[gda13]

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.

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.

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 ----------

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.

[GodsPetMonkey]

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?

At MFD I'd say the 250mm is actually around 135mm, the focus breathing on this lens is really bad and probably its biggest draw back. If you are getting up close and personal, you are better of using the DFA 100mm - at least then you can get really up close!

It doesn't become 250mm until somewhere between 15m and infinity. IMHO it isn't too bad beyond 10m, but it does limit its use as a wildlife lens.

This is the price you pay for that AW design and great optical performance.

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.

You are welcome!

I am the sort of person who keeps on the move, lots of waking and hiking with my gear. This lens is not the one you keep on the body when hiking. It is a travel lens if you don't move much or are travelling in a car, but on foot the size and weight will get in the way. On the other hand, if you plan on keeping it in your bag and only using it when the situation demands you will find it much more suitable.

My main camera bags are two Crumplers. A four million dollar home and a seven million dollar home. If I am going light with the 4MDH the 60-250mm would basically occupy the bag with the TC and other sundry bits, with the camera + 16-85mm around my neck. The 7MDH is a much bigger bag, but the lens and TC will still take up about a third. The camera plus several (3 or 4) smaller lenses will fit in the space that remains. By taking the 55-300mm I can essentially fit another lens in either bag, and even with the extra lens the weight is unlikely to exceed carrying the 60-250mm. Depending on what I am up to this can make a significant difference. Other times it is the faster focal ratio and the much better IQ of the 60-250mm that I am after. It really is not easy giving up that IQ!

Personally, I'd also consider how much use you are likely to get. The 60-250mm is not cheap, and plonking down that much cash, even second hand, for a lens you very rarely use seems a waste. The 55-300mm isn't likely to perform as well as you would want on the K-1, but there are legacy FF options in this range that present even better value for money. That said, given your existing experience with the 200mm and 300mm primes, I'd say you appreciate the extra IQ you get out of the more expensive options, so I think the 60-250mm is going to be the best compromise lens you will come across.

[UncleVanya]

See above post. I agree with the range and focal length statements.

I don't particularly agree about other options for full frame as my only other lens in this category that I have owned and used is the FA 80-320 and it fell short of the 55-300 in performance (which falls short of the 60-250 itself. ) essentially I can't confirm that there are cheap alternatives but I also can't deny it lacking much experience beyond the one FA zoom lens in this range.

[gda13]

If you are getting up close and personal, you are better of using the DFA 100mm - at least then you can get really up close!

Yes of course...the reason I have a 100mm WR! But now and then a little creative diversity is nice.

On the other hand, if you plan on keeping it in your bag and only using it when the situation demands you will find it much more suitable.

Yep, that's me.

My main camera bags are two Crumplers. A four million dollar home and a seven million dollar home.

I've tried many many dedicated camera bags from slings, to messengers, to backpacks and the only dedicated camera bag that I found I like is a ThinkTank Retrospective 5 (Pinestone color). My main bag, the one I use 99% of the time is a non camera dedicated Osprey hiking pack that I use with Mountainsmith camera inserts. For me the comfort, capacity and, convenience of a well made hiking pack cannot be beat...I can fit all the gear I need for a particular outing in there as well as a travel size CF tripod.

That said, given your existing experience with the 200mm and 300mm primes, I'd say you appreciate the extra IQ you get out of the more expensive options, so I think the 60-250mm is going to be the best compromise lens you will come across.

Agreed and my *60-250mm arrives Thursday! I picked up a barely used in mint condition copy for $650 USD yesterday...so not too shabby

See above post. I agree with the range and focal length statements.

I don't particularly agree about other options for full frame as my only other lens in this category that I have owned and used is the FA 80-320 and it fell short of the 55-300 in performance (which falls short of the 60-250 itself. ) essentially I can't confirm that there are cheap alternatives but I also can't deny it lacking much experience beyond the one FA zoom lens in this range.

Yeah the only FA option I considered at one point is the *80-200mm, a beautiful rendering lens but its big and heavy...almost as big as the sigma 100-300mm and heavier too. But I love how some of those older film era lenses render the image. They may suffer in certain circumstances with the lack of modern coatings but some have such a wonderful look and character to the images they produce. I really regret not getting a FA* 85mm/1.4 when they were relatively inexpensive and plentiful.

---

Last edited by gda13; 07-19-2016 at 10:29 PM.

[UncleVanya]

Yeah the only FA option I considered at one point is the *80-200mm, a beautiful rendering lens but its big and heavy...almost as big as the sigma 100-300mm and heavier too. But I love how some of those older film era lenses render the image. They may suffer in certain circumstances with the lack of modern coatings but some have such a wonderful look and character to the images they produce. I really regret not getting a FA* 85mm/1.4 when they were relatively inexpensive and plentiful.

