Is the 60-250mm/4 the LEAST talked about lens?

**Rondec** · 01-15-2010, 08:05 AM

This is an expensive lens -- not the sort of thing that you are going to buy on a whim. At the same time, it is a significantly different lens from the Canon 70-200 f4 -- added range on both ends. The hard part is that it overlaps with the 50-135, so you have to ask yourself if you really need both. The 50-135 is a stop faster and a smaller lens and awfully sharp as well, so for now, I have decided to get buy with it, but if I inherit a small fortune, I would probably get the 60-250. Sample photos sure look good.

**dadipentak** · 01-15-2010, 08:17 AM

I'm sure the optics are very good but this lens makes no sense to me and apparently I'm not alone. The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 strike me as superior options.

Oggy · 01-15-2010, 04:58 PM

I am very pleased with mine. Not quite the IQ of the DA*300, but that is to be expected, but this is made up for by the versatility. Nice one Pentax.

Wheatfield · 01-15-2010, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

I'm sure the optics are very good but this lens makes no sense to me and apparently I'm not alone. The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 strike me as superior options.

They may make sense to some, they may make less sense to people who don't use third party glass for whatever reason they choose.

For me, the 60-250 is actually a very good focal length. It starts out at the short end, just a little wider than where my primes run out, and it leaves off just a little short of my F*300/4.5.
There are a few things I don't like, I would prefer if it didn't trombone for example, and though I would really like it to be a stop faster, I wouldn't want to deal with the size of it.
My one and only third party lens is an ancient Tokina 80-200/2.8. It is an excellent lens, and was the only lens I used for my book, but I was very happy to supplant it with the 60-250.
As for the price, it costs what it costs.
You can support your favourite camera company and hope they keep making stuff, or you can buy third party and not care.
I'd prefer that Pentax stays viable, so I buy their stuff.

Oggy · 01-16-2010, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

I'm sure the optics are very good but this lens makes no sense to me and apparently I'm not alone. The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 strike me as superior options.

Looking at the figures you quote they do indeed look better but they only tell a small part of the story. There are also the MTF figures but the bottom line is how good a picture does it take.

Originally posted by Wheatfield

They may make sense to some, they may make less sense to people who don't use third party glass for whatever reason they choose.

For me, the 60-250 is actually a very good focal length. It starts out at the short end, just a little wider than where my primes run out, and it leaves off just a little short of my F*300/4.5.
There are a few things I don't like, I would prefer if it didn't trombone for example, and though I would really like it to be a stop faster, I wouldn't want to deal with the size of it.
My one and only third party lens is an ancient Tokina 80-200/2.8. It is an excellent lens, and was the only lens I used for my book, but I was very happy to supplant it with the 60-250.
As for the price, it costs what it costs.
You can support your favourite camera company and hope they keep making stuff, or you can buy third party and not care.
I'd prefer that Pentax stays viable, so I buy their stuff.

I am with you in prefering Pentax lenses. I find they work better with Pentax cameras which is what I'd hope, but there is the stone wall at 300mm. I have had poor results with TCs so I have had to buy the Sigma 150-500 for aircraft, birds etc.

Please Pentax - DA* 100-400 or something a bit longer. I could live with F5.6.

**dadipentak** · 01-16-2010, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

You can support your favourite camera company and hope they keep making stuff, or you can buy third party and not care. I'd prefer that Pentax stays viable, so I buy their stuff.

Huh, I've never looked at it that way. I certainly want Pentax to remain viable (and, trust me, I've done my part ;~)but I think part of its viability for me is the availability of third party lenses: if Sigma, Tamron, et al stop offering K-mount versions of their lenses, we'll know we're in deep doo-doo.

In any case, although we hear a lot of raves about the 50-135mm, the silence about the 60-250mm has been, as the OP suggests, pretty deafening. Certainly the Sigma is better suited for me: faster, lighter, less expensive and HSM r/t SDM. I'm not sayin' the 60-250mm is a bad lens and there are obviously some who have it and really like it but they seem few and far between. All in all, my impression is that it's been rather a dud for Pentax--and that's really not my fault.

Cideway · 01-16-2010, 08:40 PM

There are several factors that i think are causing this lens to be not as well talked about as others:

1. Price, anyway you cut it, its an expensive lens
2. Range, many Pentax users either have the 300 f4 for their tele coverage, had already gone 3rd party, or simply find that the 50-135 has covered their tele lens needs (or even the 55-300 or 50-200 WR/L).
3. It is an out door lens, and large portion of the worlds population are currently in winter.
4. The owners of this gem of a lens are too busy enjoying it to talk about it...

