Honest reactions to the DA* 60-250.

**UncleVanya** · 09-10-2015, 11:02 AM

As someone who spent a month shooting at least a picture a day with the 60-250 I can find no common experience with the OP. My copy seems sharp as a razor.

**GlassJunkie** · 09-10-2015, 11:57 AM

Sorry to hear of your problem... Best Overall lens I've ever owned. Gotta be something wrong. My go-to urban and mid-range lens. Razor sharp... Must be a bad copy. Try Bourque charts (or equivalent)

Stagnant · 09-10-2015, 12:20 PM

At 250 and F4 the lens is not quite as sharp as at shorter focal lengths. Still the quality is quite good. I did a comparison some months ago and CZJ Sonnar 135 3,5 produced sharper and more contrasty images when compared to 60-250 at similar settings. Besides the colours were considerably better. One of the things, that annoys me in 60-250 is dull, yellowish colours.

Pentax

Carl Zeiss Jena

The focusing is indeed slow and sometimes unpredictable. For my shooting style it is not the most important feature.
P.S. in most cases I shoot this lens at infinity or really close to infinity.

**GlassJunkie** · 09-10-2015, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by GlassJunkie

Sorry to hear of your problem... Best Overall lens I've ever owned. Gotta be something wrong. My go-to urban and mid-range lens. Razor sharp... Must be a bad copy. Try Bourque charts (or equivalent)

An old Handheld test shot K-3 and 60-250 DA* at 250mm

Bagga_Txips · 09-10-2015, 05:01 PM - **1 Like**

It's best to not mention the 60-250 on this forum as it usually starts a fight!

jeffryscott · 09-10-2015, 10:03 PM

I find it to be a lovely lens, incredible bokeh and mine was sharp as a razor. It fell and now gives a sometimes beautiful soft focus effect, not a good thing. I will be sending it in and can only hope it is as sharp as before.

Your lens may need focus fine tuning, SR off or better technique on your part. Without knowing your experience level and having sample pics it is hard to give much more guidance.

**GlassJunkie** · 09-11-2015, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by jeffryscott

I find it to be a lovely lens, incredible bokeh and mine was sharp as a razor. It fell and now gives a sometimes beautiful soft focus effect, not a good thing. I will be sending it in and can only hope it is as sharp as before.

Your lens may need focus fine tuning, SR off or better technique on your part. Without knowing your experience level and having sample pics it is hard to give much more guidance.

I had a similar issue , not a drop but zoom levers were off. I sent it to Precision (Paid $200 was out of warranty). They rebuilt it and adjusted BF to Zero. Incredible. Worth every penny...

PS: Sorry, I forgot to note... it was on my 16-50 DA*

Last edited by GlassJunkie; 09-11-2015 at 05:37 AM.

Parallax · 09-11-2015, 04:58 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Bagga_Txips

It's best to not mention the 60-250 on this forum as it usually starts a fight!

Yep. It's better to stick to safe subjects like FF vs APS-c.

bdery · 09-11-2015, 05:44 AM

The 60-250 is probably my best lens, optically. And that's saying a lot. I can always, and easily, spot its image when browsing my galleries. I find it sharp, clean, with great bokeh and little aberrations.

All this to say : it's possible the OP has a flawed copy, or that it needs focus adjustment on his camera, or that technique is improper. But I wouldn't blame the lens on general terms.

Sandy Hancock · 09-11-2015, 06:09 AM

For what it's worth, I never liked my DA*60-250. Which is not to suggest it was bad, because it wasn't.
For subjects nearer than 30m, you get better reach from the DA*50-135, with an extra stop of aperture, internal zoom (man, that lens is *huge* zoomed out to 250) and much less bulk. If I want to shoot real telephoto, my DA*300 gets it done much better.

normhead · 09-11-2015, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

For what it's worth, I never liked my DA*60-250. Which is not to suggest it was bad, because it wasn't.
For subjects nearer than 30m, you get better reach from the DA*50-135, with an extra stop of aperture, internal zoom (man, that lens is *huge* zoomed out to 250) and much less bulk. If I want to shoot real telephoto, my DA*300 gets it done much better.

