[klika]

Yes, the non-IS version is quite cheap. But don't forget, the 70-200 is a commodity computation, whereas the 60-250 not only sports the same fixed aperture over a wider focal range (4.2x zoom factor versus 2.9x for the Canon), but is also a brand new optical formulation.

What new optical formula? Who cares? I don`t care what`s under the hood as long as I win races.........
I really don`t give a s*** if there are 156 elements in 78 groups, I DO CARE about IQ.

I still find the Pentax offering is priced affordably and sensibly.

No comment.

[AndrewG NY]

You can compare against the Canon 70-200 L f/4 but I think most will agree that (especially the Non-IS version) is an unusual and somewhat unique bargain. There aren't too many pieces that are really equivalent either. Olympus 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 might be considered a comparable piece for 4/3 shooters, I guess. And like it or not, preserving image quality over a longer range can result in a more complicated and expensive (and even heavier) optical formula. The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is also priced at over $1000. It is somewhat likely that the street price of the 60-250 may drop a bit after early adopters grab up the first batches but I would expect it to remain fairly expensive.

[Ben_Edict]

The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is also priced at over $1000. It is somewhat likely that the street price of the 60-250 may drop a bit after early adopters grab up the first batches but I would expect it to remain fairly expensive.

Andrew, I think, the Sigma 100-300/4 is indeed a good comparisson for the Pentax. The Pentax starts a bit on the shorter side and ends on the shorter side, too, which can easily be explained to accomodate for the APS-C crop-factor. And luckily it is smaller and lighter than the Sigma, too. Let's hope, that the optical quality is quite as good!

Ben

[klika]

Is 60-250 FF compatible?

[dadipentak]

Take "available" with a grain of salt. I ordered my Sigma 70-200mm in April but they didn't actually have it in stock. It didn't arrive until September.