Originally posted by dadipentak

I'm sure the optics are very good but this lens makes no sense to me and apparently I'm not alone. The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 strike me as superior options.

For you maybe but for others, well the 60-250 is lighter and smaller then any of the 3rd party options has a smaller filter thread, from user reports the 60-250 is better at f4 then the Tamron is at all overlapping focal lengths (which by proxy makes it better then the sigma as well).

EricT · 01-17-2010, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by dadipentak

In any case, although we hear a lot of raves about the 50-135mm, the silence about the 60-250mm has been, as the OP suggests, pretty deafening. Certainly the Sigma is better suited for me: faster, lighter, less expensive and HSM r/t SDM. I'm not sayin' the 60-250mm is a bad lens and there are obviously some who have it and really like it but they seem few and far between. All in all, my impression is that it's been rather a dud for Pentax--and that's really not my fault.

Huh, certainly the Sigma is not lighter? The 60-250 is smaller, lighter, has a much better range, in addition to being weather-sealed. A pretty good package if you ask me.

**dadipentak** · 01-17-2010, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by EricT

Huh, certainly the Sigma is not lighter? The 60-250 is smaller, lighter...

You're right

I should fact-check before I post.

Kunzite · 01-17-2010, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I'd prefer that Pentax stays viable, so I buy their stuff.

Very well said (the whole post). Show me two more or less equivalent lenses, Pentax and 3rd-party - I would chose the Pentax. Not blindly, though, not if I feel the Pentax is a worse choice (but so far, that was never been the case).
The 100-300 f/4 is an excellent lens; but I have the 60-250 f/4 - and guess what, it's excellent as well. Even wide-open, at 250mm.

RawheaD · 01-17-2010, 10:57 PM

Well, just to add the reasons why I bought this and not a third-party option;

1. First and most importantly, weather sealed. I'm an archaeologist, and I work in the jungles of Central America. When I take my gear down there, I can use any and all environmental protection I can get. That's why I bought this along with the *16-50 to use on my K-7.

2. The gap between this and the 16-50 is smaller (10mm) than the 70-200 options.

3. 50mm difference on the longer end becomes a 75mm-100mm difference when you factor in a TC... something you tend to use with long telephotos. Indeed, one of the first things I used the lens for was to shoot the total solar eclipse in China last year with a Kenko 1.5x TC.

nulla · 01-17-2010, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by RawheaD

Well, just to add the reasons why I bought this and not a third-party option;

1. First and most importantly, weather sealed. I'm an archaeologist, and I work in the jungles of Central America. When I take my gear down there, I can use any and all environmental protection I can get. That's why I bought this along with the *16-50 to use on my K-7.

2. The gap between this and the 16-50 is smaller (10mm) than the 70-200 options.

3. 50mm difference on the longer end becomes a 75mm-100mm difference when you factor in a TC... something you tend to use with long telephotos. Indeed, one of the first things I used the lens for was to shoot the total solar eclipse in China last year with a Kenko 1.5x TC.

thats a great shot of the eclipse.

I would like to see some of you other photos that are related to your profession

cheers

Neil

**Rondec** · 01-18-2010, 07:40 PM

Unfortunately, one of the biggest reasons that this lens was not a big seller was the delay on its launch. I think it ended up coming out two years after it was supposed to be released on the roadmap. Most folks gave up and bought a 70-200 f2.8 lens, even if they would rather have this focal length range.

kenyee · 01-19-2010, 08:03 AM

From my first studio shoot with it.
The full size version is extremely sharp as well...not as much as my 77Ltd but good enough to see skin pores...

Wow...PentaxForums butchers the uploaded files...why in the world does it muck w/ files if the size is small enough

RawheaD · 01-19-2010, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by nulla

thats a great shot of the eclipse.

I would like to see some of you other photos that are related to your profession

cheers

Neil

Thanks; unfortunately, I just bought this lens last July, and I haven't been in the field since then. I might go down to C.A. this summer. In which case the lens is absolutely definitely coming with me :-)