All good points... many of us bought the lens expecting more magnification close in, and at 12 feet it really isn't any better than a 135mm lens. IN fact, when I'm going to be close to my subject, I take it off for my old F 70-210. For small birds and animals the F 70-210 gives me much more magnification, and because of that, cleaner crisper images of my subject. So when people talk about being disappointed with the 60-250, I always wonder if that's what they are talking about. And saying this is pretty crazy, considering I paid $1,500 for the the 60-250 and $60 for the 70-210.

But that being said, when you get to understand the lens's limitations and shoot to it's strength, it takes amazing images. If all your shooting is at 30 feet to less, you are going to have some issues unless you think of it as a 135 mm lens at that distance. Maybe digital folks have adjusted their thinking, but as an old film guy... it's practically a 135mm lens for most of my work.

135mm is a great focal length, very useful, produces great images, and there would have been nothing wrong with that, if I wasn't expecting 250mm.

**UncleVanya** · 09-11-2015, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

For what it's worth, I never liked my DA*60-250. Which is not to suggest it was bad, because it wasn't.
For subjects nearer than 30m, you get better reach from the DA*50-135, with an extra stop of aperture, internal zoom (man, that lens is *huge* zoomed out to 250) and much less bulk. If I want to shoot real telephoto, my DA*300 gets it done much better.

I have both... well... HAD both, my dad has permanent possession of my 50-135 - LOL. When I had both in hand I often used the 50-135 and the 1.4x TC to get results that were tighter within the 30'. That said, both lenses make great photos and for long distance tele shots the 250mm is great. So zoom in on distant bird - good - zoom in on feeder from < 30' not so hot. If I still had full possession of my 50-135 I don't know if I would keep both - but with the 50-135 on hiatus so to speak it's a nice thing to have around.

bdery · 09-11-2015, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by normhead

If all your shooting is at 30 feet to less, you are going to have some issues unless you think of it as a 135 mm lens at that distance.

I know this is true (and not unique to that lens). but it never ever bothered me. I just frame with what I have in hand, looking in the viewfinder, not worrying about focal length, just using what I see.

Originally posted by normhead

Maybe digital folks have adjusted their thinking

Maybe it's because I began with digital, maybe it's because I don'T have specific expectations (except for IQ). All I know is that the lens blows me away most of the time.

I just got back from hiking in Valley of Fire near Las Vegas. I took most of my images with the 16-85 and loved it every inch of the way (especially for the 16mm wide angle) but I did take a few images with the 60-250. When I get to these images, my reaction is always: "ahhh... there it is!"

Originally posted by normhead

But that being said, when you get to understand the lens's limitations and shoot to it's strength, it takes amazing images.

That it does.

**mattb123** · 09-11-2015, 08:45 AM

I love mine. One of my favorite when the shot requires something in that FL range. I usually shoot wider more but when I need to go long this is the go-to lens for me. If I need even longer I get the A* 300 if manual focus is acceptable. I think in your case you must have a bad copy or there's a technique problem.

**UncleVanya** · 09-11-2015, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Annabelle

Just went shooting with this lens - brand new - with my K-3. Good conditions, lots of sunlight. All firmware updated. Mounted on a tripod. Fast shutter speed for motion control. Not impressed with the lens at f4 - softer than I expected. Overall, not impressed with the first round. Any thoughts?

Could you post some of the shots? With EXIF and some 100% crops or put in Flickr or somewhere else where the full res can be downloaded? Honestly it does sound like something is wrong since the vast majority of folks seem to get really good results from f/4 on. There is a drop off at f/4 per the lens resolution tests but nothing that would leave you feeling like it was soft.

