[Paulo]

Hi everyone,

I'm considering buying the dfa 70-210 f4 lens for my KP but unfortunately I am still struggling with the thought of how this lens works on a dense matrix. Here on the forum I read a review where it says that it is "comparable with da*60-250", others in turn write that this glass does not cope with apsc. Do you have any personal experiences with this combination?
I need something less prone to flares than da*60-250. DA55-300 PLM is not an option for me due to lack of good (in my personal view) rendition.

Regards,
Paulo

[CristiC]

Hi Paulo,

I have the Pentax KP too. The image quality that I got from my DA 55-300mm lens was less than I wanted. I did not want the Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 because of its weight and I was ok with something like F4 and usable on both the full frame K1 and the KP. My experience with the DFA 70-210 on the KP is very satisfactory. More lens reviews here: HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

---------- Post added 08-23-22 at 10:20 PM ----------

"... this glass does not cope with apsc" is plain wrong. Generally speaking, modern lenses that are made to cover the greater image circle for full-frame (24mm x 36mm) are perfectly working on cameras that need a smaller image circle, covering the smaller APSC sensor too. The edges and corners look better on APSC than on full-frame. The resolving power of the D FA 70-210 F4 is very high, definitely good enough for the megapixel count of the KP sensor.

The in-depth article about this lens is here: HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews See page 12 for aberrations.

[UncleVanya]

I’ve shot with both (KP & A7RIII/Monster LA-KE1) I think the DA* is a slight bit sharper but the D FA isn’t bad on high density sensors at all. I do like my 55-300 PLM however so my judgment may not be as critical as yours.

[Des]

I’ve shot with both (KP & A7RIII/Monster LA-KE1) I think the DA* is a slight bit sharper but the D FA isn’t bad on high density sensors at all.

This is similar to the findings of a PF staff comparison (at 70mm and 210mm on FF), which found the DFA 70-210 f4 slightly sharper in the centre at wide apertures, but the (modified) DA*60-250 f4 sharper in the corners at 70mm and in the edges at 210mm: HD Pentax-D FA 70-210mm F4 ED SDM WR Review - Sharpness Comparison with the DA* 60-250mm | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The reviewer's comment is "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."

DA55-300 PLM is not an option for me due to lack of good (in my personal view) rendition.

Each to their own, but I've been happy with mine.

Not in the same class as a Limited, but pretty good for a consumer zoom.

---

Last edited by Des; 08-23-2022 at 04:07 PM.

[bdery]

The only reason why a lens couldn't "cope" with APS-C would be if a high-pixel-density sensor was reaching the resolution limit of the lens. That's not the case here. The 70-210mm is a fine lens, as I wrote in its review.

If it's the lens you want, use it with confidence.

[Paulo]

Thanks to All Now I can look at the purchase with higer level of confidence.

[Madaboutpix]

I need something less prone to flares than da*60-250. DA55-300 PLM is not an option for me due to lack of good (in my personal view) rendition.

Coming from the smc DA55-300, and having experienced what a marked improvement the HD DA55-300 PLM can bring, I've always wondered why anybody should feel compelled to spend double the price for the DFA70-210 on APS-C. If rendition is supposed to be the carrot, I kindly doubt that a 20-element optical design will beat a lens with considerably less glass in it (14 elements) by any meaningful margin. As for bokeh, you may get a little more of it from the DFA, given that it's a constant F4, but as a modern lens, the PLM is good enough optically to be shot wide open, and even slightly stopped down, the bokeh is not half as bad as people might be expecting. Otherwise the images from the PLM have a nice pop to them, maybe not quite Limited-level but perfectly fine for a consumer zoom, and I don't have to lug around a lens that would be too bulky for my travel-light-and-just-enjoy-photography bag. Plus, I get to enjoy the fastest and most confidently focusing Pentax zoom that I've ever used. What is not to like?

Excellent tonality even for demanding black-and-white situations (PLM on K-3 at 150 mm, F7.1; lightly processed to taste in PhotoLab / Silver Efex Pro):



Beautiful colours, snappy microcontrast, and actually quite pleasing bokeh in harsh midday sidelight (PLM on K-3 at 135 mm, F7.1; lightly processed to taste in PhotoLab):



Did I mention that the PLM also delivers considerable close-up fun (on K-3 at 300 mm, F7.1; lightly processed to taste in PhotoLab)?

---

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 08-24-2022 at 01:52 PM. Reason: More info on settings.

[Rondec]

Coming from the smc DA55-300, and having experienced what a marked improvement the HD DA55-300 PLM can bring, I've always wondered why anybody should feel compelled to spend double the price for the DFA70-210 on APS-C. If rendition is supposed to be the carrot, I kindly doubt that a 20-element optical design will beat a lens with considerably less glass in it (14 elements) by any meaningful margin. As for bokeh, you may get a little more of it from the DFA, given that it's a constant F4, but as a modern lens, the PLM is good enough optically to be shot wide open, and even slightly stopped down, the bokeh is not half as bad as people might be expecting. Otherwise the images from the PLM have a nice pop to them, maybe not quite Limited-level but perfectly fine for a consumer zoom, and I don't have to lug around a lens that would be too bulky for my travel-light-and-just-enjoy-photography bag. Plus, I get to enjoy the fastest and most confidently focusing Pentax zoom that I've ever used. What is not to like?

