[bdery]

Anyone have this lens that can weigh in? its odd to have two very different experiences like this on a new pentax lens..I can see the image differences.. its like two completely different lens.

I've begun testing the lens for the Pentaxforums review. Here are a few observations.

Sharpness doesn't seem to be a problem, informal testing at wide-to-medium apertures shows that it's close to the 60-250mm in the center. That's not quantitative, just a first impression. It does not disappoint me.

Bokeh is busier than I would like, but not bad.

I have seen no occurrence of PF, even when trying to provoke it. I do observe CA, at wider apertures. It's not prominent but it'S there.

AF is quite good from my limited testing. I have not stressed the lens.

The body feels cheaper than the 60-250, but not cheap. It's tight and will be durable. The lower weight is nice. I don't like the position of the zoom ring, and the reversed hood entirely covers it. It's much, much easier to zoom the 70-210 than the 60-250, which requires a lot of torque.

For the moment bokeh is the biggest letdown for me, not that it's bad but if I'm considering upgrading my 60-250 to that new lens, I expect comparable results and I'm not convinced I'll get there.

Given the price of other lenses in the lineup (for instance the DFA 28-105 and DA 16-85) I'd say, from my limited time with the lens a price somewhere around 1000$ would probably be fairer. There's the new item markup, of course.

[brewmaster15]

I've begun testing the lens for the Pentaxforums review. Here are a few observations.

Sharpness doesn't seem to be a problem, informal testing at wide-to-medium apertures shows that it's close to the 60-250mm in the center. That's not quantitative, just a first impression. It does not disappoint me.

Bokeh is busier than I would like, but not bad.

I have seen no occurrence of PF, even when trying to provoke it. I do observe CA, at wider apertures. It's not prominent but it'S there.

AF is quite good from my limited testing. I have not stressed the lens.

The body feels cheaper than the 60-250, but not cheap. It's tight and will be durable. The lower weight is nice. I don't like the position of the zoom ring, and the reversed hood entirely covers it. It's much, much easier to zoom the 70-210 than the 60-250, which requires a lot of torque.

For the moment bokeh is the biggest letdown for me, not that it's bad but if I'm considering upgrading my 60-250 to that new lens, I expect comparable results and I'm not convinced I'll get there.

Given the price of other lenses in the lineup (for instance the DFA 28-105 and DA 16-85) I'd say, from my limited time with the lens a price somewhere around 1000$ would probably be fairer. There's the new item markup, of course.

Thanks for that info Bdery!!

al

[CarlJF]

Just to be sure it’s not some BF/FF issues, have you try the lens in LV ? If the QI improves in LV, it means the lens definitely needs some fine focus adjustment before drawing any conclusions...

[luftfluss]

initially, i was not excited about news that pentax was developing or going to release a non dfa* lens covering a focal range that is already covered my multiple lenses... the 60-250, the 55-300, the 70-200, along with third party options. that all changed when the lens was actually released and i read the specs. .32 maximum magnification is a real draw for me, especially in a fast af, internal focusing, light, wr body. so i decided to spend money i don't actually have and buy it! i had a trip to florida coming up, room in the bag, and was really excited about it. i knew it wouldn't be * quality, but the difference between modern dfa lenses and da* has been shrinking, so i was hopeful to say the least.

the good:
it's light, it focuses fast, wr, internal focusing, nice close focusing... all the things i knew before i bought it. bokeh is nice.


the bad:
really sorry i have to write this part, i really wanted to like this lens. i've never been this disappointed! i took hundreds of pictures, not one has the clarity or sharpness of the dfa 150-450(which i also brought). it just lacks what i've come to expect from pentax. it's not that they're soft, they're just not tack sharp. ever.

purple and green fringing are not controlled well, in bad conditions or good. even stopped down... not great. way worse than the dfa 150-450, and worse than the irix 150mm macro(which i also brought). for an f4 lens, i expected better. for a brand new lens with pentax written across it, i expected better. for $1100... well, you get the point. in most cases CA is correctable in post, but in some it is not. not good news.

it also seems to suffer from diffraction worse than any of my other lenses (except the dfa* 50mm) way earlier than it should. if you want a sharp image at f10 because you've finally gotten close to that lizard you've been creeping up on for 10 minutes, too bad, because diffraction is already working against you. this is something pentax is usually good at, and a strong point with their macro lenses.

the hd coating, to me, didn't seem to do much in terms of preventing contrast from being washed out in certain situations, something else i thought would be better.


