[CWyatt]

Irony or you haven't handled it?

Seriously?

Canon 70-200 f/2.8: 19.5cm long, 1.3kg, 77mm filter
Nikon 70-2500 f/2.8: 21.5cm long, 1.4kg, 77mm filter
Sigma 100-300 f/4: 22.5cm long, 1.5kg, 82mm filter

Pentax 60-250 f/4: 16.7cm long, 1kg, 67mm filter.

Like I said, benefits size-wise at least of an f/4 and APS-C dedicated lens.

[GoremanX]

Nikon 70-2500 f/2.8: 21.5cm long, 1.4kg, 77mm filter

Sweet! Where do I find this mythical lens that gives me 120x magnification on an APS-C camera?

And so light, too! Not bad for a large telescope.

edit: oops, meant 80x magnification

[nanao.]

Seriously?

Canon 70-200 f/2.8: 19.5cm long, 1.3kg, 77mm filter
Nikon 70-2500 f/2.8: 21.5cm long, 1.4kg, 77mm filter
Sigma 100-300 f/4: 22.5cm long, 1.5kg, 82mm filter

Pentax 60-250 f/4: 16.7cm long, 1kg, 67mm filter.

Like I said, benefits size-wise at least of an f/4 and APS-C dedicated lens.

If you must...but
- the relevant references for me would be the Canon 70-200/F4 and accordingly a similar F4 by Nikon (my knowledge doesn't extend that far) which you both conveniently left out (I leave it to you to search for the figures), and
- the actual weight w hood is closer to 1200g (again without delving into statistics) and still some 1100g without
- filter size doesn't say it necessarily all about actual barrel width nor that the front element extends when focusing closer to the 250mm side, and

just my humble opinion based on actual visual and tactile experience aka ownership. It's just too huge.

[CWyatt]

If you must...but
- the relevant references for me would be the Canon 70-200/F4 and accordingly a similar F4 by Nikon (my knowledge doesn't extend that far) which you both conveniently left out (I leave it to you to search for the figures), and
- the actual weight w hood is closer to 1200g (again without delving into statistics) and still some 1100g without
- filter size doesn't say it necessarily all about actual barrel width nor that the front element extends when focusing closer to the 250mm side, and

just my humble opinion based on actual visual and tactile experience aka ownership. It's just too huge.

True, I did leave out the Canon 70-200 f/4 - I had seen it in use and didn't realise it was as small as it is (0.7kg, 67mm filter), I don't think Nikon make a 70-200 f/4 or similar.

In my opinion, that is still reasonably similar to the Pentax 60-250 f/4, considering the Pentax also has a greater range at both ends. Agreed, the extending barrel may be an issue for some. And from what I have seen (I don't own the lens (yet), like you) the 67mm barrel is very much the size of the lens throughout the body:

http://www.camera-warehouse.com.au/product_images/mid/PENTAX-DA-60-250MM-F4-IF-ED-SDM.jpg

I just don't see a modern telephoto lens of any similar quality that is much smaller. The Sigma 100-300 which I would consider the main competition is MUCH bigger (like many Sigmas) and lacks weather sealing, although it is a somewhat different range. Like you point out, the Canon equivalent is slightly smaller, although a different focal range, and has quite a mega hood. The Canon is meant to be excellent at every focal range from wide open though. And mind-bogglingly cheap for the quality. Notably, no other brand has matched it either. That has to be one of the most excellent tele's ever made.

I still think it's hard to compare the 60-250 as it's a unique focal range.

---

Last edited by CWyatt; 03-03-2010 at 06:33 PM.

[oxidized]

I cant comment on the 60-250 as I dont have it, but from what you describe id say 50-135 would be much better choice.

Its lighter, faster and does provide considerable tele. The 60-250 i think would only be necessary if you are really planning on shooting wild animals from far away. For kids however, and especially for walking around I think the 50-135 is much more flexible and useful.

[Biro]

bfo... given your stated intentions for how you plan to use the lens, I suggest you go with the 50-135 f/2.8 and also the 55-300mm f/4-5.8. If you look at my kit line-up below, you'll see that's what I did. You'll have all the advantages of the 50-135 with the extra reach of the 55-300 (which is even longer than the 60-250). Here in the U.S., you can buy the 50-135 and the 55-300 together for no more money than the 60-250 alone - maybe even a bit less.

