[aslyfox]

I was thinking about getting the new 70-210 Pentax F4, but the Pentax Forum does not show it to be really any better than the Pentax DA 60-250 which I have already and is modified for full-frame with a 3-D printed baffle. Does anyone have both lenses and care to comment.

I have neither but if you work your way through the " in depth review " of the D FA 70 -210mm F 4, you will find sections of direct comparison if that might help:

HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR
Introduction

Read more at: HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR

Sharpness Comparison with the DA* 60-250mm
The new D FA 70-210mm F4 will be seen by many as a spiritual successor to the DA* 60-250mm F4. Especially considering that the latter can be modified for use on a full frame camera, there is an obvious interest for comparing the two lenses. . . .

HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR
Focus Breathing Comparison with the DA* 60-250mm
Focus breathing refers to the change in focal length which can occur when the focal distance of a lens changes. In other words, the field of view changes depending on whether the focal distance is close or nearer infinity, even if the zoom position remains the same. . .

HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR
Conclusion

. . . Comparing to the 60-250mm is also interesting. The DA* lens is not officially a full frame lens and requires a user modification to operate with a full frame sensor. By doing this, the user loses built-in corrections and can void the warranty. The 60-250mm is heavier, wider but a bit shorter, and zooms externally. It has STAR-quality craftsmanship, but the 70-210mm is no slouch.

The two lenses have different qualities. The 70-210mm is sharper in the center, focuses much faster and at closer distances. The 60-250mm has more even sharpness, generally handles aberrations better and produces better bokeh. . . .

[normhead]

I was thinking about getting the new 70-210 Pentax F4, but the Pentax Forum does not show it to be really any better than the Pentax DA 60-250 which I have already and is modified for full-frame with a 3-D printed baffle. Does anyone have both lenses and care to comment.

Essentially, the 70 -210 appeared to have sharper centre and faster AF. Honestly, if you aren't shooting action and you don't need the faster AF, the 70-210 doesn't have much to offer over the 60-250, but for many action is an important thing. I do landscape and wildlife and very little action, and I'm staying with the 60-250. I use the 1.4 with the 60-250 and I'd really like a 1.7x. More not less.

The DA*60-250 is a stellar performer. If you were expecting better than a DA* you might have ben a little optimistic.

[Sandy Hancock]

I have both lenses (but my DA*60-250 is un-modified), and I much prefer the DFA70-210. The lower weight, narrower profile and lack of zoom extension make it a much better handling lens for my needs, and I have been extremely happy with the image quality. There are many fans of the DA*, but I just can't warm to it. The extreme focus breathing and glacial autofocus don't help matters.

If I want something longer than 210mm I would rather switch to the DA55-300PLM, or DFA150-450 if I'm getting really serious.

[biz-engineer]

After all, it is just a lens, nothing more

That is so true. Should lenses be cheaper than cameras? Pictures on our hard drives are not worth much. Even a lens at $300 is extremely expensive considering that $300 is the kind of money that can feed a human being for one year in Ethiopia.

---------- Post added 29-04-20 at 07:41 ----------

It's a thing in some parts of the forum that the Tamron version from which the Pentax was probably derived is cheaper than the Pentax, and that it shouldn't be, based on months of building a narrative here on the forum.

No quite. Please bear in mind that Tamron has designed their lens with manufacturing costs low enough to be able to make money out of it even at selling price down to $450. An OEM lens targeted at $1500 selling price is certainly not designed with the same cost saving approach (on choice of materials) than the Tamron lens designed for selling it at $450 and making money. So, while the Pentax D-FA 70-210 f4 is certainly a good lens from the outside look and how it compares to OEM alternatives, but it still is a $450 lens design... designed with low cost inner plastics and optics to turn a profit at $450. Take the Pentax D-FA* 70-200 f2.8, it's a completely difference class, sharpness edge to edge is a lot better, build quality is a lot better.

---------- Post added 29-04-20 at 07:45 ----------

The DA*60-250 is a stellar performer.

Optically stellar, but:
- designed for apsc (corner sharpness on FF is hum humm)
- autofocus slow like hell
- SDM reliability issues, you never know when it's going to break and how you are going to repair it or ditch it and get the D-FA 70-210 instead.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 04-28-2020 at 10:46 PM.

[MJKoski]

I actually cut Pentax version of 15-30/2.8 in half with a bandsaw. There is absolutely nothing different inside compared to lensrentals' tamron 15-30 teardown.

They are physically same lenses with different badges and gripping surface.

[simsburyphoto]

Essentially, the 70 -210 appeared to have sharper centre and faster AF. Honestly, if you aren't shooting action and you don't need the faster AF, the 70-210 doesn't have much to offer over the 60-250, but for many action is an important thing. I do landscape and wildlife and very little action, and I'm staying with the 60-250. I use the 1.4 with the 60-250 and I'd really like a 1.7x. More not less.

The DA*60-250 is a stellar performer. If you were expecting better than a DA* you might have ben a little optimistic.

For my shooting style I don't need the fast autofocus of the new 70-210, so I think I will stick with the 60-250. I just don't see that the upgrade to the new lens is worth $1100.00.

[bdery]

What I mean is that the 70-210 is very expensive compared to what you actually get. After all, it is just a lens, nothing more.

