[MJSfoto1956]

+1 on the 60-250mm -- this lens is the reason I added a K-3 to my mostly Nikon D800 system. CaNikon offers nothing like it.

YMMV

Michael

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

And my F70-210 is longer than my 60-250 at 15 feet. This can go on for ever. The funny thing is, the price for the extra magnification I get because my F 70-210 is extends further and gives you max. image size close in, the result is you can't use a TC. It's already of CA galore without one.

Well, I have the exact same lens (at least optically, and probably coatings-wise, as well), and the $55 price paid was a very fine value, for sure. I'm pretty sure I'd pay more than twice that for the extra stop and added image quality that comes with the 60-250. On the other hand, I've taken some pretty sweet photos with that F70-210. What's most amazing is the fast AF, superbly accurate, even in indoor lighting...
Taos - May 2015 - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare
Gophers NIT 2014 - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare

[normhead]

I'm not giving up my 70-210, the most corrected Pentax consumer lens of the day by far, 13 elements as opposed to 6-9 in most of them, and mor important, very small and portable. The 70-200 lens to take with you when you really don't want to take a big lens. But not the lens for the OP. We had arranged to pay $60 for mine, but the old German guy who owned it got charmed by Tess and insisted we take it for $35.

Slide show here.







But way too slow for the OP.

[Billy Joe]

I'm not giving up my 70-210, the most corrected Pentax consumer lens of the day by far, 13 elements as opposed to 6-9 in most of them, and mor important, very small and portable. The 70-200 lens to take with you when you really don't want to take a big lens. But not the lens for the OP. We had arranged to pay $60 for mine, but the old German guy who owned it got charmed by Tess and insisted we take it for $35.

Slide show here.







But way too slow for the OP.

Nice pics ---

I have one... haha think I paid $65 for mine... and a nice Tamron adaptal 80-210 also in and around that range.

[genesmasher]

Although I'm generally not a huge fan of 3rd party glass, when I needed a lens in this range a few years ago, I purchased the Tamron largely on the basis of cost (I paid $640 for the Tamron; at the time 60-250 was going for ~$1,300). Had the 60-250 been going for the current price, I might have purchased that lens instead. Although I'm yet to be convinced there's any significant difference in sharpness (the Tammy is plenty sharp, even at f2.8), the 60-250 has slighlty better contrast and, of course, those Pentax colors everyone talks about.

Having said all that, nevertheless, if you're buying the lens for indoor sports, you're going to need an f2.8 lens. The Tammy may not be ideal for sports (particularly if you're trying to track fast moving objects), but if that's all you can afford, it will do. Optically, a good copy of the lens will deliver the goods. It's sharp wide open, and tack sharp at f4. Very good contrast. Very nice color rendering of reds, yellows, and dark blues and greens. Excellent lens for the price.

Pricing gap is still significant. I just bought a mint copy of the Tamron for $480 last week. 60-250 is $850 new. I will be using the Tamron extensively in the next couple of months shooting high school soccer, will see how it does. Initial tests show that it is pretty sharp and fast focusing on K5II.

[Stagnant]

@normhead, how does the lens (70-210) perform wide open ?

[bdery]

Oh but the DA 200 2.8 is a magic monster! you can't compare a zoom to that can you?

You can compare it to the 60-250. The latter holds its own pretty well, I'd say.

[normhead]

@normhead, how does the lens (70-210) perform wide open ?

As you'd expect....
here's a very high contrast wide open full reach image....


Here's a pixel peeping crop, you can find a bit of chromatic aberration, which doesn't show up in the 1280 image, and it's hand held, so, sharpness might be a little better from an image taken on a tripod but, it's a decent lens. And part of the joy of this lens is it's easy to hand hold. That and really fast (but noisey) AF.



I won't take the 60-250 off the camera for it, but I will leave the 60-250 home sometimes and take the F 70-210 instead.

[Stagnant]

normhead, thanks for the samples, they look great ! You mentioned AF, but based on the description here it is a manual focus lens, with some "one touch" zoom feature. Am I missing something ?

[bertwert]

normhead, thanks for the samples, they look great ! You mentioned AF, but based on the description here it is a manual focus lens, with some "one touch" zoom feature. Am I missing something ?

SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 Reviews - F Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[UncleVanya]

normhead, thanks for the samples, they look great ! You mentioned AF, but based on the description here it is a manual focus lens, with some "one touch" zoom feature. Am I missing something ?

Multiple 70-210's, the one in question is linked above - it is the F series - Auto-focus by screw drive and auto-aperture.

[normhead]

SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 Reviews - F Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

It's got fast AF that comes to a crunching halt and almost breaks your wrist, there's no mistaking that.

I'm sure that the original motors that drove the F-70-210 weren't as fast or as powerful as the one in the K-3. It's a nice combo where the increased AF speed in the K-3 matches the increased focusing speed on the F- motor drive, to give you a lens that performs way better than it did when it was new on a K-3.d

[starbase218]

The 60-250 is optically superb. I'd go as far as to say that it is THE Pentax high-end telephoto zoom. Sharp across the range, even wide open, smooth bokeh. It's also build to last, and the design of the tripod collar is great too.

But, it has some downsides too. Maximum magnification is low, and the focus is relatively slow. Tracking performance is worse than the 55-300's.

If you need f/2.8, you should pass on it as well. But that's really not something you can "blame" the lens for.

edit: O, and make sure you get a good sample!!

[UncleVanya]

I have to say that we are all spoiled. I shot football in poorly lighted high school stadiums. I did so with Nikon equipment and the fastest thing I used was a 180 f/2.8 or a 105 f/2.5 - manual focus of course. We pushed B&W film to 3200 or even 6400 and if we got a few shots a roll that showed any really juicy plays we were happy.

I remember having to calculate reciprocity failure for night time landscape shots with film. We have it so easy now.

[Nicolas06]

I would say the tamron is the best compromize:
- It is significantly cheaper. In europe it is 3 time cheaper and the 60-250 is just too expensive to be brough by anyone. Even in US, the tamron is less expensive.
- The tamron is f/2.8, one full stop. While you can always shoot the tamron at f/4, f/5.6 or f/8 when you want it, you are not going to get the 60-250 to shoot at f/2.8. In difficult conditions, you want lot of shutter speed, you'll have to bump the iso a lot, and the f/2.8 setting of the tamron is going to help a lot on that department.
- I would agree the tamron has not the best AF (screw drive) but the 60-250 while silent is not faster. When Pentax forum compared the SDM 60-250 with the screw drive 55-300, the 55-300 managed to focus better than the 60-250. SDM is that bad. Its only benefit is being silent. Overall I would expect the tamron to last much longer than the 60-250 due to safer, solid, screw drive design.
- In term of reach the 60-250 is maybe the zoom with the most focus breathing I know. At short focussing distance, the 50-135 has similar reach ! The tamron has some focus breathing too, but less drastic. What it does means in practice is that you'll not benefit that much of the added reach of 250mm except for distant landscape focussed to the infinite.
- Picture quality of the tamron match the 60-250. in their common apperture range. Sure the tamron is not perfect at f/2.8, but the 60-250 is much worse at f/2.8 as you can't even select the apperture.
- The tamron support very short focussing distance with magnification of 1:3.1. With an 1.4TC this become 1:2.2, a quite interresting feature.


Reason to prefer the 60-250
- WR
- Smaller/lighter
- It start at 60. 70 is quite long on APSC, really. Starting at 35 or 50 would be even better.
- For distant landscape, it has more reach (250mm).
- Overall the quality is really great.