is the 60-250 really a 60-200 ?

normhead · 12-13-2015, 06:27 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kath

That Red Wolf is gorgeous, Norm. What a beautiful shot!

Thanks, it've been going to Algonquin for 35 years, and that was my first wolf. He was partially tamed by a road crew working in the area. They fed him, until he started going into their trucks and stealing their lunches and tools. We were pretty sure he was dead, (that was 2013) but he's just turned up again recently, and there are a whole slew of pictures of him posted by local photographers.

**UncleVanya** · 12-13-2015, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by WPRESTO

For any who are interested, I have just posted a series of tests on the 60-250, 300, 150-450 with/without TC on the 300 + theme. At least in my tests, the TC degraded IQ if both the 60-250 and 300 so that the 60-250 + TC did not match the 300 and the 300 + TC did not match the 150-450. However the TC seemed to work better with the 15-450 than with either the 60-250 or 300 and provided good IQ @ 630mm. These results differ from what other Pentaxians have found, so there may be some variability in both the lenses and the TC that make some combinations work better than others.

Interesting. I need to shoot my DA* 60-250 and HD TC against my FA* 300 when my dad visits and I get to visit my TC again!

**Scorpio71GR** · 12-13-2015, 08:02 PM

I have been going through the same dilemma. I finally got a 60-250. B&H had a used one for $700 in mint condition. For distant objects I can definitely tell the difference from 200 to 250mm. I have tried a few test shots indoors and noticed that the difference between 200 and 250 is much less. I do not shoot sports or indoors so the f2.8 was not a major deal for me. I do shoot outside and in some not so nice weather so the weather sealing is a bonus. If I am out shooting and a light rain starts it's nice to know I do not have to stop shooting. The 70-200 is listed as a macro so it is designed to focus closer to subjects. Both lenses are excellent and can deliver sharp crisp images.

I have the 50-500 OS HSM, I got mine my here on the Marketplace. With enough light it can really deliver. The key is you NEED enough light. If I were buying one new I would go straight for the 150-450. The price difference here in the US just is not that much and to me is worth it. Being able to use the 1.4 TC with the 150-450 is just worth the extra cost. I have tried my 1.4 Tamron TC with the 50-500 and autofocus is useless. I have started saving and hope to eventually be able to sell my 50-500 and get a 150-450.

Norm that shot of the Red Wolf is just beautiful. I thought the Red Wolf was pretty much extinct in the wild.

roro · 12-13-2015, 11:35 PM

Everytime i find myself leaning towards one , i find a reason to lean opposite. The price drop on the 60 250 is interesting.

Last edited by roro; 12-14-2015 at 10:46 AM.

moray-eel-bite · 12-14-2015, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by normhead

OK, well I got the Beaver part a little bit right. Interesting about the 50-500, but its really expensive.

At Henry's (in canada) it's regularly $1999, ($1899) on sale right now.

The Pentax DFA 150-450 is $2749. If you're going to pay that much go for the AW, it's 5.6 instead of ƒ6.3, works nicely with the TC, pay the extra bucks and get the real deal.

There are some comparisons for you to look at over here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/309623-comp...100-300-a.html

Sorry, I shouldn't be allowed to post past my bedtime. Of course you said Beaver.

I haven't tried the pentax 150-450 yet, but I hear lots of good things about it.

**Crooski** · 12-14-2015, 08:47 AM - **1 Like**

May not be needed anymore. Quickly made a few test shots through my back window with F 70-210mm on 210mm and DA 60-250mm, on 250mm.

Distance to bike 6 meter Distance to the car about 18 meters

ScooterMaxi Jim · 12-14-2015, 11:48 AM

I think those old F70-210s (both Pentax and Tak) were a very honest, full 210s (focus breathing or not).

Nice to see those Batavus bikes still around. I rode one about 40 years ago when they were briefly imported stateside.

**MJSfoto1956** · 12-14-2015, 11:50 AM

typical of most modern zooms these days -- they are XXX only at infinity. The two pictures above prove the point: at 6 meters the 60-250mm is obviously less "long" but at 18 meters the 60-250mm clearly has much more "reach" than the 70-210mm.

Michael

**THoog** · 12-14-2015, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Scorpio71GR

I thought the Red Wolf was pretty much extinct in the wild.

