Originally posted by Nicolas06 Depend if you are in a hurry or if you can wait (2 years maybe?)
No, not a huge hurry for that so it be worthwhile to see what develops. So far on my international trips I rarely felt the need for anything beyond 100mm, but it would be nice to have it someday anyways...just in case.
Originally posted by bdery Yes. It is my best lens, I think (and that's saying a lot). It's probably my favourite, too. Above the DFA 100mm macro WR, I hav eonly the 60-250. Below, I have the 21, 40, 16-85.
The 60-250 is a marvelous lens.
I don't do birding (for which even 300mm is not enough). I use it for sports, kids, walkaround (yes I do), I bring it when hiking, camping, it almost never stays home. It's my main summer lens.
Yes, that is what I'm hoping! Only one lens above my 100mm WR would be great.
Originally posted by UncleVanya It does vary. The exact focal length is hard to quantify. I can attest to the mfd being similar in focal length to a 135 due to comparing the lens with the da* 50-135 and takumar bayonet 135. The 200 I have and the 55-300 let me evaluate how quickly it gets back up to the full focal length.
In practice the only time this is an issue is with small birds where you would expect this lens to have greater application as a bird feeder lens. However given the shrinking focal length at closer distances it isn't as good at this as say the 200 or 300. For versatility it is hard to beat. Also if the light permits it the 1.4tc really helps boost the focal length - but the Pentax HD one isn't full frame.
I can work with that. So just to be clear (on APSc anyways) at MFD 200mm is more like 135mm correct? So what would the effective focal length be at a full 250mm at MFD? How about at the upper range of this phenomenon say at the 9-10m distance...what would the effective focal length be at 200mm and 250mm respectively?
Yeah in terms of its versatility, for me it seems a good compromise.
---------- Post added 07-19-16 at 01:14 AM ----------
Originally posted by GodsPetMonkey Plenty of praise around here for the DA* 60-250, and justifiably so, it is an impressive optical performer!
But rather then rehash all that, let me give you the downsides of the lens (based on my experience) - an investment of this sort should be done with both eyes open!
All that said, mine is not for sale. It is a great lens, if the downsides don't concern you, then it is an obvious winner. If they do the 55-300mm gives you more reach for less money and less bulk, but it comes with its own limitations.
Thanks for your thoughts regarding the cons which are very valid and should be considered. Since I am taking a very practical approach to what I want for anything above 100mm...this will inherently require a great deal of compromise.
As I've stated, I want one lens (versatility
), it will be my least used range generally (it won't always go with me) so no need to spend in the thousands, I'd like to keep the size relatively manageable for how I shoot and how I carry gear ( hiking back pack with camera inserts that is very comfortable and supports weight well), I'm not really a birder or wildlife shooter (someday though
), and will be used mostly for giving landscapes and certain kinds of close-ups a unique look. Finally of course optical performance ranks high up there.
The 60-250mm is beginning to look like the ideal compromise for my situation. If that FF modification hadn't come along I would probably just revert back to the da*200mm, wait for a FF TC and call it a day...sometimes I still think about it but again... versatility would be nice.
Probably your biggest con for me is the slowness of the SDM and I too would convert this over to screwdrive in a heartbeat. However, AF is not a huge deal for me with landscapes and close-ups. Even with the majority of the AF primes I use regularly...for landscapes, close-ups and macros I routinely enjoy employing manual focus. It's only when I'm out and about with my wife or other family and I'm in a bit more of a hurry that I'll rely more on AF.