Regarding the Pentax 60-250

Clem Nichols · 09-04-2008, 07:15 AM

Does anyone have any reliable info on how much this lens will weigh?

CN

k100d · 09-04-2008, 07:17 AM

if i were to guess it'd be about 1000g or 2.2 pounds?
the canon 70-200 f4 is about 800g

soccerjoe5 · 09-04-2008, 07:27 AM

i'm pretty sure the answers will come in a few days. i heard/read that the design changed so let's wait and see! can't wait to see it.

Erasmo · 09-04-2008, 07:54 AM

A lot, that's for sure...

ftpaddict · 09-04-2008, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by soccerjoe5

i'm pretty sure the answers will come in a few days. i heard/read that the design changed so let's wait and see! can't wait to see it.

It changed to be FF compatible. It's slightly bulkier.

dkittle · 09-04-2008, 07:59 AM

ftpaddict, is that a guess or inside knowledge?

ftpaddict · 09-04-2008, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by dkittle

ftpaddict, is that a guess or inside knowledge?

There was a thread here posted by someone, with a working pre-production sample. The thread got pulled because it somehow broke the NDA the poster was bound to.

This is what it looked like at first:
(I like this version better, myself)

and what it'll come out looking like (most likely. I mean.. how many times can you redesign a lens?)

dkittle · 09-04-2008, 08:11 AM

Ah, thanks. Ya, I saw Chris' (pulled) post on this lens, looked at the sample shots but didn't get through a lot of the details...

I thought that the redesign was primarily around slapping a tripod mount on the lens. I didn't realize that making the lens FF compatible was part of the rework... Thanks for the info.

bdery · 09-04-2008, 09:28 AM

Am I dreaming or is the new design smaller? If so, then it's highly desirable for me...

soccerjoe5 · 09-04-2008, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by bdery

Am I dreaming or is the new design smaller? If so, then it's highly desirable for me...

i think it's smaller but now its barrel extends when zooming

Isaac314 · 09-04-2008, 09:35 AM

nope, looks bigger at the rear end to me.

i might get this lens to replace my 55-300. i never really use the 300 end, too much quality loss when i could just crop it. Of course, i have no where near enough money to afford this if its even a penny over £500.

Groucho · 09-04-2008, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by soccerjoe5

i think it's smaller but now its barrel extends when zooming

Is that definite? Wouldn't that affect the weathersealing?

I've been anxious for the lens for a while, but weathersealing is an important part of the equation for me.

dopeytree · 09-04-2008, 11:44 AM

the 16-50mm da* f/2.8 extends too so no it doesn't affect it or it shouldn't anyway!

mk07138 · 09-04-2008, 11:45 AM

The 16-50 's barrel extends when zooming and it doesn't seem to hurt anything on that lens, so I'm assuming an extending barrel on this one won't hurt its weather sealing either.

soccerjoe5 · 09-04-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by mk07138

The 16-50 's barrel extends when zooming and it doesn't seem to hurt anything on that lens, so I'm assuming an extending barrel on this one won't hurt its weather sealing either.

true, but it slows me down in telephotos. it's like comparing the zooming feel of the 70-200s and the 50-150/50-135 to the cheaper 70-300 lenses out there. i just don't like the barrel extending for telephotos, the zoom action is much smoother if the lens is IF (internal focusing). i mean, canon was able to make a sealed 70-200/4 lens with IS (i think) and IF in a small, light, affordable package. i'm sure pentax can make a 60-250/4 that's a little bigger, a little bit more expensive, with IF. and maybe i don't like it because it's a DA* and i think of DA*s as the equivalent of canon's L lenses and nikon's gold ring lenses.

anyway, it's just my opinion though

09-04-2008, 07:15 AM	#1
Clem Nichols Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Munfordville, Ky. Photos: Gallery Posts: 370	Regarding the Pentax 60-250 Does anyone have any reliable info on how much this lens will weigh? CN