C. rufus pretty much is. The wolf pictured is probably the similar C. Lycaon, the "Eastern Wolf" or "Algonquin Wolf". There is debate for both whether they are actually separate species, subspecies of C. Lupus, or just wolf-coyote hybrids.

normhead · 12-14-2015, 06:34 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by THoog

C. rufus pretty much is. The wolf pictured is probably the similar C. Lycaon, the "Eastern Wolf" or "Algonquin Wolf". There is debate for both whether they are actually separate species, subspecies of C. Lupus, or just wolf-coyote hybrids.

This is actually an Algonquin Park, eastern wolf..... there are 13 packs in the world. 12 of them in Algonquin, and one sometimes have their den about 1 km from our house. Although we haven't seen them there for a few years. We've also seen Grey wolves in our back woods. We have no idea how the two packs co-exsit.
The Science Behind Algonquin's Animals - Research Projects - Eastern Wolf

Some people do call them Red Wolves because of their reddish muzzles.

Nicolas06 · 12-19-2015, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by MJSfoto1956

typical of most modern zooms these days -- they are XXX only at infinity. The two pictures above prove the point: at 6 meters the 60-250mm is obviously less "long" but at 18 meters the 60-250mm clearly has much more "reach" than the 70-210mm.

Michael

Yeah but then 6meters and you don't get even 210mm (more like 150mm) and you are bound to f/4 instead of f/2.8... It is no issue sure for big mamals because if they are near your would not need a such long focal length anyway and if they are far away you'll get 250mm but for small birds and things alike, you'll get the TC just to counter this effect, that's rather anoying.

To me it would be matter of price (some tamron 70-200 can be got used for 1/3 the price of the DA60-250), focus performance (even the 55-300 focus faster than the 60-250 as per Pentax forum review) and max apperture (f/2.8 give more margin in difficult conditions and is interresting for portraiture at the begining of the range) and subject distance (60-250 win at 18 meters and match its focal length at infinite) and size (the 60-250 is significantly smaller/lighter than a 70-200).

Choose what is most important to you !

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
Tamron 70-200+1.4xTC (vs) Pentax 60-250	snimcho	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	06-03-2015 01:48 AM
What do you photograph with the 60-250, 70-200?	UncleVanya	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	44	01-28-2015 01:42 PM
Pentax 80-200 f2.8 vs 60-250 f4	hjoseph7	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	11-14-2014 03:32 PM
DA 60-250 f/4 OR Tammy 70-200??? Others	northmole	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	03-28-2014 07:02 PM

12-13-2015, 06:27 PM - 1 Like	#16
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Kath That Red Wolf is gorgeous, Norm. What a beautiful shot! Thanks, it've been going to Algonquin for 35 years, and that was my first wolf. He was partially tamed by a road crew working in the area. They fed him, until he started going into their trucks and stealing their lunches and tools. We were pretty sure he was dead, (that was 2013) but he's just turned up again recently, and there are a whole slew of pictures of him posted by local photographers.

12-13-2015, 07:55 PM	#17
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by WPRESTO For any who are interested, I have just posted a series of tests on the 60-250, 300, 150-450 with/without TC on the 300 + theme. At least in my tests, the TC degraded IQ if both the 60-250 and 300 so that the 60-250 + TC did not match the 300 and the 300 + TC did not match the 150-450. However the TC seemed to work better with the 15-450 than with either the 60-250 or 300 and provided good IQ @ 630mm. These results differ from what other Pentaxians have found, so there may be some variability in both the lenses and the TC that make some combinations work better than others. Interesting. I need to shoot my DA* 60-250 and HD TC against my FA* 300 when my dad visits and I get to visit my TC again!

12-13-2015, 08:02 PM	#18
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,005	I have been going through the same dilemma. I finally got a 60-250. B&H had a used one for $700 in mint condition. For distant objects I can definitely tell the difference from 200 to 250mm. I have tried a few test shots indoors and noticed that the difference between 200 and 250 is much less. I do not shoot sports or indoors so the f2.8 was not a major deal for me. I do shoot outside and in some not so nice weather so the weather sealing is a bonus. If I am out shooting and a light rain starts it's nice to know I do not have to stop shooting. The 70-200 is listed as a macro so it is designed to focus closer to subjects. Both lenses are excellent and can deliver sharp crisp images. I have the 50-500 OS HSM, I got mine my here on the Marketplace. With enough light it can really deliver. The key is you NEED enough light. If I were buying one new I would go straight for the 150-450. The price difference here in the US just is not that much and to me is worth it. Being able to use the 1.4 TC with the 150-450 is just worth the extra cost. I have tried my 1.4 Tamron TC with the 50-500 and autofocus is useless. I have started saving and hope to eventually be able to sell my 50-500 and get a 150-450. Norm that shot of the Red Wolf is just beautiful. I thought the Red Wolf was pretty much extinct in the wild.

