is the 60-250 really a 60-200 ?

roro · 12-13-2015, 11:07 AM

Just like the title says . I noticed a lot of posts claiming hardly any difference between 200mm and 250mm. My dilemma is choosing the Pentax f4 or the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 ? Used mostly for wildlife and landscape photography..
Some rare sporting events also. Thanks

Doundounba · 12-13-2015, 11:13 AM

From what I've read on here (I don't own it), it's a 250mm for distant objects and more like a 200mm for nearby ones. This is called focus breathing, AFAICT.

**UncleVanya** · 12-13-2015, 11:22 AM

I can affirm that for shots over 10 meters it out magnifies my da* 200, for close shots the 60-250 doesnt even match the 200 it is even shorter.

As mentioned by the person before me, focus breathing is the reason. Essentially, at close distances the lens performs with effectively shorter focal length than it does at infinity.

Venom3300 · 12-13-2015, 12:18 PM

Personally I would skip both of these lenses if your intent is for wildlife.

**Crooski** · 12-13-2015, 12:19 PM

I can confirm what doundounba wrote, I have tested with the F 70-210mm en de DA 60-250mm

roro · 12-13-2015, 12:22 PM

thanks for the clarification. now i have to decide about the qualities/shortcomings of each.

---------- Post added 12-13-2015 at 01:25 PM ----------

"Personally I would skip both of these lenses if your intent is for wildlife "

ya , the 300mm f4 + 1.4 tc is for another day.

Adam · 12-13-2015, 12:53 PM

The image quality of the DA* 60-250mm is otherwise superb, and it works just fine with the teleconverter, so I wouldn't cross it off as an option.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

normhead · 12-13-2015, 12:55 PM - **2 Likes**

For small birds the 60-250 is a bit short, as is any 200mm lens. For larger wild life it can be just fine. But, 6 feet away, it's the equivalent of an external focus 135mm lens. That being said, I have images taken of everything from the tiniest birds to moose, wolves and bears. You just have to work a bit harder.

Tiny bird. (Boreal Chickadee)

Small animal. (Pine Martin)

Medium Sized animal (Red Wolf)

Bigger Animals (Black Bear)

Really Big animals (Moose)

Really big birds (Either an Otter or a Beaver bush plane, I think it's an Otter, the Beaver has a stubbier nose.)

Personally for wildlife I'd be looking at a Sigma 150-500 if I could find it, but the 60-250 with the 1.4 TC will be just fine if you already own it. It makes up for it's shorter length with great IQ. I also often carry the A-400 which with the 1.4 TC gives me 560 ƒ8, but a lot of times I don't even get it out, the 60-250 is enough, and sharper.

Some more pictures here.
Slideshow.http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Pentax_forum/Sample_by...name/DA-60-250

Sometimes the slide show cuts out after 50 images. The whole album is here.

moray-eel-bite · 12-13-2015, 01:19 PM

Really big birds (Either an Otter of a Beaver bush plane, I think it's an Otter, the Beaver has a stubbier nose.)

Personally for wildlife I'd be looking at a Sigma 150-500 if I could find it, but the 60-250 with the 1.4 TC will be just fine if you already own it. It makes up for it's shorter length with great IQ. I also often carry the A-400 which with the 1.4 TC gives me 560 ƒ8, but a lot of times I don't even get it out, the 60-250 is enough, and sharper.

The plane is actually neither, it's a DHC-2 Beaver.

I'd recommend a sigma 50-500 as long as you have a K3. I used mine with a K& and the focusing was very frustrating. The K3 makes it a whole new lens.

normhead · 12-13-2015, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by moray-eel-bite

Really big birds (Either an Otter of a Beaver bush plane, I think it's an Otter, the Beaver has a stubbier nose.)

Personally for wildlife I'd be looking at a Sigma 150-500 if I could find it, but the 60-250 with the 1.4 TC will be just fine if you already own it. It makes up for it's shorter length with great IQ. I also often carry the A-400 which with the 1.4 TC gives me 560 ƒ8, but a lot of times I don't even get it out, the 60-250 is enough, and sharper.

The plane is actually neither, it's a DHC-2 Beaver.

I'd recommend a sigma 50-500 as long as you have a K3. I used mine with a K& and the focusing was very frustrating. The K3 makes it a whole new lens.

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

Venom3300 · 12-13-2015, 02:16 PM

Quote:

"Personally I would skip both of these lenses if your intent is for wildlife "

ya , the 300mm f4 + 1.4 tc is for another day.

I was thinking more along the lines of tracking down a used sigma 100-300 f/4. I think that would still cover your other needs, as well as do a lot bettor wildlife especially if paired with a 1.4x TC.

**UncleVanya** · 12-13-2015, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Venom3300

I was thinking more along the lines of tracking down a used sigma 100-300 f/4. I think that would still cover your other needs, as well as do a lot bettor wildlife especially if paired with a 1.4x TC.

I have never seen an A/B comparison of the 100-300 vs. the 60-250 with or without the AW TC. I'd love to see a comparison. From what I have seen I would anticipate the two are very similar in IQ - the 100-300 just delivers greater magnification which is of course nice.

willskywalker93 · 12-13-2015, 02:43 PM

Since my BigmOS came in last week, I can highly recommend it with the k3 for a cost friendly solution out to 500mm. The new OS HSM version is an entirely different monster than the original bigma.

Kath · 12-13-2015, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Medium Sized animal (Red Wolf)

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

**WPRESTO** · 12-13-2015, 05:35 PM

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 150-450 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.

