[HoundFrog]

I want something of about that focal lengths (fov really) for landscapes and cityscapes. No wildlife or action. I want resolution, and colors. I don't care about f-numbers less than 8.

D-FA 70-210/4 is an obvious choice BUT I really care about bigger zoom range with 60-250, wide end especially. Slow AF is somethig I can live with.

But will 60-250 deliver? Should I buy it to just convert it immediatelly to FF? Or the IQ will never compete to D-FA (soft edges etc) ?

Many people made the conversion and seem to be happy, but they probably had the lens already. Is the 60-250 worth buying for FF only?

[aslyfox]

@HoundFrog

have you reviewed this article yet ?

How to Modify the DA* 60-250mm F4 for Full Frame
By bdery in Articles and Tips on Nov 5, 2017

. . . In our tests, the vignetting measurements with the modified baffles in FF mode show stronger vignetting than with the lens used in APS-C mode, but also show that the black corners generated by the original baffle are gone. The best results are obtained with the round baffle, with the cutout version showing slightly darker corners. In all cases, the darkened corners are easy to correct via post-processing.

Sharpness results show that the modification does not decrease the resolution figures. In absolute terms, the cutout version appears to perform slightly better, but for all practical purposes there are no differences between the modified baffles and the original one.

One drawback of such a modification is that the user loses the automatic in-lens corrections when using the lens in full frame mode. The same is true of any DA lens used on FF, with the exception of the officially-supported DA* 200mm, DA* 300mm, and DA 560mm. Fortunately, these corrections can be applied after the fact, and many programs automate this process during import, but it is still something to bear in mind.

To summarize, any user interested in modifying the DA* 60-250mm can do so with confidence, knowing that the result will be fully functional full frame lens with no degraded optical performance. Since Pentax does not currently offer a compact telephoto zoom for full frame, a modified 60-250mm is the perfect solution.

Modifying the DA* 60-250mm F4 for Full Frame - Conclusion - In-Depth Articles

[bdery]

I want something of about that focal lengths (fov really) for landscapes and cityscapes. No wildlife or action. I want resolution, and colors. I don't care about f-numbers less than 8.

D-FA 70-210/4 is an obvious choice BUT I really care about bigger zoom range with 60-250, wide end especially. Slow AF is somethig I can live with.

But will 60-250 deliver? Should I buy it to just convert it immediatelly to FF? Or the IQ will never compete to D-FA (soft edges etc) ?

Many people made the conversion and seem to be happy, but they probably had the lens already. Is the 60-250 worth buying for FF only?

Hi!

Short answer : the 60-250mm converted to full frame will indeed deliver. The main advantage of the 70-210 is faster AF (and designed for full frame from the start of course).

In the 70-210mm review I specifically compare the two lenses. Long story short, I expected to replace my 60-250 with the 70-210 but after comparing, I ended up keeping the 60-250.

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

[HoundFrog]

@HoundFrog

have you reviewed this article yet ?



Modifying the DA* 60-250mm F4 for Full Frame - Conclusion - In-Depth Articles

Of course. The sharpness tests look a little bit weird to me, for 250 it's sometimes better in corner than in center. So I decided the test was flawed and conclusions are questionable.

[aslyfox]

Of course. . .

you can never tell what information has been reviewed by a poster

[biz-engineer]

D-FA 70-210/4 is an obvious choice BUT I really care about bigger zoom range with 60-250, wide end especially. Slow AF is somethig I can live with.

With the 60-250 there is a risk of SDM failure (AF motor reliability). With the 70-210, AF motoring is proven solid (Tamron tech). If it was me, I had two SDM reliability issues, I'd not even bother with the 60-250 now that the 70-210 is available. I bought the 70-210 and I find it very good.

[UncleVanya]

With the 60-250 there is a risk of SDM failure (AF motor reliability). With the 70-210, AF motoring is proven solid (Tamron tech). If it was me, I had two SDM reliability issues, I'd not even bother with the 60-250 now that the 70-210 is available. I bought the 70-210 and I find it very good.

The rare sdm failure with a 60-250 isn’t much to worry about in my opinion. On a 50-135 or 16-50 the failures seem more prevalent. The downside is that you can’t covert a 60-250 to screw drive. But other lens motors fail just less commonly and I’d guess that sdm failure of the 60-250 is in line with other motors not higher like other sdm lenses.