I sold a really nice FA* 80-200. I was very impressed. It had less CA and Purple Fringing than the DA* 200 I own. It was as good or better at 200mm as that DA* lens and I would be hard pressed to say ANYTHING negative about it - but ultimately I - like you - decided the DA* 60-250 fit my needs better. At the time the K-1 was still a rumor but even so I didn't relish the though of lugging that beast around (and it's lighter than the new DFA 70-200!)

[mattb123]

Have any of you done the FF mod mentioned here to your 60-250? Does it affect anything on crop cameras? I did a little Googling and found the RiceHigh blog post (in Chinese) about it but I'd like to hear more. Did I miss a good thread on this? I'd love to be able to mod my lens and continue using it on FF. Or if the procedure looks too risky I wonder if I could have it done for me somewhere.

[gda13]

I sold a really nice FA* 80-200. I was very impressed. It had less CA and Purple Fringing than the DA* 200 I own. It was as good or better at 200mm as that DA* lens and I would be hard pressed to say ANYTHING negative about it - but ultimately I - like you - decided the DA* 60-250 fit my needs better. At the time the K-1 was still a rumor but even so I didn't relish the though of lugging that beast around (and it's lighter than the new DFA 70-200!)

It'd be a sweet lens to have if you know there are enough days where you will just be sitting somewhere with a tripod...but then the focal length is a little short for most of those types of endeavors.

Have any of you done the FF mod mentioned here to your 60-250? Does it affect anything on crop cameras? I did a little Googling and found the RiceHigh blog post (in Chinese) about it but I'd like to hear more. Did I miss a good thread on this? I'd love to be able to mod my lens and continue using it on FF. Or if the procedure looks too risky I wonder if I could have it done for me somewhere.

I will be doing the mod. There seem to be a couple of different ways people deal with the baffle tube. Although the base method for removing the tube from the lens are the same and quite simple. Here's the original link that got the ball rolling for me.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/304092-da-60-250-mod-ff.html

Here's a thread with a few good pics taken with the post modified *60-250mm that show it is effective. However I can't say what if anything will come of using a modified lens on a crop sensor in terms of image effects, but I could always have a look by using my K-01 with it.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/29-welcomes-introductions/326046-ferrick-...o-ff-lens.html

I will be employing the method whereby I scrape or dremel the actual baffle ring off (apparently its relatively thin aluminum so not a very laborious process) and put back the actual original tube in the lens.

Modified DA*60-250/4 on K-1: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I will of course add some pics taken with the lens once I have done the mod under various circumstances that pertain to how I shoot. Won't be right away though as free time is still at a bit of a premium and I have a lot of photos to process of my recent Pacific Northwest trip. Also I have it in mind to hunt around a place where I can order a replacement baffle tube to keep on hand in case for whatever reason I need to revert back...so if anyone knows the best place in US to order pentax lens parts...fire away.

---

Last edited by gda13; 07-20-2016 at 02:29 PM.

[gda13]

Well my copy of the *60-250mm arrived yesterday and I had a bit of time to at least test it out today to make sure all is good. My initial impression is that I like this lens quite a bit. The size, when not extended, is rather compact and shouldn't pose any problem being carried in my hiking pack, also it balances well on the K-1. I took a few test snaps at various focal lengths wide open and it renders very nicely and very sharp...I can see why this lens is favored by many.

Dare I say it...I may have found the one lens for all my current needs for 100mm and above. As soon as I have a chance I will take it out to a botanical garden to see how it handles for some of the typical shooting scenarios that I might use it for. I will use it for a bit unmodified until I am completely sure that I will keep it and if I decide to add it to my stable I will modify it and share my results.

This would indeed be great to be able to use this lens on FF...it sure would make for a relatively low cost high quality option!

Thanks to all who shared their thoughts, opinions and experiences with this lens as I gained a bit more insight on how adding this lens might work out well for my situation.

[mattb123]

Thanks for keeping us informed. My K-1 is in the shop so I'm forced to wait for now. Interested to see how it all goes for you.

[gda13]

No problem. If this is what all those people are saying it is, then what a fantastic lens it is for FF.

So what did the repair shop say was damaged...was it just that top piece afterall? Hopefully these days Precision has their act together and you get your K-1 back in a decent amount of time.

[gda13]

Just a brief update on how this lens seems to be a viable option for use with my K-1. I recently took the unmodified lens to a botanical garden to test it out in various shooting scenarios that I might typically use. I used it handheld and even though it is not a small lens, I seemed to be able to handle it relatively well as it balances nicely on the K-1. In short it worked brilliantly...I can see why so many have been happy with this lens for some time now. I found it to be very sharp from f4 and its overall image rendering quality is very nice. I haven't been this happy with a zoom since the *50-135mm on APSc. So its a keeper for me and sometime soon I will make the modification to the baffle to eliminate the vignetting that can be seen at the longer focal lengths in some of the pics below.



