Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2009, 02:58 PM   #136
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
For a lens that is only f/4 and is so big and so expensive, it seems odd to me that so many people have been waiting for it so eagerly.
I think people were eagerly awaiting it back when they thought it might cost $700-900. With this launch price, I'm afraid many potential buyers might opt for a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC combo, which will cost under $850. Also, given the current economic climate, I think Pentax is going to have stockpiles of this lens filling the back of its warehouse because nobody will be able to afford it.

01-12-2009, 03:04 PM   #137
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
Errr.... I use the verb to get, not in the sense to acquire, but in the sense intended by the original poster, which was to understand. I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to or not. If you did understand what I was saying, I'll have you know that the DA* 60-250 was announced a looooong time ago, and I didn't understand it back then either, even though we didn't know it's price. Next year, when it's been selling for a while (if indeed anybody is willing to pay $1400 for it), I still won't understand it. It's the specs and price that determine whether I get a lens or not. For example, if I told you Pentax were releasing a 113-184mm f/5.9 zoom for $995, wouldn't you scratch your head and say "I don't get it..."? Same thing for me with the DA* 60-250.

To reply to the 2nd part of your question, it is a heavy lens because it weighs 1230g (2 lbs 11.4 oz) with hood and tripod mount. I used "assume" because I haven't actually held it, but based on the weight of my other lenses and how they feel on my K10D, I can assume it will feel heavy, on top of it actually being heavy.

However, I really hope a lot of people get, and get, this lens so Pentax can profit from all their R&D investment. If it's good for Pentax, it's good for me.
I was referring to get as in to understand, and I know how long the 60-250 has been in the pipeline. but specs aside, I still don't understand how without having actually held the lens that you can say its too heavy, and who is to say it wont change (again) before its released, and maybe be lighter? is the tripod mount removable? will it be upon release? the price point I can understand to an extent, but it is a * lens and we don't know how good the optics may or may not be.
01-12-2009, 03:07 PM   #138
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I don't know, I feel just like Miserere does on the 60-250. For a lens that is only f/4 and is so big and so expensive, it seems odd to me that so many people have been waiting for it so eagerly. If you're OK with big and expensive, why not the 50-135/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8 and get more speed while you're at it? If you don't care so much about speed, why not save a lot of size & money and get the 55-300? Are people expecting it to be *that* much better in terms of sharpness or whatever else? Or is the focal length range just so perfect for some application, and f/4 just good enough, to make it that desirable? Outdoor sports, maybe?

its definetly an oddball..

but if the Canon 70-200 L F4 is an indicator, it should be ridiculously sharp

on the other hand, the canon lens is tiny, this thing is not.
01-12-2009, 03:10 PM   #139
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,210
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
its definetly an oddball..

but if the Canon 70-200 L F4 is an indicator, it should be ridiculously sharp

on the other hand, the canon lens is tiny, this thing is not.
Getting rid of 10mm on the wide end and 50mm on the long end helped them get the size down on the canon lens.

01-12-2009, 03:20 PM   #140
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Getting rid of 10mm on the wide end and 50mm on the long end helped them get the size down on the canon lens.
in my experience raw lens specifications and ultimate lens size dont always correlate
01-12-2009, 03:36 PM   #141
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,210
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
in my experience raw lens specifications and ultimate lens size dont always correlate
That's why I said it "helped" get the size down.
01-12-2009, 05:42 PM   #142
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Why would you rate it harder than the 55-300mm?
Have you seen the relative prices? I'm with Mis on this one.
01-12-2009, 06:14 PM   #143
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,735
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
I don't think there is a lens I don't "get" in the sense that I understand why it was made, I originally thought the FA 20-35 was a "dumb" lens till I tried a friend's. Then I immediately went out and got my own, probably the best "garden" lens I own. There are a lot of lenses I won't own, I'm not a fan of super zooms, but I "get" them, they are made for people who, for one reason or another don't want to change lenses. I think that the FA31 is way overpriced even tho I own it's two "brothers" the FA43 and the FA77, but I understand why it is made. I understand that many lust after the FA* 85 1.4 but I have no need for it nor do I want it, but it is still considered by many to be the "perfect" portrait lens. I don't have a screwmount adapter, but I do understand why people like them.

