[bladerunner6]

The 16-85 seems to be a success performance-wise and hopefully that is translating into sales.

Would a higher quality zoom that goes to 300mm make sense? I am thinking of something less than $1000, hopefully about the same price or less than the 16-85 but higher in price and quality than the 55-300. I also imagine a smaller range than the 55-300 to make it a better match than to the 16-85. And hopefully a smaller range would make it easier to increase its performance.

Anybody have any input on this?

Thanks.

[Adam]

Here it is:

SMC Pentax-DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

250, 300, same thing

[bladerunner6]

Here it is:

SMC Pentax-DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

250, 300, same thing

This lens is above my suggested price point. Plus the long end is not that different from the kit lens, although the optical quality for the 60-250 is vastly better.

[interested_observer]

This lens is above my suggested price point. Plus the long end is not that different from the kit lens, although the optical quality for the 60-250 is vastly better.

If you wait and watch on the marketplace, you will see it available for under $1K. The 60-250, is substantially different than the 55-300 in terms of size, weight, build quality, image quality and performance. The 55-300 is very good for what it is. It's just that the 60-250 is substantially better - and HEAVIER.

[stevebrot]

This lens is above my suggested price point.

I think Adam thought you said "upscale"...

The DA* 60-250/4 is moderately expensive, but still a relative bargain at its street price of about $1200 USD (actually about $1100 on sale currently).


Steve

[Giklab]

higher quality zoom that goes to 300mm

smaller range than the 55-300

the long end is not that different from the kit lens

Dude, make your mind up already

[bladerunner6]

Dude, make your mind up already

I did make up my mind:
Better quality than the 55-300, goes to 300mm, smaller range in both relative and absolute term: a 3X 100-300 versus a 5.5X 55-300, and less than $1000 bucks.

Yes, the 60-250 is better quality but it does not go to 300, it has a 4.25X range and it goes for over $1000. So the 60-250 only meets one of my criteria.

[bladerunner6]

If you wait and watch on the marketplace, you will see it available for under $1K. The 60-250, is substantially different than the 55-300 in terms of size, weight, build quality, image quality and performance. The 55-300 is very good for what it is. It's just that the 60-250 is substantially better - and HEAVIER.

I am talking about a lens that retails for less than $1000, not that sells used for less than $1000, that is a pretty big difference.

Also, I am talking about a lens that would compliment the 16-85 in providing a full range from 16-300 with two lenses of better quality than the kit lenses. The 60-250 has too much overlap with the 16-85 and it falls short of 300. Also, the 60-250 is much higher in price than the 16-85. I am really talking about a lens that compliments the 16-85 in terms of range and price, in addition to quality.


Yes, the 60-250 meets a minority of my criteria, but not even close to all of it.

[Rondec]

I don't think there is much space between the 55-300 and the 60-250. The 55-300 is pretty decent stopped down a little and if you need something that you can shoot at f4, the options are the Sigma 100-300 or the Pentax 60-250. Having a lens that was 100-300 f4-5.6 really isn't going to give any sort of a performance boost over the DA 55-300. Honestly, the difference between 250mm and 300mm isn't that big either.

[Lowell Goudge]

I did make up my mind:
Better quality than the 55-300, goes to 300mm, smaller range in both relative and absolute term: a 3X 100-300 versus a 5.5X 55-300, and less than $1000 bucks.

Yes, the 60-250 is better quality but it does not go to 300, it has a 4.25X range and it goes for over $1000. So the 60-250 only meets one of my criteria.

Sure, take the newly announced 70-200/2.8 plus the 1.4xDA teleconverter.

A very long time ago, when I bought my first DSLR, I upgraded from my series 1 70-210/3.5( which still remains an excellent lens) to an AF good zoom. I took a sigma APO 70-200/2.8 EX and sigmas matching 1.4x TC.

It has everything you ask in terms of IQ and use, but price even then, and weight exceed your budget.

If you want better than the 55-300 you have to be prepared to step up into the 4 figures range and carry something in the 1.5-2 kilo range minimum

Actually price is about equal to weight , $/gram

[pepperberry farm]

why not the current DA 18-270mm SDM lense?


SMC Pentax-DA 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 ED SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Lowell Goudge]

why not the current DA 18-270mm SDM lense?


SMC Pentax-DA 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 ED SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Aside from the lack of quality, he is looking for a low zoom ratio compliment to the 16-85, not a single lens with a 15:1 zoom ratio

[bladerunner6]

Aside from the lack of quality, he is looking for a low zoom ratio compliment to the 16-85, not a single lens with a 15:1 zoom ratio

Exactly! Thank you!