this lens did not deliver any of the things i've come to expect from pentax, especially considering the price. it's just not a $1100 lens. the 100mm macro is better, all of my limiteds are better, the other dfa's are better, the da*'s are better. most of them are cheaper. super super disappointing. man, i really wanted to like it, but it's the first lens, ever, i had to return. for me, the point of having a 36mp camera is to use all of those pixels. what's the point if the image doesn't hold up past 50% because the lens if letting you down? compared to other lenses i have that i'd use in the same situations... the sigma 180 macro, the irix 150 macro, the da* 60-250, and the da* 300, the 70-210 isn't in the same league. at all. in fact i paid less for the sigma and irix combined. i'll post a review of the irix macro after i've used it a bit more, but so far it's good. i had it on k-1, and the 70-210 on another k-1 and the irix was better every time. half the price, better images. yikes.

maybe i got a bad copy, but it didn't have tell tale signs decentering? am i crazy? maybe if i spent $500 i'd feel different. maybe it's good enough for a lot of people, i dunno. the exif info doesn't show the lens info (other than fl) even though i updated to latest firmware, so? now for some images.

the lot of them are here: pentax dfa 70-210 | Flickr

a couple of the better ones, which have had sharpening, etc applied:

A few thoughts:

- You mention the various lenses you have that are better. They should be. You are listing macro primes, star lenses... the DFA 70-210 is a consumer zoom. Every lens that you specifically named, with the exception of the DA* 60-250/4, should outperform the DFA 70-210.

- The DFA 70-210/4 is priced pretty high, but that is common practice in business and is often referred to as the "early adopter tax". New lenses are frequently "overpriced" relative to comparable older models.

- I pixel-peeped about a dozen of your photos on Flickr. There was a notable inconsistency in sharpness, including images where nothing in the entire frame appeared sharp at all. I really do think it's either an AF error - maybe it needs focus adjustment, or the lens AF motor is not operating correctly - or a lens element is misaligned.

- When Lenstip reviewed the Tamron 70-210/4, they regarded it as having the best sharpness of all comparable lenses.

Edit: I also checked out a bunch of your other photos, and I really enjoyed them. Nice shooting!

---

Last edited by luftfluss; 03-11-2020 at 07:53 AM.

[sculptor666]

wow, go away for a day, and there are lots of responses.

i'm sure there was a glass issue with the lens after seeing sandy's photos and listening to other people's experience with ca. it wasn't a bf/ff thing. i already returned it.

as far as comparing it to my other lenses, yeah i have a lot of primes... but i also have the dfa 150-450 and dfa 15-30, and they're both way better then the copy of the 70-210 that i returned. so even dfa zoom to dfa zoom, not even close.

ok so diffraction... maybe it's the wrong word, but i'll describe what's happening.

you take a picture at f4 with any lens, then you take another at f22. the f4 has a more narrow depth of field but what's in focus is tack sharp. the f22 has greater depth of field, but when you are looking at it at 50-100% the image isn't sharp anymore because of diffraction, right? ok. there is a point at which you start getting diminishing returns due to diffraction. for me, the dfa 50mm macro and dfa 100mm macro are fine up to f14, but it depends what you're shooting. for moths i go up to f16 because all of those scales on their wings sharpen so well. for the compound eyes of a fly, i stay at a wider aperture. for thing that aren't close to 1:1 i'm usually at f8/10. so those two lenses do quite well, and you can pry them from my cold dead hands (unless pentax updates them).


since the manual focus clutch(?) on my dfa50mm slips a little bit, i bought a sigma 50mm macro. at f4 it's sharp. at f8, it's acceptable... but after that it's not as sharp as either pentax macro in the same conditions. at f4 they're all pretty similar. so diffraction is worse on the sigma, right? or?


i bought a canon 80d and an mp-e 65mm macro and at 1:1 (never mind 3:1) is was ok at f8 and for me, totally useless at f14. this is compared to a k-3 and the dfa macros, which were still acceptable at f14. so diffraction is worse on the canon, right?

the dfa*50 is softer at f14 than the dfa50mm macro at f14, (subject is at same distance from lens for each) because if suffers from diffraction differently. but at f4 the dfa* destroys all other lenses.

or is diffraction the wrong word?


and perhaps the softening i was seeing in my copy of the 70-210 as it was stopped down was exacerbated by whatever issue it had?


also, the irix seems better than the sigma 180 beyond f8, but i'll have to wait until it warms up a little more here in pa before using them back to back.

[mbukal]

For the moment bokeh is the biggest letdown for me, not that it's bad but if I'm considering upgrading my 60-250 to that new lens, I expect comparable results and I'm not convinced I'll get there.
.

