[house]

Internal focus is a given, I think: all current 70-200mm, be they f/2.8 or f/4, have it. Internal zoom is probable but not certain: to make it more compact Canon designed their RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM to extend while zooming in.

I haven't done a formal count but it seems to me that a fair few of the new zooms for mirror less systems extend? Almost as if mirror less makers have abandoned internal zoom? Am I mistaken?

Only obliquely related.

[Serkevan]

The Canon 70-200/4L (non IS) is an internal zoom and focus lens for that weight so I'm good for that.

Exactly. Around 700 g, internal focus and zoom, excellent build quality and great optics. I'm sure Pentax, 20 years later, can match or best that...

[Mistral75]

I haven't done a formal count but it seems to me that a fair few of the new zooms for mirror less systems extend? Almost as if mirror less makers have abandoned internal zoom? Am I mistaken?

Only obliquely related.

Not the lelezooms with a constant aperture, with the exception of the aforementioned Canon RF lens.

[reh321]

I would think that internal zoom makes WR easier / more effective
{I'm discouraged here from zooming when it is raining}

[Mikesul]

He is certainly entertaining to watch and he seems pretty fair. He gives digs to Pentax when needed. I was watching his video on the DFA* 70-200 vs the Tamron G2 70-200 and he was talking about being surprised that the DFA wasn't as sharp as the Tamron doing outdoor portraiture. It was interesting. I didn't see the whole video because I fell asleep after that bit.

I think he did a retest and discovered a problem with the original test.

[Hattifnatt]

I would think that internal zoom makes WR easier / more effective
{I'm discouraged here from zooming when it is raining}

Same here. Since I already bought the DFA* 70-200mm 2.8, if I get the 70-200 f4 I will probably use it for landscapes only. So all I want is IQ and WR while keeping the weight as low as possible without compromising IQ. AF speed would not be such an issue.

[SteveinSLC]

I'd be OK with extending zoom if it allowed a lighter, cheaper, more compact lens with equal quality. The weather-resistance on Pentax lenses is so good already, and they do give the AW designation to the 150-450, which has an extending zoom.

[UncleVanya]

Internal zoom is typically (but not always) associated with focus breathing. I'm hoping the lens avoids major focus breathing issues.

Edit: internal focus not zoom and it depends on specific implementation. Thanks for the correction.

[Sandy Hancock]

Internal zoom is typically (but not always) associated with focus breathing. I'm hoping the lens avoids major focus breathing issues.

I understand it is actually more to do with internal focus than internal zoom, but I'm willing to be corrected.

[troenaas]

I would think that internal zoom makes WR easier / more effective
{I'm discouraged here from zooming when it is raining}

One would think that internal zoom is safer and more effective. That said, I've used the DFA 28-105 in heavy rain without any issues.

[TwoUptons]

I’d be completely happy with a revised DFA*60-250 f4, even if it was the same price, as long as the focus speed was improved.

That said, I don’t think that’s what we’ll get.

The 70-200 f4 has never been advertised as a “*” lens, so I expect it to not be as good as the DA*60-250 is on APS (though, again, the 60-250 optically is apparently capable of decent FF coverage with the baffle removed).

A challenge is how to sell a DFA70-200 against the DA* without ending sales of the latter... unless that’s the intent... and it will functionally replace the 60-250...

I’d like it to be a lightweight travel lens, with WR and good image quality- a partner for the 28-105 in terms of capability and price.

I hope we find out soon

-Eric

[Serkevan]

I would settle for the slightly shorter zoom ratio (I'd prefer a lighter lens... 300 g can make a difference, although 1050 g without the tripod foot is still not too bad for a two-lens combo with the 28-105), but if they make an improved 60-250 I wouldn't even be mad.

K-1 + 60-250 + 28-105 would be 2.7 kg which is borderline acceptable. My APS-C hiking kit is 1.5 kg (K-7 + Tammy 17-50 + Pentax-M 135/3.5), although it's admittedly more limited in ranges.

[Mistral75]

Internal zoom is typically (but not always) associated with focus breathing. I'm hoping the lens avoids major focus breathing issues.

I understand it is actually more to do with internal focus than internal zoom, but I'm willing to be corrected.

There is no link between internal zooming and focus breathing.

Some lenses, in particular zoom lenses, with internal focus are prone to focus breathing but not all of them: it depends on the optical formula and can be avoided, e.g. with two distinct focus groups moving independently (there are other ways).

[Rondec]

Faster focusing is a given. I am 100% on board with that requirement. Lighter - not sure. Lighter typically means less optimized and the 60-250 does one thing very well - it shoots from wide open with great clarity. Reducing the range will help - as lenses from Nikon and Canon show - but I'm not sure giving me back 20-30% of the total weight of the existing lens to drop the range from 60-250 to 70-200 is sufficient.

I do think not having huge focus breathing is a requirement as well. That plus a lighter faster package will drive sales.

I don't think this lens will be particularly appealing to you since you are primarily an APS-C shooter. This lens will have better full frame coverage without the surgery the 60-250 needs. In addition, it will be smaller than both the 70-200 f2.8 and 60-250 f4. My guess would be in the 750 gram range, although Canon is doing some amazing things with the RF 70-200 f2.8 and not sure if Pentax could do something similar to keep size down.

Auto focus here is going to be the key though. I you need fast auto focus for tracking shots or anything like that, I would expect this lens to be a lot better than the 60-250. And I suppose more reliable, as the SDM does fail on the 60-250 and I don't think it can be converted to screw driven lens.

[Serkevan]

The 60-250 was designed as a full frame lens, they could just make different baffle cutouts, change the motor and sell it as such. Although if they made such a great piece of engineering with AW sealing, edge-to-edge sharpness, bigger zoom ratio and kept the weight around 1 kg, I wouldn't be surprised if the 70-200/4 were to be 700 g or, dare I dream, around 600 g like older, all metal f4 designs with 55 mm front filters. Get me something like that* and I'll drop a grand on the lens as soon as financially feasible.


*I don't much worry about a wider front element (67 would be fine, but make it 62 like the 28-105 and I'll cry tears of joy). A lightweight, well-made, WR 70-200/4 with Pentax pixie dust? I'd be set for life.