[bdery]

So IMO what Ricoh said makes sense, and implies they feel the 60-250 is curently a "consumer grade" zoom, which is what the new 70-210/4 is.

The Pentax comment was that, when adapted for FF, it stopped meeting their criteria for STAR lenses. It's certainly STAR on APS-C.

I think what it really came down to for Pentax is it was simply easier to rejigger the Tamron 70-210 than it would have been to take the 60-250 and revise it cosmetically, fit a new motor (would that require an adjustment to the optical design?) and, well, revise the optics anyway because they needed the lens to do much better than the 60-250's 1:7 maximum magnification ratio.

The 70-210's corner performances are not as good as those of the 60-250, so it cannot be a star lens.

[jatrax]

The Pentax comment was that, when adapted for FF, it stopped meeting their criteria for STAR lenses. It's certainly STAR on APS-C.

I would agree with that. On APS-C it is a wonderful lens and worth the * designation. Except for the slow AF motor. On FF it is a good lens, more than acceptable in most situations, but not * quality.

[normhead]

I know what Pentax is saying, but sometimes I think they probably have a long discussion with engineering marketing and sales people, come to a decision, and then come up with a simple catch phrase to describe a long involved process.
The second thing is standards have been tightened up. It wouldn't be wise to assume a DA* will meet DFA* standards. They are different.

A lens I have long been critical of, the DA*16-50 based on wide open edge performance is being done. If memory serves me well it was one of the first DA* lenses. Clearly with the redevelopment of the 16-50 focal length we could argue that it never met even the old DA* standards wide open.

But to me, in the old 10 MP days the DA*60-250 is stellar, maintaining both centre and edge sharpness all through its range.
https://opticallimits.com/images/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_60250_4/mtf.png

Maybe they aren't updating the 60-250 simply because they can still sell it. Why fix what isn't broke?

I don't have comparative data, but from what I have the 70-210 may not be as sharp at 200mm as the 60-250. At least the ePhotozine images show it's 210 chart to be easily it's weakest. It looks like a lens of opportunity, and a desire to cherry pick the best of what Tamron has to offer, as opposed to part of the Pentax design development program.

The 70-210- at 210mm
https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/HD-PentaxD-FA-...1585126606.jpg

That is simply not a star quality lens.

Unfortunately, with it's APS-c designation, I can't find FF tests that would let me do an actual comparison. bdery's excellent review is the only source. And honestly, since I use my 60-250 for both wildlife and landscape, I look at the 210 corner comparison and think I'd be taking a step back with the 70-210. The DA* may not meet DFA standards, but for what I do, it's till better than the 70-210. Maybe it should be a DFA half star or something.

With the announcement of the DA*16-50, I seriously suspect all the DA* lenses will be updated to deal with 24 MP. After all, most of those lenses were designed for 10 MP sensors. You can see where the lens charts are available, that a lens that was excellent every where like the DA*60-250, starts to show it's weaknesses at 24 MP. That is going to be an issue in coming years. And with it's fall off at 200mm, for those of us used to the DA*60-250 being almost identical to the DA*200 at 200mm, we've come to expect better than the performance of the 70-210 at 200mm...

The sensors are better, lenses that were awesome at 10 MP are not nearly as good at 24 MP and 36 MP. But only having one quality big heavy lens for 70-200 2.8 in the star category, is not a good plan for users like myself, who want quality at ƒ4.

The question should be, not about the DA*60-250's quality. It should be about why there isn't a replacement for the 60-250 ƒ4, for those of us who want good sharp ƒ4 glass. The chart for the 70-210 is truly disappointing. Especially given that on my 60-250, which seems to maintain IQ from 60-250 on a 10 MP camera, you would think there would need to be a similar 24-36 MP version. The fall off on the 70-210 as it approaches 210mm is simply unacceptable, for wildlife, landscape guys like myself. Especially since I make use of TCs. They are going to make you use your TC at the weakest part of the lens. SO while this kind of fall off is pretty common in the Tamron/Sigma world, with the DA*60-250 I came to expect/demand better.

It must have been optimized for sports shooters or something.

At this point, if my DA*60-250 were to fail I'd buy another one.