The sdm might be a tad slower focusing in less great lighting which is a bigger concern.

The focus breathing is huge on the 60-250 which erodes the extra mm in shooting at distances less than 4m and slightly undermines it at less than 10m. At longer distances it isn’t an issue.

The size and weight and lack of internal zoom make the 60-250 more awkward - albeit easier to pack into a smaller space.

If you get a 60-250 - try to get one with the taller lens foot. They were sold with both and the shorter one is more awkward to use. The shorter one fits better on the da* 300 and K to Q adapter.

[HoundFrog]

70-210 good no doubt, but FOV-wise the 60 is about 15% wider. That's the main argument. SDM, well.. I see your point. Yes, the new lens has several advantages, it's also lighter and has internal zooming. But 70 is just not wide enough sometimes.

In fact I'd be happy with something like 35-210, but this range fell out of popularity long time ago. No such thing now.

[bdery]

So I decided the test was flawed and conclusions are questionable.

I resent that comment but you're free to form your opinion of course.

[HoundFrog]

If you get a 60-250 - try to get one with the taller lens foot. They were sold with both

Never heard of that, thanks.


Did you have a chance to compare 60-250 and 70-210 directly?

---------- Post added 02-11-22 at 07:19 PM ----------

I resent that comment but you're free to form your opinion of course.

I checked the resolution pictutures provided there and I found results inconsistent: for 250 there's no decrease from center to corner. This does not make sense.

[Michaelina2]

For 70-210 vs. 60-250 behaviors (personality traits?) NOT mentioned in PF's review of the 70-210, you might find Rush2112's blog comments of some interest. He paired the K-3 MkIII to the DFA 70-210, in one instance, and the DA* 60-250 in another.

Scroll down to his section “Choosing the Right Lens is Essential.”

PHOTOGRAPHIC CENTRAL: Pentax K3 Mk III Review Series 2

In a nutshell, he favors the DA* 60-250 over the DFA 70-210. Examine his observations/rationale and draw your own conclusions.

Cheers... M

BTW: My 70-210 experiences match his when paired to the K-3 MkIII and K-1 MkII.

[Sakura]

I have converted my 60-250 and still loves it. Converting it isn't rocket science as long as you take care of what you are doing an following the instructions/tutorials. I used a 3d printed baffel and prefer it above simply removing the default baffel.
Be aware of the glue you use, i used black E6000 glue

3D part for Pentax 60-250 zoom? - PentaxForums.com

[HoundFrog]

PHOTOGRAPHIC CENTRAL: Pentax K3 Mk III Review Series 2

In a nutshell, he favors the DA* 60-250 over the DFA 70-210. Examine his observations/rationale and draw your own conclusions.

Cheers... M

BTW: My 70-210 experiences match his when paired to the K-3 MkIII and K-1 MkII.

Well, K-3 is a crop camera so I am not surprised 60-25 performs well with it.


K-1 MKII is another story. Thanks for sharing your personal experience.

[sbh]

I converted mine with a 3D printed baffle. The edges are softer than the centre. Especially when pixelshifting.

But what bothers me most is a strong contrast and colour loss at brighter backgrounds like bright skies. Nasty flare. Perhaps it is caused by the material of the baffle which has not a velvet-like surface. It’s a plain plastic Surface. I want to test the original for comparison but have little time currently.

The only other lens I tested was the 150-450 which is overall better but does not have the peak sharpness in the aps-c area.

[TedH42]

I converted mine with a 3D printed baffle. The edges are softer than the centre. Especially when pixelshifting.

But what bothers me most is a strong contrast and colour loss at brighter backgrounds like bright skies. Nasty flare. Perhaps it is caused by the material of the baffle which has not a velvet-like surface. It’s a plain plastic Surface. I want to test the original for comparison but have little time currently.

I also suspect the surface of your baffle. I made my baffle with high-quality coarse sandpaper (doesn't shed granules) spray-painted with ultra-flat black. This is an old method common in user-built astronomical telescope equipment. I see none of the problems that you are experiencing. Sticky-back velvet paper is also available from astronomical sources, to add to your current baffle, but may shed more than the sandpaper method.