[normhead]

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

How do other camera companies handle the problem of failed motors?

Do they have screw drive conversion kits? DO they even make lenses that if the motto fails can be used with screw drive?

[RobA_Oz]

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.

Pentax Australia currently has the 70-210 at $1274 and the 60-250 at $1588, both on sale and in AUD, so it’s happened already. My 70-210 has suffered a drop in resale value as a result, but I don’t intend letting go of any time soon.

Interesting, too, looking at Norm’s referenced charts, that the 70-210 out-performs the 60-250 at the long end in particular, even sometimes on the edge. The 60-250 wins on those occasions only on the difference between centre and edge performance, but of course was only tested on an APS-C frame.

[Wheatfield]

Pentax Australia currently has the 70-210 at $1274 and the 60-250 at $1588, both on sale and in AUD, so it’s happened already. My 70-210 has suffered a drop in resale value as a result, but I don’t intend letting go of any time soon.

Interesting, too, looking at Norm’s referenced charts, that the 70-210 out-performs the 60-250 at the long end in particular, even sometimes on the edge. The 60-250 wins on those occasions only on the difference between centre and edge performance, but of course was only tested on an APS-C frame.

Buying a 60-250 for full frame use means buying used and playing Sudden Death Monte, or buying new and then killing the (much needed) warranty by doing surgery on it.
Either way, it's not a good choice.

[RobA_Oz]

Buying a 60-250 for full frame use means buying used and playing Sudden Death Monte, or buying new and then killing the (much needed) warranty by doing surgery on it.
Either way, it's not a good choice.

I don’t regret passing on the 60-250 ten years or so ago, and putting my money on an FA*80-200. What I lost in FL range I think I more than made up in other ways, including the maximum aperture, power zoom, quick manual-auto shift on focus and zoom and, not least, price. I know some here prefer the Tamron and Sigma zooms, but the FA* build gave me greater confidence, and still does. One of these days, I’ll find the time to compare it with the 70-210.

[Rondec]

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

I always thought it would a be a relatively simple firmware update to have a menu item that allowed you to select screwdrive for your SDM lenses that are capable of it. At this point they are gradually replacing them. I still have a DA *55 and DA *16-50 that have functional SDM (the 16-50 is over 10 years old), but I'm sure they won't last forever.

[normhead]

nteresting, too, looking at Norm’s referenced charts, that the 70-210 out-performs the 60-250 at the long end in particular, even sometimes on the edge. The 60-250 wins on those occasions only on the difference between centre and edge performance, but of course was only tested on an APS-C frame.

Funny how we can look at the same charts and come to different conclusions.

The way I use these charts is I look at how the lens performs against the graph divisions.

The 70-210 (at 200mm) is in the top quadrant, well never. This is not a direct comparison as they are different tests done by different people on different MP sensor and formats. SO this is one small clue and not a good one. The only test I really care about is bdery's where images are provided , the same sensor is used etc.

So in essence, I'm looking at charts that might help explain those results, not basing my opinion on the charts.


IN the 60-250 the lens is in the top division of the charts ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 centre and edge throughout it's entire range.

The 60-250 is what it is. I would never expect someone who previously rejected it to change their tune just because of something I posted. If you don't like the lens, you don't like the lens, for whatever reason.

On the other hand, for those of us who like the lens, we also aren't going to change our preference either. It just doesn't offer much, except focusing speed. Looking through bdery's test images, and comparisons there's nothing there to impress anyone who's comfortable with the speed of AF. I suspect it's case of making insignificant differences with the 60-250 having more range.

Once your used to the 60-250, any 70-210 is going to feel limited. 70 vs 60 meters severally restricts possible landscape use, and in the long end, 250mm will out perform 210mm and cropping.

To me, the 70-210 is a lens that was picked up because it was available. Looking at bdery's chart comparisons, it definitely isn't a whole lot better optically, it's a saw off, but it definitely has less range. It's all about what you value.