[normhead]

There ins't anything... and it's not necessary to have anything. The problem is, better than the 55-300. If you look at the 55-300 images on the forum, you understand that it is the premium less than DA* lens. None of the 70-300, 100-300 type lenses match it, especially in the long end. Hate to keep dragging this out.. second time in two days

From my old "what lens" post which I can no longer find.... one is a DA*60-250 one is the Sigma 18-250 is one really worth twice the money. My buddy Jerry who was standing beside us shooting a Canona with a 200mm prime has almost this exact same image in his store at 8x10 and as far as I know has sold about 20 of them. I seriously doubt he would have sold fewer if they'd been taken with the 18-250. When people go on about the need to be using the sharpest or the fastest or the whatever-ist, way too often they are talking theory, not practical experience.

Too often people quibble over things that don't matter. That's what living in your own mind will do. You start imagining all these scenarios where you need this or that lens, when in many cases, you're better off with a superzoom that lets you get the shot. People talk about convenience as if it doesn't really matter. Well convenience doesn't matter unless you miss a shot because of a lens change, and then it's the only thing that matters. Superior IQ does count for squat if you're missing images trying to achieve it. Not doing a lot of lens changes saves time, and saving time gets you to different locations faster. Using primes, you may not even get to a lot of places superzoom users get to, because they spend more time scouting locations and less time fiddling with their camera bags. There is a lot in these lens discussions that comes directly from a lack of real world shooting experience and the the lack of printing experience so they understand exactly what they need for what size print.

Eastern Red Wolf DA*60-250-- Sigma 18-250 - which is which? An 18-135 image would have fallen right between these two images in IQ, but what exactly would that count for? Both are useable. How could it matter what lens I had on the camera if I don't really prefer one image over the other? I'm willing to bet the image would have been just as printable, saleable and enjoyable taken with my old Vivitar 135 ƒ2.8, arguably the worst lens in my collection. So what is everyone going on about?

The appeal of these images is not even influenced by the difference between 2100 lw/ph and 1700 lw/ph on a test chart. Because these images were not taken on a sturdy tripod with a two second delay in a studio setting with no wind etc., there is simply no discernible difference even pixel peeping.





The first question that comes to mind for me when people are going on about really sharp lenses is, 'Show me an image that you've taken that would have benefitted from using a sharper lens?" ( Hint, if you aren't shooting on a tripod, using the sharpest lens available isn't even going to improve your work one bit. Not shooting on a tripod, you may as well use a superzoom., using a super sharp lens won't increase your IQ even a little bit.) ) People need to do that, before they start proclaiming to the world that they have to have the sharpest, fastest, whatever-ist lens.

So here you have two lenses one much sharper than the other, but for which it's really hard to see any practical difference in the images, and you're saying that Pentax needs to squeeze another lens, at maybe 1900w/ph between the two when you already can't tell the difference in a lot of images. I think that's why people are a little negative about your post.

You are asking for something that is totally un-necessary. The advantage to the 60-250 is you can put the HD DA 1.4 TC on it and get a very good 350mm lens that shoots @ ƒ5.6, more than what you want.

The idea that there could be an intermediate lens between that and the 55-300 which is better quality than my Sigma 18-250, just doesn't make a lot of sense. Long glass is expensive... really good long glass is even more expensive. That's just reality. It's a hard reality, and many of us have spent hours wringing our hands and gnashing our teeth over it, but, there is not easy solution, either for shooters, or manufacturers. Part of the problem is you aren't appreciating how good the 55-300 is. The second part is if 250 won't do and you have to have 300, there's just not that much different. You probably need longer and are just trying to make do. The lenses you need are there. The DA* 60-250 and DA* 300 coupled with the 1.4 TC. I think you're just going through what all of us go through when we realize we want to shoot longer glass, and start grappling with the prices good long glass goes for.

If you aren't planning to use a TC the big difference between the 55-300 and the DA* s is the constant ƒ4 of the DA*s. The 55-300 is ƒ5.8. AN intermediate lens would have to be between ƒ4 and ƒ 5.8, say ƒ5. You need to be selling a lot of lenses before you start breaking up your lens offerings into half stops to fill every price point.

[Lowell Goudge]

Aside from the lack of quality, he is looking for a low zoom ratio compliment to the 16-85, not a single lens with a 15:1 zoom ratio

Exactly! Thank you!

Gal though it is used, you could consider the sigma 100-300/4 BUT it is in the 1.5 kilo range.