And since you say you'll be using the longer focal length in daylight most of the time, the slowness of the 55-300 shouldn't be an issue. In fact, the lens is quite sharp (IQ is noticeably better than the 50-200) and f/5.8 may offer an advantage in terms of greater depth of field all the way out at 300mm. That can be an advantage while shooting wildlife. Granted, the 55-300 doesn't have WR, but since you'd also have the 50-135, I'm betting that won't be a problem very often. There have also been rumors (but only rumors) that Pentax may offer a WR version of the 55-300 before long.

If you're travelling and want to pack lighter, leave the 50-135 at home and bring the 18-55 and the 55-300.

[GoremanX]

That's the thing, really. The 50-135mm is good for so many things other than telephoto. I think the 135mm range is perfect for my occasional telephoto uses, but it's the rest of the range which is so useful, especially with a F2.8 constant max aperture. I find myself using the 50mm range more often than anything else, and the resulting pictures are always tack-sharp, well saturated and contrasty (I think that's a word we've made up in the photography field). If it wasn't for the lame 3 foot minimum focusing distance and SDM, I think I'd consider it the perfect lens. But that minimum focusing distance is right in line with the other 50-150mm and 70-200mm lenses on the market, so it's not really a negative for this range.

[jeffrey r]

I used my K200D and 50-135 the other day at an event my kid had at his school, in a small auditorium-type room with somewhat low light. The 50-135 turned out to be the perfect lens. The 50mm was wide enough to get some good shots, the 135mm was where I took most the shots, and used the in-between focal lengths as well. The 50-135, while big, is still very hand-holdable.

Once I woke up my SDM and got to shooting, I set the camera to P mode, with Auto ISO at 100-800, and shot away. Most shots ended up getting shot wide open, at 800 ISO, and this combo really did a great job. I got a lot of keepers and very few duds, despite the tough setting.

Funny also, I had several parents with DSLRs (all Canikon of course) give me an "oohh, that is quite a lens" comment (this as they were all trying to shoot the same event with their kit-type lenses probably going no longer than 70mm or so). I guess they've never seen 70-200mm/2.8s or the like.

[Wheatfield]

FWIW, I held out for the 60-250 after using a pre release 50-135 for a few days. Nothing wrong with the 50-135, it's a fantastic piece of glass, but I felt I wanted a bit more reach than it gave.
The 60-250 is fantastically sharp, but it is sized (and priced) very close to f/2.8 territory.
Mine also suffered an SDM failure at 8 months and is presently on a repair bench in Japan.
As far as I am concerned, friends don't recommend Sigma lenses to friends.

[Mike.P®]

I nicknamed my 60-250 lovingly "Jumbo" (seriously, it's ridiculously huge&heavy, and the absurd barrel diameter (considering it's an APS-C F4) adds insult to injury),

Eh ... huge and heavy?

For the focal length I think its rather compact ... and its certainly not heavy compared to other lenses using that range.

[Itai]

I've got both and the image quality is spectacular on both so the dilema is really focal-length versus aperture. Because of the overlap, I almost never carry both and take a good guess based on the intended photography. Of course, sometimes I wish I brough the other

For anything that requires reaching power such as wildlife, I use the DA* 60-250mm F4.
For people and street photography, its the DA* 50-135mm F2.8. The one stop of extra aperture is an excellent help to freeze people and blur-out distracting backgrounds.

- Itai
Neoluminance | Fine Art Photography by Itai Danan

[bfo]

Thank you all for helping me out.
I think it comes down to if I really need weather sealing. If I do, its the DA* 50-135, if I don't its the Sigma 50-150. I think the others will be too heavy for my intended use.
And with all the problems with HSM/SDM I think I'll better buy local, where I get a 5yr "warranty" by norwegian consumeer law.

[GoremanX]

And with all the problems with HSM/SDM I think I'll better buy local, where I get a 5yr "warranty" by norwegian consumeer law.

What problems with HSM? That's a ring-type motor similar to Canon's EF system, it's actually quite reliable. The reliability issues with Sigma lenses (the 50-150mm specifically) was with the aperture sticking, which is very rare these days, and with some build quality issues, like lens decentering. Besides that, Sigma has a 4 to 6 year warranty (depending on the lens) even when bought in the US. It's only Pentax that has the worst warranty imaginable.

[bfo]

Will the DA* 50-135 retain AF with a teleconverter.
If so, wich one?
Will the Sigma 50-150 retain AF with a teleconverter.
If so, wich one?

[Mike.P®]

Will the DA* 50-135 retain AF with a teleconverter.
If so, wich one?
Will the Sigma 50-150 retain AF with a teleconverter.
If so, wich one?

I have had both and they will retain AF with the Tamron 1.4x.