Personally I tend to gravitate towards fewer lens changes. The 60-250 is a very good compromise between it's 4:1 zoom and IQ. It's pushed the limits for what can be done. At 70-210 or 3:1, ya, almost anyone can build an excellent 3:1, zoom.

Bottom line, if you are fine with the AF speed you'd be missing something unique to Pentax going with a 70-210. But the 70-210 is necessary for those who need AF speed. AT 10 years old the 60-250 is definitely showing it's age. It was designed for much slower AF systems.

[Wheatfield]

I always thought it would a be a relatively simple firmware update to have a menu item that allowed you to select screwdrive for your SDM lenses that are capable of it. At this point they are gradually replacing them. I still have a DA *55 and DA *16-50 that have functional SDM (the 16-50 is over 10 years old), but I'm sure they won't last forever.

The original Sudden Death Motor Syndrome didn't affect every SDM lens, but it was a very significant malfunction in a much too high number of them. I think if you have ones that old, you probably won't have issues. I do think that if you have a lens that has Sudden Motor Death Syndrome, it is effectively an irreparable problem. The can replace the motor, but it's just going to happen again at some point.
My DA* 55/1.4 never gave me issues, my DA* 60-250 was junk.

[normhead]

The original Sudden Death Motor Syndrome didn't affect every SDM lens, but it was a very significant malfunction in a much too high number of them. I think if you have ones that old, you probably won't have issues. I do think that if you have a lens that has Sudden Motor Death Syndrome, it is effectively an irreparable problem. The can replace the motor, but it's just going to happen again at some point.
My DA* 55/1.4 never gave me issues, my DA* 60-250 was junk.

Ah yes another case of someone with an atypical experience who can't let go.

[candgpics]

My 16-50 needed two SDM repairs. One in warranty and one out of the warranty period a little, but Pentax covered it (this is several years ago). My 60-250 SDM also failed after about 9 months. Had it fixed under warranty. Sold both (with full disclosure).

I really liked both lenses. I know the 16-50 has a number of "so-so" reviews optically, but I liked the colors and it was sharp enough for me.

I also had a K-5 with oil spots easily visible at f/8 in portraits. Had that replaced.

So, I was not a happy camper for a while, but I "stayed" and I have not really had any problems with my many other Pentax lenses or cameras.

[normhead]

You mention a lens on this place and everyone tells you what's wrong with one they owned. That's not what the thread is about. Meanwhile the thousands of users out taking images with the lens are too busy to comment.

If we open a special forum for those who have had issues can you complain over there and leave the rest of us alone?

We're posting for people who might be interested in a DA*60-250. Not providing space for people to relate their negative experiences. Those are cross purposes. You're actually working against the purpose of the thread.

Everyone has heard all the stories. Anyone freaked out by SDM has had their say and time to vent. People are over it.
People who're freaked out have moved on, opeople a little less squeamish have stuck it out. There's not much they can learn from each other.

Or are you just going to trash the DA*60-250 every time it's mentioned forever?

How about this, start tracking the DA* 60-250 images posted in the various threads, and just put a little note in the thread pointing out to people that your lens didn't work and you've given up on it. I'm sure we'll all be just as thrilled with that as what you do now. That will wear you out pretty quick.

[candgpics]

Normhead it was not my intention to be anything but factual. If my post went off track or off topic I apologize.

I would note, respectfully, that I appreciate others who provide good and bad experiences, both optically and ergonomically, as well as regarding reliability.

It can be difficult to know how widespread the problem with SDM was given people tend to post negative experiences more frequently than positive ones.

I rely on this forum for a lot of information. I do not post as often as I would like, but I do try to be helpful when I can.

The 60-250 I had was a good lens optically. I used it mostly to take pictures of our boys' baseball / T-Ball games when they were little. Slowish to focus, but more than acceptable.

