactly how long it gets when it's extended all the way.

I can measure mine this evening, in the meantime the pics I made for the Pentaxforums review should give you an idea.

The lens that I have had the most "wow" factor with is my 50-135. The 16-50 is very nice but there is something magical about the 50-135 that I just love. I was hoping te 60-250 would be the same but in a larger fashion.

I think it will do that for you. Even regular shots that are in no way "artistic" have a kind of pop that's hard to miss:

[Nicolas06]

Let's be honest ! Many time you don't take your 100-300 because it is too heavy? Sell it. Waste of money, anything you own should be something that serve you well.

A 60-250 would give you the same shoots as a 100-300 but just not cover the FF image circle. It is expensive still and you would not want to have both the 50-135 & 60-250 on the say day in the bag. So for me if I buy the 60-250 it would be because I plan to do many shoot that need a long tele like sports or wildlife (with a TC then maybe).

I already decided for myself that I didn't need the 50-135 anyway and sold it after a few month with the FA77. I miss a bit the 50-77mm part but the FA handle just fine the 77-135mm range with a wider apperture, same price, far better rendering/pop overall and much ligther package. The 50-135 needed to go then.

You could do that: use a prime for low/light portraiture, sell the 50-135, the 100-300 and buy insteand the 60-250. It help rationnalize your kit while making your bag much lighter.

But please don't buy and keep all... This is just a waste of money if the gear stay home most of the time.

[Driline]

but the FA handle just fine the 77-135mm range with a wider apperture, same price, far better rendering/pop overall and much ligther package

I don't understand this. You mean you just crop the FA 77 to get the 77-135 range?

[jayman_1975]

Can someone who has both the 60-250 and 50-135 tell me if the zoom is as smooth as the 50-135 is? I cant get over how buttery smooth it is.

[Driline]

Can someone who has both the 60-250 and 50-135 tell me if the zoom is as smooth as the 50-135 is? I cant get over how buttery smooth it is.

I tested the 60-250 at the camera store. I own the 50-135 myself. I'd say it was similar. The only caveat is this lens is HUGE compared to the 50-135. A lot fatter and as you know it extends. I ended up purchasing an F*300 instead. It's smaller and lighter and about the same size as the 50-135. So I lug two lenses around if I need those focal lengths I'm considering a prime 200mm but haven't made my mind up yet if I really want one.

[Bagga_Txips]

One of the problems with the OP's question is that he is asking for advice from the wrong crowd. We almost always start screaming '' buy it, buy it!''.

Driline's response above gives me an idea. Why not just get the new TC, together with a second body? This is a spur of the moment idea from me, and I am worried that it is growing on me as a stimulus to my own GAS...

Anyway, I can envisage having a setup where you have the 50-135 and the long tele mounted. Or maybe carry the second body (k-s2?) with only the TC mounted, then when you needed the length transfer the 50-135 to the already mounted TC and voila, 100-270 at your service.

---------- Post added 03-06-15 at 08:16 AM ----------

Oops, nm, 70-184

---------- Post added 03-06-15 at 08:19 AM ----------

Aag 189

[UncleVanya]

Can someone who has both the 60-250 and 50-135 tell me if the zoom is as smooth as the 50-135 is? I cant get over how buttery smooth it is.

I own both. They are both butter. The 60-250 is much much bigger feeling. But they are both stellar. I ended up with both semi-accidentally. I never thought I would own the 60-250 and had already bought a 50-135 when a deal dropped in my lap I couldn't refuse on the 60-250. I'm still not sure what to do long term. In the meantime I am enjoying both.

Driline's response above gives me an idea. Why not just get the new TC, together with a second body? This is a spur of the moment idea from me, and I am worried that it is growing on me as a stimulus to my own GAS...

Anyway, I can envisage having a setup where you have the 50-135 and the long tele mounted.

Right after I got the 60-250 my dad gifted me with a Pentax HD TC 1.4x - so now I have both lenses and the TC. The 50-135 with TC offers a significant fraction of the 60-250's extra range at the same f stop. The clarity with the TC is very good on my 16mp K-50, in a casual shoot out I didn't see major differences between the two lenses when I used the TC on the 50-135. But I can add the TC to the 60-250 and get good performance from 84-350 f/5.6, so it only really shifted my problem a tiny bit.

I'm still looking at two different lenses.that overlap a ton but offer slightly different usefulness.

I WANT to only want the 50-135. It's smaller and lighter and just plain awesome. But they both excel.

[Driline]

Driline's response above gives me an idea. Why not just get the new TC,

Yea, I'm seriously thinking about the new 1.4 TC as well now too. I was hesitant because it will add a full stop to the lens, but after shooting a concert tonight in a High School Gym, I had no problem shooting at F4.0 with shutter at 1/100 of a second using ISO 1600.

[jayman_1975]

Ok how about this one. The only beef i have with the 50-135 is the focus is painstakingly slow compared to the 100-300. Can anyone tell me if the 60-250 is faster than the 50-135?

[GaryH]

yes the 60-250 is faster.....