[pres589]

I have this weird assumption that the Pentax branded 70-210 won't be in production for many years like a lot of lenses are. It definitely seems like a situation where Ricoh said "eh, we probably could move some amount of these while we come up with something better". If I were in the market for the 70-210 or 60-250, I would find the money or financing required to step up to the 60-250.

I've wondered if the 16-50 mk2 is coming because the mk1 is out of production and they'd rather make real improvements & reduce warranty claims for busted focusing motors this time around instead of starting up the production of the mk1 for another run. I still cannot believe how much this lens costs brand new, even today. $750ish USD for the thing from the big NY store whereas they're asking less than half that for the Sigma 17-50 in k-mount. I hope the mk2 version is not so costly but I've no reason to think it would be.

[normhead]

I have this weird assumption that the Pentax branded 70-210 won't be in production for many years like a lot of lenses are. It definitely seems like a situation where Ricoh said "eh, we probably could move some amount of these while we come up with something better". If I were in the market for the 70-210 or 60-250, I would find the money or financing required to step up to the 60-250.

I've wondered if the 16-50 mk2 is coming because the mk1 is out of production and they'd rather make real improvements & reduce warranty claims for busted focusing motors this time around instead of starting up the production of the mk1 for another run. I still cannot believe how much this lens costs brand new, even today. $750ish USD for the thing from the big NY store whereas they're asking less than half that for the Sigma 17-50 in k-mount. I hope the mk2 version is not so costly but I've no reason to think it would be.

In all probability it will be more costly. That's a given.

[Wheatfield]

Not going to happen according to a Pentax rep I talked to. Japan headquarters engineers tested it and it didn't meet their standards for a STAR lens on FF. I tend to disagree, as I've shown in my review of the DFA 70-210 (when comparing to the 60-250) but that's the company's opinion.

The company probably knows more of what they are talking about.

---------- Post added Jun 23rd, 2020 at 11:17 AM ----------

I would agree with that. On APS-C it is a wonderful lens and worth the * designation. Except for the slow AF motor. On FF it is a good lens, more than acceptable in most situations, but not * quality.

Well, the slow Sudden Death Motor, that is. It's a pretty decent lens optically, though the focus breathing hobbles it. What really hobbles it is the AF. When it can be coaxed to life it's slow, and it is very unreliable about working at all.
My copy was never any good as an AF lens. It died shortly after I bought it, and then it died shortly after I sold it.
It is a brutally bad lens. It's nice optics does not make up for it's unreliable AF.
Perhaps Ricoh is tired of it and intends to do the right thing and kill it.

[bdery]

On FF it is a good lens, more than acceptable in most situations, but not * quality.

I personally disagree. Its sharpness is more even than the 70-210, a DFA lens to start with. Bokeh is not impacted by modifying for FF, colours are the same. Sharpness is important, but all the other perks of the 60-250 are still there.

To me it's a STAR lens in any situation. I simply wish auto vignetting was available.

I know what Pentax is saying, but sometimes I think they probably have a long discussion with engineering marketing and sales people, come to a decision, and then come up with a simple catch phrase to describe a long involved process.

That's certainly likely.

The second thing is standards have been tightened up. It wouldn't be wise to assume a DA* will meet DFA* standards. They are different.

That might also be true.

Maybe it should be a DFA half star or something.

You got me smilinng here

The chart for the 70-210 is truly disappointing.

It didn't feel disappointing to me. It's definitely biased towards the center.

Especially since I make use of TCs. They are going to make you use your TC at the weakest part of the lens. SO while this kind of fall off is pretty common in the Tamron/Sigma world, with the DA*60-250 I came to expect/demand better.

With the 60-250, as you know I've tested the F 1.7x AF TC and got impressive results (for the record, I've gotten sharper images when disabling the SR system).

At this point, if my DA*60-250 were to fail I'd buy another one.

Likewise.

I have this weird assumption that the Pentax branded 70-210 won't be in production for many years like a lot of lenses are. It definitely seems like a situation where Ricoh said "eh, we probably could move some amount of these while we come up with something better".

I don't think so. Even when they don't do the design, there's a huge amount of time and money involved in standardizing a new product. They'll keep it in the lineup as long as they can, I think.