I take Mixed Martial Arts and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu photos generally now and I sold the 60-250 to buy a Sigma 70-200, which was ok. When full frame came about for Pentax I bought the D FA 70-200. A beast, but a little sharper I found than the 60-250 and a stop faster.

In any event, I do think knowing as much about a lens, particularly one which may be purchased used, and even if gently used, could present a problem which unfortunately did seem to affect a meaningfully significant number of people (albeit in an unscientific sampling).

Having said the above, I really do enjoy reading your posts. You are very knowledgeable and your posts, along with that of a few particular other forum members, are ones I look forward to reading.

Hope you are well and staying safe.

[normhead]

Well thanks for that.
It has never been established that the DA*60-250 has a higher failure rate than industry standards would predict.

Is it really necessary for every discussion of every lens to have a bunch of people saying "mine broke" and possibly a number of others saying "I'v had mine 10 years and it's still working fine?"

Does that really need to come up every time a lens is mentioned?

It is my suggestion, that it doesn't.

I have absolutely no problem with people being warned off inferior product, once it has been reliably established they are an inferior product.
However since all lenses will eventually fail, I'd suggest the possibility of a lens failure should be taken as given. For every lens. If there are specific lenses that are more prone to failure then warnings are appropriate. And people start threads on those lenses. But unless there is evidence that a specific lens has an unusually high failure rate it's assumed information, that doesn't need to be repeated every time a lens is mentioned.

We've had failures of DFA*50s, DFA*70-200s, you can almost predict the number of failures will increase with the popularity of the lens and the number of copies sold. But, there absolutely no sense in dwelling on that information after maybe a generic statement that any lens may fail where appropriate. We really don't have to break it down in to reports of every lens failure In every thread.

My own advice is test every new lens you buy, put it through it's paces, if it's not 100% acceptable return it. That goes for every lens. But there is no evidence the DA*60-250 should be singled out or needs special attention, at least not that I'm aware of.

[RobA_Oz]

Funny how we can look at the same charts and come to different conclusions.

I’ve just noticed that the test chart you referenced for the 70-210 was actually the one at 135, not 210mm, so it’s no wonder our conclusions appeared different.

The 210 chart is here:

Still, on that basis, at 210mm the 70-210 in the centre resolves about 2200 LW/PH at f4 and peaks at f8-11 with about 2600 LW/PH (estimating from the chart, as no table accompanies it), while at 200mm, the 60-250 gives 2018 and 2254 respectively, falling to 2034 at f11. We can’t reliably account for the slightly different focal lengths by interpolating between 200 and 250 for the DA* lens, but at 250mm its resolution is lower everywhere than at 200mm.

The edge performance is a different story, of course, and for the above focal lengths the 60-250 comes in at 1957 (f4) and 2099 LW/PH (f8) while the 70-210 has 1750 (f4) and 2400 LW/PH (f8). So, the 60-250 performs better than the 70-210 at the edge, wide open, but not stopped down. As I noted previously, the edge of the APS-C frame isn’t the same as for the full 35mm frame, and I’d expect the performance of the 60-250 to drop off further, there, as it wasn’t designed for that.

IQ isn’t just about peak resolution, or even across the frame, naturally. I feel that the 70-210 lags a bit in colour rendition compared with my Star and Limited lenses, but I didn’t pay the price at which I’d expect it, for a full-frame lens.

Getting back to the OP’s topic, I notice that the DA*60-250 is marked as low stock at Pentax Australia, so maybe they’re running low and looking at a refresh of that lens, also.

[Wheatfield]

Getting back to the OP’s topic, I notice that the DA*60-250 is marked as low stock at Pentax Australia, so maybe they’re running low and looking at a refresh of that lens, also.

It would be nice if they could take that glass and build a decent lens around it.

[RobA_Oz]

It would be nice if they could take that glass and build a decent lens around it.

On that basis, a refresh of the 60-250 should be easier than what they’re doing with the 16-50 (new body, new AF drive, new glass?).