NaCl(lenses, I "get". It's people I don't understand)H2O
Well said, my friend. I love my DA Limited's, my FA 35/2, my DFA 100/2.8 and A* 85/1.4, but I don't "get" them when I'm on Cut Time's deck at 20 degrees of heel in 25 kts of wind and 4-5 foot seas. That's when my DA 18-250 (with all it's limitations) is just the ticket.

Jer

01-12-2009, 07:57 PM   #144
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.
01-12-2009, 07:57 PM   #145
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.

You can buy a 40D and a 70-200/4 for the same price and at least know the AF will lock on a moving target

Sorry, sorry i know .. i jest i jest.
01-12-2009, 08:33 PM   #146
Igilligan
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.

You can buy a 40D and a 70-200/4 for the same price and at least know the AF will lock on a moving target

Sorry, sorry i know .. i jest i jest.
And I laughed to hide my tears...

. .
. .
.
.
. .
_________ My Puddle of tears



^
01-12-2009, 08:53 PM   #147
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,210
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Have you seen the relative prices? I'm with Mis on this one.
Since, I have the 55-300mm, I am aware of the price difference. I was referring to the comment about it not being wide enough on the wide end and not long enough on the long end. Sure its bigger and heavier but its also alot faster on the long end. I will pass on this lens and get a long prime down the stretch. In the mean time, I'll keep using my old A 400mm f5.6 and the 55-300mm.

QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the one Pentax lens I don't get: DA* 60-250mm f/4.

On digital it's not wide enough on the short end, not long enough on the long end, and it's not that fast. It's also (apparently) quite big and heavy. And let's not forget it costs an arm and a leg.

I, personaly, don't get it.
01-13-2009, 03:11 AM   #148
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
I mentioned it in the 60-250 thread, i just don't get it. Not wide, not long, not fast, big, heavy and scary expensive.
It is one stop faster than the 55-300 and it is robustly made. Nobody can say for sure yet, how its image quality will be - but if the reports of "beta" users are to be trusted it is very sharp wide open. Had it been available a year ago, I would certainly have bought it.

The price seems o.k. to me. You never pay the actual list price. And (I think we already had a similar discussion), to compare the ubiquos 70-200/4 L is simply far festched: this is an old lens, which has seen a long production run, a commodity lens. Taken the production run and the sheer absolute numbers for Canon into account, it has to be much cheaper, than the brand new Pentax. Also, I don't know about the inner workings of the 60-250 (zoom ratio 4.2 compared to the Canon's 2.9), but it sure is a much more complicated construction, than the comparetively simple 70-200.

The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type.

Ben
01-13-2009, 06:55 AM   #149
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type.
And it has been answered even more... the 50-135 on a 1.5x crop sensor, for the equiv FOV as the 75-200. That is the pentax strategy in delivering lenses.
01-13-2009, 08:12 AM   #150
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote

The question, that bothers me much more is, why Pentax does not deliver a fast 70-200/2.8. This is still a widely acknowledged and used standard lens type.

Ben
Possibly because both Tamron and Sigma offer good ones at pretty good prices, and it would be tough for Pentax to make money there - unless they make it a DA*, and go crazy with the quality so as to distinguish it from the others, I guess.

But then, again, to make money after doing that it would be a $1200 lens anyway.


.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
examples, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge MRRiley Post Your Photos! 27 02-21-2010 08:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: 2 18-55mm kit lenses ("L" and "AL II" version) dgaies Sold Items 5 12-28-2009 07:58 AM
K-7 and metering with "K" and "M" lenses NaClH2O Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 07-18-2009 09:00 PM
Original "K" and "M" lenses wlank Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 08-31-2008 11:00 AM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:41 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top