[mirocal]

After so much waiting and anticipation for DFA 70-210/4 - the glass to absolutely fill the last gap - Pentax hard core zeroed on the next target: why Pentax didn't re-release an DA 60-250/4 instead? Of course assumptions and one test of one sample make up for the whole construction.
Just like others I waited eagerly for the lens, unlike most I actually got it - and find it totally lives up to my expectations. Not only the long end wide open is excellent (better than DA 200/2.8 at f/4), but it is so in the most extreme conditions where internal zoom and focus ensure no water or dust is sucked in. I have no regrets for not getting a de-baffled DA 60-250/4; with the DFA 70-210/4 - Pentax did the right thing.

[normhead]

Not only the long end wide open is excellent (better than DA 200/2.8 at f/4),

For that you'd have to show me examples before I'd be likely to internalize that.

Epohtozine has the DA*200 #1 on their list. The 70-210 is #4. The DA* was tested years ago on smaller sensor. As with all these kinds of rankings, the results are a little wonky looked at by someone who knows the brand. But still some kind of verification is needed,

I'm happy to believe it gets style points for faster focus than the DA*s (200 and 60-250) and lighter weight than the 60-250, but those are not big concerns of mine.

[Wheatfield]

After so much waiting and anticipation for DFA 70-210/4 - the glass to absolutely fill the last gap - Pentax hard core zeroed on the next target: why Pentax didn't re-release an DA 60-250/4 instead? Of course assumptions and one test of one sample make up for the whole construction.
Just like others I waited eagerly for the lens, unlike most I actually got it - and find it totally lives up to my expectations. Not only the long end wide open is excellent (better than DA 200/2.8 at f/4), but it is so in the most extreme conditions where internal zoom and focus ensure no water or dust is sucked in. I have no regrets for not getting a de-baffled DA 60-250/4; with the DFA 70-210/4 - Pentax did the right thing.

And just think, you won't have to pay for repeated Sudden Death Motor syndrome with the 70-210.

[steamloco76]

And just think, you won't have to pay for repeated Sudden Death Motor syndrome with the 70-210.

My DA* 60-250/4 quits AF at the most inopportune times. Very, very aggravating. It happens much more often on my K5iis than the KP. I have to quickly flip the AF switch on the camera to manual, then back to AF and THEN shut the camera off and turn it back on to revive AF. The forum member who sold me this lens neglected to mention this more than small issue. I really love the lens other than the AF issue. Shame nobody can crack the close to make the 60/250 operate in screwdrive mode.

[Wheatfield]

My DA* 60-250/4 quits AF at the most inopportune times. Very, very aggravating. It happens much more often on my K5iis than the KP. I have to quickly flip the AF switch on the camera to manual, then back to AF and THEN shut the camera off and turn it back on to revive AF. The forum member who sold me this lens neglected to mention this more than small issue. I really love the lens other than the AF issue. Shame nobody can crack the close to make the 60/250 operate in screwdrive mode.

Mine was working when I sold it but arrived at its new home DOA. My conscience wouldn't allow me to do that to a person so I ended up paying for it to be repaired.
It's got nice glass, but the junk AF makes it a non starter for me. I wouldn't touch another one with a barge pole. The 70-210 looks like it should work the way it's supposed to in the long haul with the new AF motor.
The smartest thing Ricoh could do with the 60-250 is put it out of it's misery.

[Rondec]

I think the whole point of the 70-210 was to get a faster focusing full frame lens into the lineup. Changing the baffle wouldn’t have done anything for the SDM on the 60-250 and changing the motor would have been significantly more expensive.

In the end the street price of the 70-210 will be less than the 60-250 and that will be enough to move copies.

[Rondec]

B and H has the 60-250 for 1300 dollars right now. I can't imagine with a re-do of the lens -- taking out screw drive and replacing SDM with a DC motor and replacing the baffle that the lens sells for less than 1500 dollars. And that's without any optical fixing. The current price of the 70-210 is 1100 dollars, but that should drop over the coming months and I would guess something in the 900 dollar range is what is in the cards.

Ricoh knows that people won't pay 1500 dollars for a non-star f4 telezoom in this range which is why they contracted it out to Tamron. It makes sense to me.

Do I hope they someday improve the AF motor on the 60-250? Sure. But I don't ever see them marketing it as a full frame lens, even if it could be.

[monochrome]

Too bad they (probably) won’t ever publish a tool or something enabling screwdrive conversion