09-11-2015, 07:29 AM	#26
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock For what it's worth, I never liked my DA60-250. Which is not to suggest it was bad, because it wasn't. For subjects nearer than 30m, you get better reach from the DA50-135, with an extra stop of aperture, internal zoom (man, that lens is huge zoomed out to 250) and much less bulk. If I want to shoot real telephoto, my DA300 gets it done much better. All good points... many of us bought the lens expecting more magnification close in, and at 12 feet it really isn't any better than a 135mm lens. IN fact, when I'm going to be close to my subject, I take it off for my old F 70-210. For small birds and animals the F 70-210 gives me much more magnification, and because of that, cleaner crisper images of my subject. So when people talk about being disappointed with the 60-250, I always wonder if that's what they are talking about. And saying this is pretty crazy, considering I paid $1,500 for the the 60-250 and $60 for the 70-210. But that being said, when you get to understand the lens's limitations and shoot to it's strength, it takes amazing images. If all your shooting is at 30 feet to less, you are going to have some issues unless you think of it as a 135 mm lens at that distance. Maybe digital folks have adjusted their thinking, but as an old film guy... it's practically a 135mm lens for most of my work. 135mm is a great focal length, very useful, produces great images, and there would have been nothing wrong with that, if I wasn't expecting 250mm. Last edited by normhead; 09-11-2015 at 08:23 AM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA* 60-250 owners: How do you carry your 60-250 at the ready?	apisto	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	12-30-2017 01:49 PM
Pentax DA 60-250 $888 ( $40 sh to U.S)	Stavri	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	10-29-2014 04:27 PM
Which filters to FA 31mm & DA* 60-250?	Ztrejfer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	04-03-2014 08:55 AM
What makes the DA 60-250 so much more $$$$ ?	northmole	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	03-29-2014 06:55 PM
should I buy the 60 250 DA* Now?	Namdiablo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	01-14-2014 10:19 PM

09-10-2015, 11:02 AM	#16
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	As someone who spent a month shooting at least a picture a day with the 60-250 I can find no common experience with the OP. My copy seems sharp as a razor.

09-10-2015, 11:57 AM	#17
GlassJunkie Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: St Petersburg Photos: Albums Posts: 402	Sorry to hear of your problem... Best Overall lens I've ever owned. Gotta be something wrong. My go-to urban and mid-range lens. Razor sharp... Must be a bad copy. Try Bourque charts (or equivalent)

09-10-2015, 12:20 PM	#18
Stagnant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	At 250 and F4 the lens is not quite as sharp as at shorter focal lengths. Still the quality is quite good. I did a comparison some months ago and CZJ Sonnar 135 3,5 produced sharper and more contrasty images when compared to 60-250 at similar settings. Besides the colours were considerably better. One of the things, that annoys me in 60-250 is dull, yellowish colours. Pentax Carl Zeiss Jena The focusing is indeed slow and sometimes unpredictable. For my shooting style it is not the most important feature. P.S. in most cases I shoot this lens at infinity or really close to infinity.

09-10-2015, 12:34 PM	#19
GlassJunkie Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: St Petersburg Photos: Albums Posts: 402	Originally posted by GlassJunkie Sorry to hear of your problem... Best Overall lens I've ever owned. Gotta be something wrong. My go-to urban and mid-range lens. Razor sharp... Must be a bad copy. Try Bourque charts (or equivalent) An old Handheld test shot K-3 and 60-250 DA* at 250mm

09-10-2015, 05:01 PM - 1 Like	#20
Bagga_Txips Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Waterford Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 454	It's best to not mention the 60-250 on this forum as it usually starts a fight!

09-10-2015, 10:03 PM	#21
jeffryscott Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 253	I find it to be a lovely lens, incredible bokeh and mine was sharp as a razor. It fell and now gives a sometimes beautiful soft focus effect, not a good thing. I will be sending it in and can only hope it is as sharp as before. Your lens may need focus fine tuning, SR off or better technique on your part. Without knowing your experience level and having sample pics it is hard to give much more guidance.

09-11-2015, 03:20 AM	#22
GlassJunkie Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: St Petersburg Photos: Albums Posts: 402	Originally posted by jeffryscott I find it to be a lovely lens, incredible bokeh and mine was sharp as a razor. It fell and now gives a sometimes beautiful soft focus effect, not a good thing. I will be sending it in and can only hope it is as sharp as before. Your lens may need focus fine tuning, SR off or better technique on your part. Without knowing your experience level and having sample pics it is hard to give much more guidance. I had a similar issue , not a drop but zoom levers were off. I sent it to Precision (Paid $200 was out of warranty). They rebuilt it and adjusted BF to Zero. Incredible. Worth every penny... PS: Sorry, I forgot to note... it was on my 16-50 DA* Last edited by GlassJunkie; 09-11-2015 at 05:37 AM.