12-13-2015, 11:07 AM	#1
roro Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: IL Posts: 30	is the 60-250 really a 60-200 ? Just like the title says . I noticed a lot of posts claiming hardly any difference between 200mm and 250mm. My dilemma is choosing the Pentax f4 or the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 ? Used mostly for wildlife and landscape photography.. Some rare sporting events also. Thanks

12-13-2015, 12:55 PM - 2 Likes	#8
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	For small birds the 60-250 is a bit short, as is any 200mm lens. For larger wild life it can be just fine. But, 6 feet away, it's the equivalent of an external focus 135mm lens. That being said, I have images taken of everything from the tiniest birds to moose, wolves and bears. You just have to work a bit harder. Tiny bird. (Boreal Chickadee) Small animal. (Pine Martin) Medium Sized animal (Red Wolf) Bigger Animals (Black Bear) Really Big animals (Moose) Really big birds (Either an Otter or a Beaver bush plane, I think it's an Otter, the Beaver has a stubbier nose.) Personally for wildlife I'd be looking at a Sigma 150-500 if I could find it, but the 60-250 with the 1.4 TC will be just fine if you already own it. It makes up for it's shorter length with great IQ. I also often carry the A-400 which with the 1.4 TC gives me 560 ƒ8, but a lot of times I don't even get it out, the 60-250 is enough, and sharper. Some more pictures here. Slideshow.http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Norm_Head/slideshow/Pentax_forum/Sample_by...name/DA-60-250 Sometimes the slide show cuts out after 50 images. The whole album is here. Last edited by normhead; 12-13-2015 at 01:35 PM.

12-13-2015, 01:31 PM	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	Originally posted by moray-eel-bite Really big birds (Either an Otter of a Beaver bush plane, I think it's an Otter, the Beaver has a stubbier nose.) Personally for wildlife I'd be looking at a Sigma 150-500 if I could find it, but the 60-250 with the 1.4 TC will be just fine if you already own it. It makes up for it's shorter length with great IQ. I also often carry the A-400 which with the 1.4 TC gives me 560 ƒ8, but a lot of times I don't even get it out, the 60-250 is enough, and sharper. The plane is actually neither, it's a DHC-2 Beaver. I'd recommend a sigma 50-500 as long as you have a K3. I used mine with a K& and the focusing was very frustrating. The K3 makes it a whole new lens. 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 Last edited by normhead; 12-13-2015 at 01:37 PM.

12-13-2015, 05:35 PM	#15
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,084	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 150-450 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. Last edited by WPRESTO; 12-14-2015 at 07:50 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
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, 11:13 AM	#2
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	From what I've read on here (I don't own it), it's a 250mm for distant objects and more like a 200mm for nearby ones. This is called focus breathing, AFAICT.

12-13-2015, 11:22 AM	#3
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,381	I can affirm that for shots over 10 meters it out magnifies my da* 200, for close shots the 60-250 doesnt even match the 200 it is even shorter. As mentioned by the person before me, focus breathing is the reason. Essentially, at close distances the lens performs with effectively shorter focal length than it does at infinity.

12-13-2015, 12:18 PM	#4
Venom3300 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 714	Personally I would skip both of these lenses if your intent is for wildlife.

12-13-2015, 12:19 PM	#5
Crooski Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Rozenburg , Zuid-Holland Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,672	I can confirm what doundounba wrote, I have tested with the F 70-210mm en de DA 60-250mm

12-13-2015, 12:22 PM	#6
roro Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: IL Posts: 30 Original Poster	thanks for the clarification. now i have to decide about the qualities/shortcomings of each. ---------- Post added 12-13-2015 at 01:25 PM ---------- "Personally I would skip both of these lenses if your intent is for wildlife " ya , the 300mm f4 + 1.4 tc is for another day.

12-13-2015, 12:53 PM	#7
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,593	The image quality of the DA* 60-250mm is otherwise superb, and it works just fine with the teleconverter, so I wouldn't cross it off as an option. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

12-13-2015, 01:19 PM	#9
moray-eel-bite Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Oshawa, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 154	Really big birds (Either an Otter of a Beaver bush plane, I think it's an Otter, the Beaver has a stubbier nose.) Personally for wildlife I'd be looking at a Sigma 150-500 if I could find it, but the 60-250 with the 1.4 TC will be just fine if you already own it. It makes up for it's shorter length with great IQ. I also often carry the A-400 which with the 1.4 TC gives me 560 ƒ8, but a lot of times I don't even get it out, the 60-250 is enough, and sharper. The plane is actually neither, it's a DHC-2 Beaver. I'd recommend a sigma 50-500 as long as you have a K3. I used mine with a K& and the focusing was very frustrating. The K3 makes it a whole new lens.

12-13-2015, 02:16 PM	#11
Venom3300 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 714	Quote: "Personally I would skip both of these lenses if your intent is for wildlife " ya , the 300mm f4 + 1.4 tc is for another day. I was thinking more along the lines of tracking down a used sigma 100-300 f/4. I think that would still cover your other needs, as well as do a lot bettor wildlife especially if paired with a 1.4x TC.

12-13-2015, 02:28 PM	#12
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,381	Originally posted by Venom3300 I was thinking more along the lines of tracking down a used sigma 100-300 f/4. I think that would still cover your other needs, as well as do a lot bettor wildlife especially if paired with a 1.4x TC. I have never seen an A/B comparison of the 100-300 vs. the 60-250 with or without the AW TC. I'd love to see a comparison. From what I have seen I would anticipate the two are very similar in IQ - the 100-300 just delivers greater magnification which is of course nice.

12-13-2015, 02:43 PM	#13
willskywalker93 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 407	Since my BigmOS came in last week, I can highly recommend it with the k3 for a cost friendly solution out to 500mm. The new OS HSM version is an entirely different monster than the original bigma.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2015, 03:12 PM	#14
Kath Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Gallery Posts: 737	Originally posted by normhead Medium Sized animal (Red Wolf) That Red Wolf is gorgeous, Norm. What a beautiful shot!