These are just a few test examples taken at f4 from both ends of the focal range. I also took some at f8 (no need to post) and noticed that the vignetting at the longer focal lengths was mostly gone.


Bridge


Bridge


Lotus seeds


Lotus seeds


A few random close up shots also at f4


Hibiscus flower


Orchids


Dragon fly

So with landscapes at the long end of the range the vignetting is definitely noticeable whereas with closeups under certain circumstances it really does not detract from the image. In any case I will make the mod and post an update when I do. So it looks like I won't be needing to keep that *300mm lens as the *60-250mm will do just fine.

[mattb123]

So with landscapes at the long end of the range the vignetting is definitely noticeable whereas with closeups under certain circumstances it really does not detract from the image. In any case I will make the mod and post an update when I do. So it looks like I won't be needing to keep that *300mm lens as the *60-250mm will do just fine.

Thanks for the update. I think I'll be doing this too once I get my K-1 back from repair. Let us know how it goes!

[Ptitboul]

The 60-250 and the 100WR are currently my two favorite lenses on the K-1, for all the reasons mentioned in the previous messages.
In addition, portraits at 250mm and f/4 have a nice swirling bokeh on the K-1.

[gda13]

Another update...well today I did the deed and the baffle was modded. The process went smoothly and without incident and so far from what I can tell all seems good. I opted to make a permanent change to the baffle tube assembly because I have determined that I will be keeping this lens and since I am on FF from now on there was no reason for me to not do so. Yes I have a K-01 APSc but I would not be using the 60-250mm with that camera anyways since its more for a portable high quality kit. Anyone who is not sure that they will be keeping this lens to use on FF may want to opt for another solution that can be reversed if so desired. That being said at some point I will do a few test photos on the K-01 sometime just to see if there are any detrimental impacts to images on crop sensors.

Here are a few pics of some aspects of the modding process...

The baffle tube assembly and SDM contacts ring removed ( I just followed the instructions from the other thread ). You can see the baffle part of the tube that needs to be removed.




I masked off the inner tube to prevent fine metal shavings from sticking to the felt coating. I started with a dremel using a diamond grinding head...but I found that to be slow and lacking the control that I wanted. I switched to both a course and medium sanding drum which worked great.


The baffle removal done...took about 15 min


Exposed metal painted black


SDM ring re-attached with black industrial strength adhesive and allowed to dry


Tube assembly minus the baffle


Re-inserted into lens



Now all that's left is to go out and take some test shots to see the difference. Even though it was night outside, I had to at least take a peak to see if the mod worked. So I took a couple of quick tests at f4 in the hall which has very uneven lighting from different directions so not the best for testing but all things considered the results look promising.

60mm f4 (not really a problem focal length to begin with)


250mm f4 (a focal length that had noticeable vignetting without the mod, but now apparently nothing )


So all in all the mod seems to make a great APSc lens into a great FF lens. Some real world testing to come soon...nothing scientific, just the type of shooting that I normally do.

[UncleVanya]

Another update...well today I did the deed and the baffle was modded. The process went smoothly and without incident and so far from what I can tell all seems good. I opted to make a permanent change to the baffle tube assembly because I have determined that I will be keeping this lens and since I am on FF from now on there was no reason for me to not do so. Yes I have a K-01 APSc but I would not be using the 60-250mm with that camera anyways since its more for a portable high quality kit. Anyone who is not sure that they will be keeping this lens to use on FF may want to opt for another solution that can be reversed if so desired. That being said at some point I will do a few test photos on the K-01 sometime just to see if there are any detrimental impacts to images on crop sensors.

Here are a few pics of some aspects of the modding process...

The baffle tube assembly and SDM contacts ring removed ( I just followed the instructions from the other thread ). You can see the baffle part of the tube that needs to be removed.




I masked off the inner tube to prevent fine metal shavings from sticking to the felt coating. I started with a dremel using a diamond grinding head...but I found that to be slow and lacking the control that I wanted. I switched to both a course and medium sanding drum which worked great.


The baffle removal done...took about 15 min


Exposed metal painted black


SDM ring re-attached with black industrial strength adhesive and allowed to dry


Tube assembly minus the baffle


Re-inserted into lens



Now all that's left is to go out and take some test shots to see the difference. Even though it was night outside, I had to at least take a peak to see if the mod worked. So I took a couple of quick tests at f4 in the hall which has very uneven lighting from different directions so not the best for testing but all things considered the results look promising.

60mm f4 (not really a problem focal length to begin with)


250mm f4 (a focal length that had noticeable vignetting without the mod, but now apparently nothing )


So all in all the mod seems to make a great APSc lens into a great FF lens. Some real world testing to come soon...nothing scientific, just the type of shooting that I normally do.

Nicely documented.