12-13-2015, 11:35 PM	#19
roro Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: IL Posts: 30 Original Poster	Everytime i find myself leaning towards one , i find a reason to lean opposite. The price drop on the 60 250 is interesting. Last edited by roro; 12-14-2015 at 10:46 AM.

12-14-2015, 08:19 AM	#20
moray-eel-bite Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Oshawa, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 154	Originally posted by normhead OK, well I got the Beaver part a little bit right. Interesting about the 50-500, but its really expensive. At Henry's (in canada) it's regularly $1999, ($1899) on sale right now. The Pentax DFA 150-450 is $2749. If you're going to pay that much go for the AW, it's 5.6 instead of ƒ6.3, works nicely with the TC, pay the extra bucks and get the real deal. There are some comparisons for you to look at over here. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/309623-comp...100-300-a.html Sorry, I shouldn't be allowed to post past my bedtime. Of course you said Beaver. I haven't tried the pentax 150-450 yet, but I hear lots of good things about it.

12-14-2015, 11:48 AM	#22
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	I think those old F70-210s (both Pentax and Tak) were a very honest, full 210s (focus breathing or not). Nice to see those Batavus bikes still around. I rode one about 40 years ago when they were briefly imported stateside.

12-14-2015, 11:50 AM	#23
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	typical of most modern zooms these days -- they are XXX only at infinity. The two pictures above prove the point: at 6 meters the 60-250mm is obviously less "long" but at 18 meters the 60-250mm clearly has much more "reach" than the 70-210mm. Michael

12-14-2015, 01:08 PM	#24
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by Scorpio71GR I thought the Red Wolf was pretty much extinct in the wild. C. rufus pretty much is. The wolf pictured is probably the similar C. Lycaon, the "Eastern Wolf" or "Algonquin Wolf". There is debate for both whether they are actually separate species, subspecies of C. Lupus, or just wolf-coyote hybrids.

12-14-2015, 06:34 PM - 1 Like	#25
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by THoog C. rufus pretty much is. The wolf pictured is probably the similar C. Lycaon, the "Eastern Wolf" or "Algonquin Wolf". There is debate for both whether they are actually separate species, subspecies of C. Lupus, or just wolf-coyote hybrids. This is actually an Algonquin Park, eastern wolf..... there are 13 packs in the world. 12 of them in Algonquin, and one sometimes have their den about 1 km from our house. Although we haven't seen them there for a few years. We've also seen Grey wolves in our back woods. We have no idea how the two packs co-exsit. The Science Behind Algonquin's Animals - Research Projects - Eastern Wolf Some people do call them Red Wolves because of their reddish muzzles.

12-19-2015, 03:27 PM	#26
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by MJSfoto1956 typical of most modern zooms these days -- they are XXX only at infinity. The two pictures above prove the point: at 6 meters the 60-250mm is obviously less "long" but at 18 meters the 60-250mm clearly has much more "reach" than the 70-210mm. Michael Yeah but then 6meters and you don't get even 210mm (more like 150mm) and you are bound to f/4 instead of f/2.8... It is no issue sure for big mamals because if they are near your would not need a such long focal length anyway and if they are far away you'll get 250mm but for small birds and things alike, you'll get the TC just to counter this effect, that's rather anoying. To me it would be matter of price (some tamron 70-200 can be got used for 1/3 the price of the DA60-250), focus performance (even the 55-300 focus faster than the 60-250 as per Pentax forum review) and max apperture (f/2.8 give more margin in difficult conditions and is interresting for portraiture at the begining of the range) and subject distance (60-250 win at 18 meters and match its focal length at infinite) and size (the 60-250 is significantly smaller/lighter than a 70-200). Choose what is most important to you !