09-11-2015, 04:58 AM - 1 Like	#23
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Bagga_Txips It's best to not mention the 60-250 on this forum as it usually starts a fight! Yep. It's better to stick to safe subjects like FF vs APS-c.

09-11-2015, 05:44 AM	#24
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,360	The 60-250 is probably my best lens, optically. And that's saying a lot. I can always, and easily, spot its image when browsing my galleries. I find it sharp, clean, with great bokeh and little aberrations. All this to say : it's possible the OP has a flawed copy, or that it needs focus adjustment on his camera, or that technique is improper. But I wouldn't blame the lens on general terms.

09-11-2015, 06:09 AM	#25
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	For what it's worth, I never liked my DA60-250. Which is not to suggest it was bad, because it wasn't. For subjects nearer than 30m, you get better reach from the DA50-135, with an extra stop of aperture, internal zoom (man, that lens is huge zoomed out to 250) and much less bulk. If I want to shoot real telephoto, my DA*300 gets it done much better.

09-11-2015, 08:29 AM	#27
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock For what it's worth, I never liked my DA60-250. Which is not to suggest it was bad, because it wasn't. For subjects nearer than 30m, you get better reach from the DA50-135, with an extra stop of aperture, internal zoom (man, that lens is huge zoomed out to 250) and much less bulk. If I want to shoot real telephoto, my DA*300 gets it done much better. I have both... well... HAD both, my dad has permanent possession of my 50-135 - LOL. When I had both in hand I often used the 50-135 and the 1.4x TC to get results that were tighter within the 30'. That said, both lenses make great photos and for long distance tele shots the 250mm is great. So zoom in on distant bird - good - zoom in on feeder from < 30' not so hot. If I still had full possession of my 50-135 I don't know if I would keep both - but with the 50-135 on hiatus so to speak it's a nice thing to have around.

09-11-2015, 08:39 AM	#28
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,360	Originally posted by normhead If all your shooting is at 30 feet to less, you are going to have some issues unless you think of it as a 135 mm lens at that distance. I know this is true (and not unique to that lens). but it never ever bothered me. I just frame with what I have in hand, looking in the viewfinder, not worrying about focal length, just using what I see. Originally posted by normhead Maybe digital folks have adjusted their thinking Maybe it's because I began with digital, maybe it's because I don'T have specific expectations (except for IQ). All I know is that the lens blows me away most of the time. I just got back from hiking in Valley of Fire near Las Vegas. I took most of my images with the 16-85 and loved it every inch of the way (especially for the 16mm wide angle) but I did take a few images with the 60-250. When I get to these images, my reaction is always: "ahhh... there it is!" Originally posted by normhead But that being said, when you get to understand the lens's limitations and shoot to it's strength, it takes amazing images. That it does.

09-11-2015, 08:45 AM	#29
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,873	I love mine. One of my favorite when the shot requires something in that FL range. I usually shoot wider more but when I need to go long this is the go-to lens for me. If I need even longer I get the A* 300 if manual focus is acceptable. I think in your case you must have a bad copy or there's a technique problem.

09-11-2015, 08:57 AM	#30
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by Annabelle Just went shooting with this lens - brand new - with my K-3. Good conditions, lots of sunlight. All firmware updated. Mounted on a tripod. Fast shutter speed for motion control. Not impressed with the lens at f4 - softer than I expected. Overall, not impressed with the first round. Any thoughts? Could you post some of the shots? With EXIF and some 100% crops or put in Flickr or somewhere else where the full res can be downloaded? Honestly it does sound like something is wrong since the vast majority of folks seem to get really good results from f/4 on. There is a drop off at f/4 per the lens resolution tests but nothing that would leave you feeling like it was soft.