[thePiRaTE!!]

My 2 cents (if you're interested, lol) -

60-250 - Seems like it will become a workhorse, a tool, good for outdoor sporting event, etc. Price seems high for an f4, but it will be lower once it hits the streets (and lower still a few months after that). I predict it will be had for under 1000 (US) in 6 months on the web. Pics that Chris showed seemed great, probably a good seller in the long run I'd think.


55/1.4 - With any new fast lens, I am curiously aroused to its unique (if any) bokeh characteristics, but count me as strongly skeptical that even if it were as good as the Nokton in this regard, that I'd give up a good, precise manual helicoid for a dummied down MF slaved to SDM performance.

Listed price 799 means it will be at the store for maybe 600ish? As a manual focuser by choice, this lens is near twice as expensive as the Nokton for reasons that actually detract from our needs.

* A little irk - rounded blades shape bokeh highlights to circular if stopped down, and FWIW, I prefer a hexagon (ie six blades, perfectly flat). The optic formula decides the 'creaminess'. Its a feature that is abused in sales promo.


for me, in the end ... *sigh*. lol.

[24X36NOW]

I have no interest in APS-C lenses, but 60-250 is a lousy choice of focal lengths for the Pentax APS-C system. Since there are so damn few tele zooms (or high quality zooms in general for that matter) in their system to begin with, why duplicate everything from 60-135 that you already get with the 50-135 F2.8?? They should have gone with 135-405 F4, which would give you something that stacks seamlessly on top of the 50-135 F2.8, and would provide a nice FOV range similar to a 200-600 in 35mm, which would be an outstanding zoom range. It would also bring the zoom range down to 3:1, which would allow greater quality optics while still providing MUCH more reach. For those who complain about lens size/weight, who wants to carry around a suitcase full of long primes?! Even if you're willing to do that, you still don't cover all of the intermediate focal lengths.

Right now, the * zooms include the 16-50 F2.8, the 50-135 F2.8, and the...60-250 F4, giving you basically 135-250 of new "range" and 60-135 of overlap. That's like having (in FF terms) a 25-80, 80-200, and 90-400, with only 200-400 being added by the third lens when a seamless 3:1 zoom starting where the other lens leaves off could get you a 200-600. With such a limited line, they can't afford so much overlap in focal lengths in their zooms. High quality, long tele zooms are one area that all the camera makers are light in, and would be a good place for Pentax to try distinguish itself.

If I was building an APS-C system (I wouldn't, but that's a different discussion), I'd rather have the Sigma EX 100-300 F4 and take the extra reach, and save some bucks to boot, as opposed to spending $1500 on a lens that duplicates 88% of the focal length range of one of my other lenses. You could argue that they're providing an alternative 2 lens kit with the 16-50 and 60-250, but that leaves a gap between 50 and 60, and more to the point, has you buying only 2 lenses when you might otherwise be inclined to buy 3. They need to learn to make their zoom offerings more seamless when they offer so few.

[creampuff]

Good bokeh is one thing but the benefits of AF, especially for studio and location shoots is a BIG advantage. The speed and ease of use will definitely be useful.

The DA* 55mm would be excellent for head and shoulder portraits.
Imagine having ED glass on a lens of this focal length! I'll bet it will trump the already good FA 50mm hands down.

[pingflood]

it's a 90-375mm f=4 (100-400). Different beast altogether.

Cheers,
Cameron

No, it's a 60-250, and the 70-200 is just that.

Apples to apples.

[m8o]

The DA* 60-250mm looks nice and I like the fact that it is weather sealed, but am I the only one that isn't excited about this lens because it is an f/4?

no, I've started several threads or made post on this very subject over the past year. Pentax motto: 'smaller is gooder regardless of...'.

I can't seem to pass up every opportunity to complain about this very subject every time I come upon it in a thread. I guess I'm just in just extra crotchety tonight...

I'll probably still buy it, eventually, though I'm pissed @ Pentax for making us wait so long and emotionally want to boycott it to make my pointless point.

[ogl]

I don't understand who need such expensive 55 mm lens?
Just Leica 50 mm lenses are more expensive.
New Nikkor with motor is 439 USD. Does weather-sealing cost 361 USD?
Old FA50/1.4 - made in Japan. New one - made in Vietnam.

Hoya thinks that we are all rain-shooter with 55 mm?
After DA35/2.8 macro I have some doubts about fantastic bokeh of FA*55.