Excellent tonality even for demanding black-and-white situations (PLM on K-3 at 150 mm, F7.1; lightly processed to taste in PhotoLab / Silver Efex Pro):



Beautiful colours, snappy microcontrast, and actually quite pleasing bokeh in harsh midday sidelight (PLM on K-3 at 135 mm, F7.1; lightly processed to taste in PhotoLab):



Did I mention that the PLM also delivers considerable close-up fun (on K-3 at 300 mm, F7.1; lightly processed to taste in PhotoLab)?

I think the reasons why someone might consider the 70-210 as an upgrade over the 55-300 PLM would be for the faster aperture and to have something that would be usable on full frame if they chose to go that direction in the future. I think the max aperture for the 55-300 is f5.6 at 200mm, while obviously the 70-210 is f4. That is a stop difference and while it isn't huge, it should help if you are shooting in lower light and need to keep your iso down.

Obviously the 55-300 PLM is a really nice lens and cheap for what it is. There are still reasons to consider a constant f4 zoom in a similar range.

[Des]

I think the max aperture for the 55-300 is f5.6 at 200mm, while obviously the 70-210 is f4. That is a stop difference and while it isn't huge, it should help if you are shooting in lower light and need to keep your iso down.

And for the smoother bokeh and greater subject separation obtainable with a wider aperture, of course. I guess what prompted the responses from me and @madaboutpix was that the OP ruled out the PLM because of its "rendition". The point is that image quality is surprisingly good and with the greater range, more compact size, fast AF, lighter weight (442g v 891g) and lower price it's an attractive package. A number of users have also found it quite usable on FF. To get similar reach with the 70-210 you would need to add the 1.4x TC (for an effective 294mm f5.6), which adds to the cost and is something else to carry.

One downside of the PLM is that the plastic barrel is a bit fragile. I have broken it off at the base with a small drop (luckily it was repairable). The DFA 70-210 also has a plastic barrel, although it may be less vulnerable as it doesn't extend when zoomed.

[GaryM]

I think the reasons why someone might consider the 70-210 as an upgrade over the 55-300 PLM would be for the faster aperture and to have something that would be usable on full frame if they chose to go that direction in the future. I think the max aperture for the 55-300 is f5.6 at 200mm, while obviously the 70-210 is f4. That is a stop difference and while it isn't huge, it should help if you are shooting in lower light and need to keep your iso down.

Obviously the 55-300 PLM is a really nice lens and cheap for what it is. There are still reasons to consider a constant f4 zoom in a similar range.

Internal focus and zoom are nice features on the 70-210 also. The PLM is a trombone in comparison.

[Wheatfield]

Hi everyone,

I'm considering buying the dfa 70-210 f4 lens for my KP but unfortunately I am still struggling with the thought of how this lens works on a dense matrix. Here on the forum I read a review where it says that it is "comparable with da*60-250", others in turn write that this glass does not cope with apsc. Do you have any personal experiences with this combination?
I need something less prone to flares than da*60-250. DA55-300 PLM is not an option for me due to lack of good (in my personal view) rendition.

Regards,
Paulo

There isn't a barge pole long enough nor enough alcohol in the world to get me stupid enough to touch another 60-250.
The glass is nice, but good luck keeping the AF working. In the 8 years I owned one it had a trip to Japan for repairs as it couldn't be fixed in Canada, was always a bit touchy, and cost me pretty much the price I sold it for to repair it for the guy who bought it from me.
Save yourself the heartache and buy the 70-210. At least you can be more sure it won't break. The 60-250 is a time bomb.

[UncleVanya]

There isn't a barge pole long enough nor enough alcohol in the world to get me stupid enough to touch another 60-250.
The glass is nice, but good luck keeping the AF working. In the 8 years I owned one it had a trip to Japan for repairs as it couldn't be fixed in Canada, was always a bit touchy, and cost me pretty much the price I sold it for to repair it for the guy who bought it from me.
Save yourself the heartache and buy the 70-210. At least you can be more sure it won't break. The 60-250 is a time bomb.

I understand why you feel that way, but I can count on one hand the number of 60-250 users who have come out and said they had an sdm problem. That lens has been far more reliable than most. Mine has never given me any trouble. Maybe I’m lucky, but so are most owners. I think your personal experience, which admittedly seems bad, colors your perceptions.

---------- Post added 08-27-22 at 09:09 PM ----------

To be fair I am also guilty of letting my experience color my perceptions. But my experience seems more topical than yours.