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 18-250 or Pentax/Tamron 18-250?	mjbens01	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	07-08-2010 09:10 PM
Pentax 18-250 always same as Tamron 18-250?	kitkat	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	07-08-2010 08:30 AM
Why DA18-250 is double the price of Tamron 18-250?	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	12-13-2008 05:40 AM
Pentax 18-250 is here	thibs	Pentax News and Rumors	120	01-03-2008 04:00 PM
New Pentax 18-250 Or 18-55?	Captain	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	11-21-2007 06:30 PM

09-04-2008, 07:17 AM	#2
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	if i were to guess it'd be about 1000g or 2.2 pounds? the canon 70-200 f4 is about 800g

09-04-2008, 07:27 AM	#3
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	i'm pretty sure the answers will come in a few days. i heard/read that the design changed so let's wait and see! can't wait to see it.

09-04-2008, 07:54 AM	#4
Erasmo Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 191	A lot, that's for sure...

09-04-2008, 07:55 AM	#5
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Originally posted by soccerjoe5 i'm pretty sure the answers will come in a few days. i heard/read that the design changed so let's wait and see! can't wait to see it. It changed to be FF compatible. It's slightly bulkier.

09-04-2008, 07:59 AM	#6
dkittle Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Toronto, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 429	ftpaddict, is that a guess or inside knowledge?

09-04-2008, 08:04 AM	#7
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Originally posted by dkittle ftpaddict, is that a guess or inside knowledge? There was a thread here posted by someone, with a working pre-production sample. The thread got pulled because it somehow broke the NDA the poster was bound to. This is what it looked like at first: (I like this version better, myself) and what it'll come out looking like (most likely. I mean.. how many times can you redesign a lens?)

09-04-2008, 08:11 AM	#8
dkittle Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Toronto, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 429	Ah, thanks. Ya, I saw Chris' (pulled) post on this lens, looked at the sample shots but didn't get through a lot of the details... I thought that the redesign was primarily around slapping a tripod mount on the lens. I didn't realize that making the lens FF compatible was part of the rework... Thanks for the info.

09-04-2008, 09:28 AM	#9
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Am I dreaming or is the new design smaller? If so, then it's highly desirable for me...

09-04-2008, 09:31 AM	#10
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	Originally posted by bdery Am I dreaming or is the new design smaller? If so, then it's highly desirable for me... i think it's smaller but now its barrel extends when zooming

09-04-2008, 09:35 AM	#11
Isaac314 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: London Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	nope, looks bigger at the rear end to me. i might get this lens to replace my 55-300. i never really use the 300 end, too much quality loss when i could just crop it. Of course, i have no where near enough money to afford this if its even a penny over £500.

09-04-2008, 11:36 AM	#12
Groucho Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 416	Originally posted by soccerjoe5 i think it's smaller but now its barrel extends when zooming Is that definite? Wouldn't that affect the weathersealing? I've been anxious for the lens for a while, but weathersealing is an important part of the equation for me.

09-04-2008, 11:44 AM	#13
dopeytree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Somerset, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 619	the 16-50mm da* f/2.8 extends too so no it doesn't affect it or it shouldn't anyway!

09-04-2008, 11:45 AM	#14
mk07138 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Frostburg Maryland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 151	The 16-50 's barrel extends when zooming and it doesn't seem to hurt anything on that lens, so I'm assuming an extending barrel on this one won't hurt its weather sealing either.

09-04-2008, 12:29 PM	#15
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	Originally posted by mk07138 The 16-50 's barrel extends when zooming and it doesn't seem to hurt anything on that lens, so I'm assuming an extending barrel on this one won't hurt its weather sealing either. true, but it slows me down in telephotos. it's like comparing the zooming feel of the 70-200s and the 50-150/50-135 to the cheaper 70-300 lenses out there. i just don't like the barrel extending for telephotos, the zoom action is much smoother if the lens is IF (internal focusing). i mean, canon was able to make a sealed 70-200/4 lens with IS (i think) and IF in a small, light, affordable package. i'm sure pentax can make a 60-250/4 that's a little bigger, a little bit more expensive, with IF. and maybe i don't like it because it's a DA* and i think of DA*s as the equivalent of canon's L lenses and nikon's gold ring lenses. anyway, it's just my opinion though