Please be specific about 60-250 / 4 vs 70-210 / 4 such as:
-60-250 / 4 is a * series but 70-210 / 4 is not and this is noticed on the bokeh and body construction?
-60-250 / 4 has slower focus?
-60-250 / 4 does not have a decisive and safe focus like 70-210 / 4?
- sharpness in the center at 70/4 + 130/4 + 200/4 at 60-250 / 4 is?
- sharpness in the center at 70/4 + 130/4 + 200/4 at 70-210 / 4 is?
- sharpness at the edges at 70/4 + 130/4 + 200/4 at 60-250 / 4 is?
- sharpness at the edges at 70/4 + 130/4 + 200/4 at 70-210 / 4 is?
It would be fantastic if you could put photo examples for that matter!
-CA on contrast frames is expressed at 70-210 / 4 more than at 60-250 / 4?
- 70-210 / 4 is easier to carry on a K1 than 60-250 / 4?
- overall optical 70-210 / 4 do not notice that it not * series like 60-250 / 4?
-60-250 / 4 takes precedence over longer range and nicer bokeh and body construction (excluding internal focusing and change of millimeter without stretching)?

how much do i expect 70-210 / 4 is better than 60-250 / 4 so much i expect 70-200 / 2.8 is better than 70-210 / 4 (but that's just my expectations)

I'm aware that this is not a * series like 70-200 / 2.8 but I expect it to be better than 60-250 / 4 because he neither was it intended for FF
(being good at FF, is just its big + as an APSC lens for those willing to compromise on FF usage-who is not for compromise buys DFA 70-200 (210) / 2.8 (4))

I hope you understand what interests me as end user in the new DFA lens and as advanced amateur / enthusiast user

please have courage and be determined

[UncleVanya]

Every lens that you specifically named, with the exception of the DA* 60-250/4, should outperform the DFA 70-210

Why wouldn't the DA* be expected to outperform the new consumer lens? Other than af speed?

[luftfluss]

Why wouldn't the DA* be expected to outperform the new consumer lens? Other than af speed?

The DA* 60-250/4 is a 4x zoom, compared to the 3x zoom of the 70-210/4. The Tamron 70-210/4 rates very highly for sharpness in reviews.

More importantly (to me) @bdery is hinting that there may not be much difference between the lenses in terms of sharpness... and if that winds up being the case after he conducts his tests, I think that is real feather in the DA* 60-250/4 's cap.

[UncleVanya]

The da* is sharp sharp sharp and it's sharp from wide open. The sharpness is good at all focal lengths.

[stevebrot]

Diffraction is diffraction, but other effects can mask it...

For example...softness due to other factors.

Diffraction through a small opening for light of varying wavelengths is stochastic so it cannot be "controlled" or "corrected" by element design.

I love it when a bit of vocabulary is thrown into the discussion. Thank you for a concise summary that will send a few in search of a dictionary.


Steve

[stevebrot]

In-camera diffraction correction, as introduced with the K-3II onwards for example, uses a capability built directly into the Milbeaut imaging chip.

I have wondered about that feature (supported on the K-3 with firmware v1.10). It follows the same rules as other lens corrections in that it is lens-specific (FA Limiteds, DA, and D FA only), is not applied to the RAW data, and is limited to in-camera/PDCU-processed JPEG and TIFF. Is it just sharpening?


Steve

[stevebrot]

I've begun testing the lens for the Pentaxforums review. Here are a few observations...

I was hoping you might drop in. Thanks for your early impressions.


Steve

[stevebrot]

- I pixel-peeped about a dozen of your photos on Flickr. There was a notable inconsistency in sharpness, including images where nothing in the entire frame appeared sharp at all. I really do think it's either an AF error - maybe it needs focus adjustment, or the lens AF motor is not operating correctly - or a lens element is misaligned.

So you noticed that too. The pattern extends to those from other lenses as well.


Steve

[stevebrot]

ok. there is a point at which you start getting diminishing returns due to diffraction. for me, the dfa 50mm macro and dfa 100mm macro are fine up to f14

With your camera, that point is between f/8 and f/11 regardless of lens mounted if evaluating at 100%. That said, if you are using in-camera lens corrections and evaluating from an in-camera JPEG or TIFF, extra sharpening has probably been applied for the 50/1.4 and the 100/2.8.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Why wouldn't the DA* be expected to outperform the new consumer lens? Other than af speed?

Probably because we expect the D FA* 50/1.4 to outperform non-* primes and zooms too, by extension. What I find curious is assigning the label "consumer" to the D FA 70-210/4. Even at an eventual price point of about $825 USD, the market segment is well above* a true consumer zoom such as the DA 55-300/4-5.8. The fixed maximum aperture is another clue. If have considered the 70-210 to be an enthusiast zoom and have been expecting performance at or near that of the late and much lamented (non-SP) Tamron 70-200/2.8.


Steve

* Greater than 2x