As for price of DA*60-250/4 - 1500 USD is unreal for Pentaxians. IMO.
Not fast, big and expensive.

[ogl]

DA*55/1.4 has unique optical scheme - I can't find something similiar -
http://media.pentax.de/downloads/lenses/de/Datenblatt%2055mm.pdf

it will have another picture than FA50 or FA*85...

[yipchunyu]

DA*55/1.4 has unique optical scheme - I can't find something similiar -
http://media.pentax.de/downloads/lenses/de/Datenblatt%2055mm.pdf

it will have another picture than FA50 or FA*85...

any link (PDF) for other lens. i.e. DA 15LE and 60-250

[ogl]

http://media.pentax.de/downloads/lenses/de/Datenblatt%2060-250%20mm.pdf

DA15 is not ready.

[gnaztee]

Is the 60-250 internal zoom? Can't seem to find this info anywhere, and there's no pictures of the lens zoomed out to 250 that i can find.

Todd

[k100d]

it is not internal zoom

[Torphoto]

So now that both lenses are official, who can snipe some image samples shot with a K20D for us

[jsherman999]

Specs say 1.5 feet

Which probably means about 1 foot - for whatever reason, the minimum distance specs are almost always conservative.... ?

[FHPhotographer]

I don't understand who need such expensive 55 mm lens?
Just Leica 50 mm lenses are more expensive.
New Nikkor with motor is 439 USD. Does weather-sealing cost 361 USD?
Old FA50/1.4 - made in Japan. New one - made in Vietnam.

Hoya thinks that we are all rain-shooter with 55 mm?
After DA35/2.8 macro I have some doubts about fantastic bokeh of FA*55.

As for price of DA*60-250/4 - 1500 USD is unreal for Pentaxians. IMO.
Not fast, big and expensive.

I'm with you on this one. And how is this better than my FA 50 f/1.4 that's still on the market new for less than $200?

This seems much the same as the DA 70 "replacing" the older FA 77 but generally being no great leap forward...but at least the newer lens was less expensive, but in this case $500 more is going to buy what, a few mm longer,weather sealing and a focusing motor that legacy Pentax bodies can't use?
FHPhotographer

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I'm with you on this one. And how is this better than my FA 50 f/1.4 that's still on the market new for less than $200?

This seems much the same as the DA 70 "replacing" the older FA 77 but generally being no great leap forward...but at least the newer lens was less expensive, but in this case $500 more is going to buy what, a few mm longer,weather sealing and a focusing motor that legacy Pentax bodies can't use?
FHPhotographer

Well, I think they want to complete the APS-C lens line.

And the FA 50, may not be available for so much longer. Either there is a full frame cam around the corner, or it is just a wishful dream, Pentax decided they can't afford that. In which case, why continue the FA lens productions? On the other hand, if the FF is coming, you will have to see these two lenses as part of two separate lens lines for different formats.

And why should all Pentax primes be limited and/or pancakes? The recent DA* primes are building on a long tradition of M* (only one), A*, FA* lenses where the star designates highest quality. And it is a continuation of Pentax tradition of making excellent portrait lenses. So it is a quite logical lens, and very exciting if you ask me (see ogl's post on the optical diagram being different from previous normal and portrait lenses from Pentax). Also, while I got the FA50 for its extreme value for the money, it is not really nice to work with as a portrait lens, one of the situations where I find I want to focus manually as often as with AF because the camera cannot know how I want to play with DOF, and the focus ring on the FA50 is a joke.

The FA50 is the only Pentax survivor still in production (?) of what used to be a large group of lenses, the 24x36 cameras normal lens, where all brands used to have a 50/2.0, a 50/1.8 or 1.7, a 50/1.4, and sometimes a 50/1.2, and usually also a 50/2.8 or 50/4 macro, sometimes the 50mm being 55mm and sometimes with 40-45mm as pancakes. It is clear that Pentax now is looking at the 30-40 mm range as the new normal lens range and populating it almost as densely as the 50mm region used to be: DA30/1.4(????), DA35/2.8 macro, DA40/2.8, and still they have kept a large number of FA lenses in this range (not sure all are still produced, but think they are all sold): FA28/2.8 soft, FA35/2.0, FA31/1.8 ltd. The only one missing is the cheapish 50/2.0 equivalent, but that has been totally replaced by the kit zoom. So you are complaining about two ~50-55mm lenses...