Of course, it's just a lens. The camera it is meant to be mounted on costs about twice as much still.

my concern is that any thread, including the comments section below a review, about the 70-210 will devolve the same way, which makes me somewhat reticent about bothering to put any effort into reviewing it.

The lens user review should be relatively free of highjacking.

I was thinking about getting the new 70-210 Pentax F4, but the Pentax Forum does not show it to be really any better than the Pentax DA 60-250 which I have already and is modified for full-frame with a 3-D printed baffle. Does anyone have both lenses and care to comment.

Essentially, the 70 -210 appeared to have sharper centre and faster AF. Honestly, if you aren't shooting action and you don't need the faster AF, the 70-210 doesn't have much to offer over the 60-250, but for many action is an important thing. I do landscape and wildlife and very little action, and I'm staying with the 60-250. I use the 1.4 with the 60-250 and I'd really like a 1.7x. More not less.

I have both lenses (but my DA*60-250 is un-modified), and I much prefer the DFA70-210. The lower weight, narrower profile and lack of zoom extension make it a much better handling lens for my needs, and I have been extremely happy with the image quality.

AF, center sharpness, weight, internal zooming are the main perks of the 70-210. None of these are easy to dismiss.

Bokeh, corner sharpness, range and rendering are the perks of the 60-250. None is easy to dismiss either. It becomes a matter of personal preference.

I actually cut Pentax version of 15-30/2.8 in half with a bandsaw. There is absolutely nothing different inside compared to lensrentals' tamron 15-30 teardown.

Is that seriously true?

Even though you see no differences does not mean there are none. Coatings, glass type and quality, electronic components, lens characterization, quality control, many things could be different.

Also, Pentax has been quite forthcoming about the fact that the 15-30 and 24-70 were licensed from Tamron. They haven't been about the 7-210.

[Wheatfield]

I intend to get out and do some shooting with my copy of it if spring ever arrives here in Wheatfieldland. I was more than a little disappointed when the thread about it in News and Rumors was allowed to be hijacked into a thread about the 60-250, and my concern is that any thread, including the comments section below a review, about the 70-210 will devolve the same way, which makes me somewhat reticent about bothering to put any effort into reviewing it.

I was thinking about getting the new 70-210 Pentax F4, but the Pentax Forum does not show it to be really any better than the Pentax DA 60-250 which I have already and is modified for full-frame with a 3-D printed baffle. Does anyone have both lenses and care to comment.

Thank you for making my point for me. I won't be bothering to write a review for the 70-210/4.

[MJKoski]

Yes I cut one in half with a bandsaw:



It was a seriously damaged lens which had no use.

[mbukal]

i don't have any of them, I used DFA * 70-200 / 2.8 (borrowed as slave equipment), reading reviews I selected for myself short and clear conclusions for 3 lenses (not my words but my brain registered and remembered them):

Pentax-DA * 60-250 / 4 ED [IF] SDM:
-Bokeh, corner sharpness, range and rendering are the perks of the 60-250. None is easy to dismiss either (great range and great sharpness over the whole range and width, changing length / size of body in operation,slow and hesitant AF )


Pentax-D FA 70-210 / 4 ED SDM WR:
- AF speed, center sharpness, weight, internal zooming are the main perks of the 70-210. None of these are easy to dismiss (smaller range, excellent center sharpness, no stretch when changing millimeter and focus, and high AF speed)

Pentax-D FA * 70-200 / 2.8 ED DC AW:
-Bokeh, rendering, AF speed, internal zooming, center sharpness, corner sharpness, large and heavy body, if you want the best but it has its price in many ways (superb sharpness across range and width, fast AF, beautiful bokeh, heavy and large, no stretch when changing millimeter and focus)

Pentax respected all the criteria according to the categorization of its lens, there is no perfect lens for everyone and everywhere

Pentaxians finally have the choice of FF telephoto lens options, cheers!

[leekil]

Yes I cut one in half with a bandsaw:

It was a seriously damaged lens which had no use.

I assumed you cut it the long way. I know that lens damage often has no obvious effect on the image quality, and was hoping for results with half a lens. 😸

[MJKoski]

I tried that but the glass was a bit too much for the sawband which snapped almost instantly. Anyway I took a further apart after the photo.

[mikesbike]

The news section states that many have picked up on this lens but there are only 3 users reviews on the lens database. Any more out there using this lens?

Are you interested in this lens for use on FF- obviously the K-1 or K-1 II? Or which other body would you intend to use it- obviously one of APS-C design?

[normhead]

Just cut to the chase, the weakness of the DA*60-250 are handling and an embarrassingly slow SDM motor.
The image qualities are similar, with the 70-210 being the more traditional Pentax design, centre sharp but not as good on the edges, yet still much better on the edges than many previous Pentax designs.

If I was shooting a lot of action hand held, this lens would be a no brainer. But I don't so it's not. To me, it's as simple as that.

[mtngal]

This is probably a dumb, basic question, but it has to do with my copy of the DFA 70-210. Mine front focuses a lot, and I finally got a setting that looks pretty good. A couple of days ago I tried the DA1.4 TC with it on the KP, and it seemed like it was very slightly back-focusing. I wonder if adding a TC would affect the focus point, or if the lens is a little back-focused. I’m not sure I will change the fine focus adjustment as it otherwise works well.