01-16-2010, 03:10 PM	#20
Oggy Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: West Sussex UK Posts: 235	Originally posted by dadipentak I'm sure the optics are very good but this lens makes no sense to me and apparently I'm not alone. The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 strike me as superior options. Looking at the figures you quote they do indeed look better but they only tell a small part of the story. There are also the MTF figures but the bottom line is how good a picture does it take. Originally posted by Wheatfield They may make sense to some, they may make less sense to people who don't use third party glass for whatever reason they choose. For me, the 60-250 is actually a very good focal length. It starts out at the short end, just a little wider than where my primes run out, and it leaves off just a little short of my F300/4.5. There are a few things I don't like, I would prefer if it didn't trombone for example, and though I would really like it to be a stop faster, I wouldn't want to deal with the size of it. My one and only third party lens is an ancient Tokina 80-200/2.8. It is an excellent lens, and was the only lens I used for my book, but I was very happy to supplant it with the 60-250. As for the price, it costs what it costs. You can support your favourite camera company and hope they keep making stuff, or you can buy third party and not care. I'd prefer that Pentax stays viable, so I buy their stuff. I am with you in prefering Pentax lenses. I find they work better with Pentax cameras which is what I'd hope, but there is the stone wall at 300mm. I have had poor results with TCs so I have had to buy the Sigma 150-500 for aircraft, birds etc. Please Pentax - DA 100-400 or something a bit longer. I could live with F5.6. Last edited by Oggy; 01-17-2010 at 03:58 PM. Reason: typo

01-16-2010, 08:40 PM	#22
Cideway Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 364	Never let the facts... There are several factors that i think are causing this lens to be not as well talked about as others: 1. Price, anyway you cut it, its an expensive lens 2. Range, many Pentax users either have the 300 f4 for their tele coverage, had already gone 3rd party, or simply find that the 50-135 has covered their tele lens needs (or even the 55-300 or 50-200 WR/L). 3. It is an out door lens, and large portion of the worlds population are currently in winter. 4. The owners of this gem of a lens are too busy enjoying it to talk about it... Originally posted by dadipentak I'm sure the optics are very good but this lens makes no sense to me and apparently I'm not alone. The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 strike me as superior options. For you maybe but for others, well the 60-250 is lighter and smaller then any of the 3rd party options has a smaller filter thread, from user reports the 60-250 is better at f4 then the Tamron is at all overlapping focal lengths (which by proxy makes it better then the sigma as well).

01-19-2010, 08:03 AM	#29
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	From my first studio shoot with it. The full size version is extremely sharp as well...not as much as my 77Ltd but good enough to see skin pores... Wow...PentaxForums butchers the uploaded files...why in the world does it muck w/ files if the size is small enough Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
talked my friend into a K-x	BethC	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	10-01-2010 06:00 PM
Which Zoom Lens? "Tamron AF 18-250mm", "Pentax-DA 18-250mm" or "Sigma 18-250mm"	hoomanshb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-30-2010 09:50 AM
For Sale - Sold: K10D body, DA 18-55mm kit lens, Tamron DiII AF18-250mm lens; Tamrac Velocity 8	gimmepizza	Sold Items	9	12-01-2009 05:26 AM
My Local Dealer Talked To Penatx Rep A Few Days Ago...	Snapshot12	Pentax News and Rumors	82	09-16-2008 07:11 PM
talked with my local dealer	regken	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	12-20-2006 08:25 AM

01-15-2010, 08:05 AM	#16
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	This is an expensive lens -- not the sort of thing that you are going to buy on a whim. At the same time, it is a significantly different lens from the Canon 70-200 f4 -- added range on both ends. The hard part is that it overlaps with the 50-135, so you have to ask yourself if you really need both. The 50-135 is a stop faster and a smaller lens and awfully sharp as well, so for now, I have decided to get buy with it, but if I inherit a small fortune, I would probably get the 60-250. Sample photos sure look good.

01-15-2010, 08:17 AM	#17
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	I'm sure the optics are very good but this lens makes no sense to me and apparently I'm not alone. The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 strike me as superior options.

01-15-2010, 04:58 PM	#18
Oggy Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: West Sussex UK Posts: 235	I am very pleased with mine. Not quite the IQ of the DA*300, but that is to be expected, but this is made up for by the versatility. Nice one Pentax.

01-15-2010, 07:12 PM	#19
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,986	Originally posted by dadipentak I'm sure the optics are very good but this lens makes no sense to me and apparently I'm not alone. The Sigma & Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 strike me as superior options. They may make sense to some, they may make less sense to people who don't use third party glass for whatever reason they choose. For me, the 60-250 is actually a very good focal length. It starts out at the short end, just a little wider than where my primes run out, and it leaves off just a little short of my F*300/4.5. There are a few things I don't like, I would prefer if it didn't trombone for example, and though I would really like it to be a stop faster, I wouldn't want to deal with the size of it. My one and only third party lens is an ancient Tokina 80-200/2.8. It is an excellent lens, and was the only lens I used for my book, but I was very happy to supplant it with the 60-250. As for the price, it costs what it costs. You can support your favourite camera company and hope they keep making stuff, or you can buy third party and not care. I'd prefer that Pentax stays viable, so I buy their stuff.

01-16-2010, 04:05 PM	#21
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by Wheatfield You can support your favourite camera company and hope they keep making stuff, or you can buy third party and not care. I'd prefer that Pentax stays viable, so I buy their stuff. Huh, I've never looked at it that way. I certainly want Pentax to remain viable (and, trust me, I've done my part ;~)but I think part of its viability for me is the availability of third party lenses: if Sigma, Tamron, et al stop offering K-mount versions of their lenses, we'll know we're in deep doo-doo. In any case, although we hear a lot of raves about the 50-135mm, the silence about the 60-250mm has been, as the OP suggests, pretty deafening. Certainly the Sigma is better suited for me: faster, lighter, less expensive and HSM r/t SDM. I'm not sayin' the 60-250mm is a bad lens and there are obviously some who have it and really like it but they seem few and far between. All in all, my impression is that it's been rather a dud for Pentax--and that's really not my fault.

01-17-2010, 07:15 AM	#23
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	Originally posted by dadipentak In any case, although we hear a lot of raves about the 50-135mm, the silence about the 60-250mm has been, as the OP suggests, pretty deafening. Certainly the Sigma is better suited for me: faster, lighter, less expensive and HSM r/t SDM. I'm not sayin' the 60-250mm is a bad lens and there are obviously some who have it and really like it but they seem few and far between. All in all, my impression is that it's been rather a dud for Pentax--and that's really not my fault. Huh, certainly the Sigma is not lighter? The 60-250 is smaller, lighter, has a much better range, in addition to being weather-sealed. A pretty good package if you ask me.

01-17-2010, 07:23 AM	#24
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by EricT Huh, certainly the Sigma is not lighter? The 60-250 is smaller, lighter... You're right I should fact-check before I post.

01-17-2010, 03:20 PM	#25
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Wheatfield I'd prefer that Pentax stays viable, so I buy their stuff. Very well said (the whole post). Show me two more or less equivalent lenses, Pentax and 3rd-party - I would chose the Pentax. Not blindly, though, not if I feel the Pentax is a worse choice (but so far, that was never been the case). The 100-300 f/4 is an excellent lens; but I have the 60-250 f/4 - and guess what, it's excellent as well. Even wide-open, at 250mm.

01-17-2010, 10:57 PM	#26
RawheaD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: MA, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 831	Well, just to add the reasons why I bought this and not a third-party option; 1. First and most importantly, weather sealed. I'm an archaeologist, and I work in the jungles of Central America. When I take my gear down there, I can use any and all environmental protection I can get. That's why I bought this along with the *16-50 to use on my K-7. 2. The gap between this and the 16-50 is smaller (10mm) than the 70-200 options. 3. 50mm difference on the longer end becomes a 75mm-100mm difference when you factor in a TC... something you tend to use with long telephotos. Indeed, one of the first things I used the lens for was to shoot the total solar eclipse in China last year with a Kenko 1.5x TC.

01-17-2010, 11:34 PM	#27
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Originally posted by RawheaD Well, just to add the reasons why I bought this and not a third-party option; 1. First and most importantly, weather sealed. I'm an archaeologist, and I work in the jungles of Central America. When I take my gear down there, I can use any and all environmental protection I can get. That's why I bought this along with the *16-50 to use on my K-7. 2. The gap between this and the 16-50 is smaller (10mm) than the 70-200 options. 3. 50mm difference on the longer end becomes a 75mm-100mm difference when you factor in a TC... something you tend to use with long telephotos. Indeed, one of the first things I used the lens for was to shoot the total solar eclipse in China last year with a Kenko 1.5x TC. thats a great shot of the eclipse. I would like to see some of you other photos that are related to your profession cheers Neil

01-18-2010, 07:40 PM	#28
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Unfortunately, one of the biggest reasons that this lens was not a big seller was the delay on its launch. I think it ended up coming out two years after it was supposed to be released on the roadmap. Most folks gave up and bought a 70-200 f2.8 lens, even if they would rather have this focal length range.

01-19-2010, 08:53 PM	#30
RawheaD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: MA, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 831	Originally posted by nulla thats a great shot of the eclipse. I would like to see some of you other photos that are related to your profession cheers Neil Thanks; unfortunately, I just bought this lens last July, and I haven't been in the field since then. I might go down to C.A. this summer. In which case the lens is absolutely definitely coming with me :-)