[xmeda]

I took xmeda's comment as more positive than you did. The DA 18-135mm DC is a fine lens; I have never timed them, but the PLM motor probably is a bit faster, but both are plenty fast and accurate for my use. From my pov, saying the the DC motor gives you almost as fast AF as the PLM motor is a compliment to the DC motor because the PLM motor is so good.

Yes, I've pointed out, that we have another fast re-focusing lens. And I was not talking about focal length, but about different focusing range. While 55-300 PLM has 95cm to infinity and only moves small elements, the 18-135 has to manage 40cm to infinity with larger group. It looks like small difference on paper, but it is technically more problematic. Close focusing lenses tend to have long focus throw.

But I have another brutally fast focusing lens.. old F28-80 driven from body does not even need any silent motor and goes nuts on any new pentax body it was designed for cameras like SF-7 with very slow motor.



Here is an 11y old video of that lens mounted on my K20D (K3 and K1 are even faster)

You Tube

You Tube

---------- Post added 06-01-20 at 06:13 PM ----------

The point of a 70-200/4 is not to outperform a 2.8 version (although it will probably be about as good for any reasonable metric), it's to be less than half the weight. If you think 1.4 kg is light then I envy your fitness

Well.. the point of 70-200/4 FF lens is to have lighter and cheaper option than DFA*70-200/2.8 is.. But keeping in mind how big and heavy that lens is, then even the Sigma 70-200/2.8 fulfills those needs to large extent being smaller, lighter and way cheaper.

DFA*70-200/2.8
Length 203mm, Diameter 91.5mm, Weight 2026g (!!)


Tamron 70-200/2.8
Length 194mm, Diameter 89.5mm, Weight 1150g


Sig 70-200/2.8 HSM

Length: 184mm, Diameter: 86mm, Weight: 1370g



They probably can create 70-200/4 lens even a bit smaller and lighter, but on the other way they can focus on image output and the result won't be very small....

Lets take Tamron 70-210/4 as some close example in Nikon mount

Length 176.5mm, Diameter 76mm, Weight 860g


Is it so much different? That depends on personal taste of user of course.


But if you tell me, that for 300g more I can have F2.8 lens instead F4.. it will be very quick decision. It is big advantage for low-light and also for AF.


Personally:

Light& small for hike = DA55-300
Portable yet capable = Sig70-200/2.8
Long and capable = Sig100-300/4
Loooooong = Sig50-500

---

Last edited by xmeda; 01-06-2020 at 10:14 AM.

[reh321]

Yes, I've pointed out, that we have another fast re-focusing lens. And I was not talking about focal length, but about different focusing range. While 55-300 PLM has 95cm to infinity and only moves small elements, the 18-135 has to manage 40cm to infinity with larger group. It looks like small difference on paper, but it is technically more problematic. Close focusing lenses tend to have long focus throw.

But I have another brutally fast focusing lens.. old F28-80 driven from body does not even need any silent motor and goes nuts on any new pentax body it was designed for cameras like SF-7 with very slow motor.

Here is an 11y old video of that lens mounted on my K20D (K3 and K1 are even faster)

I don't usually think in terms of lenses that old, partly because I these days I want weather-proof {even though I hardly ever subject my body to it} and partly because I have always hated the noise made by in-body focusing. Thank you for reminding us that they do exist, however. Pentax was obviously mindful of them when they created their "Advent Calendar".

[Serkevan]

The Canon 70-200/4L is 705g (and is great from wide open, with a great construction). My Tokina 70-210/4.5 is also pretty good optically, weighs 640 g and has 55 mm filter threads*. I assume Pentax can manage a sub-700 g lens with great performance.

*And similar to your F lens, focuses fast, loud and proud. The other day I hit minimum distance (worst part of the lens by far at 1.5 m) and the THUNK was so loud I thought I would *literally* shoot the subject in the head... Oops.

[reh321]

The Canon 70-200/4L is 705g (and is great from wide open, with a great construction). My Tokina 70-210/4.5 is also pretty good optically, weighs 640 g and has 55 mm filter threads*. I assume Pentax can manage a sub-700 g lens with great performance.

*And similar to your F lens, focuses fast, loud and proud. The other day I hit minimum distance (worst part of the lens by far at 1.5 m) and the THUNK was so loud I thought I would *literally* shoot the subject in the head... Oops.

LOUD lenses were my main reason to go from Pentax to Canon in 1995, but by 2015 I had discovered many other reasons for coming back.

[WorksAsIntended]

My old F70-210 is extremly fast in focus too, kind of the 28-70 propably.
It is far from silent or sharp to the corners in modern standards though. Still I somehow really like the color rendering.

[xmeda]

The Canon 70-200/4L is 705g (and is great from wide open, with a great construction). My Tokina 70-210/4.5 is also pretty good optically, weighs 640 g and has 55 mm filter threads*. I assume Pentax can manage a sub-700 g lens with great performance.

*And similar to your F lens, focuses fast, loud and proud. The other day I hit minimum distance (worst part of the lens by far at 1.5 m) and the THUNK was so loud I thought I would *literally* shoot the subject in the head... Oops.

Old non-IS Canon EF 70-200/4 L did well on 12Mpix EOS 5DmkI for example. Put that on modern hi-res camera and you'll notice that you need to go to F6.3 to get good results. Later created EF 70-200/4 L IS is a bit better as modern elements were used and has sweet spot around F5.6+ with 780 grams, but that is without lens hood and with no tripod leg option.

My Sig70-200/2.8 HSMII goes to 1kg without the tripod leg and lens hood. So we can compare apples and apples then. As result we have 200g more for lens capable of F2.8 and with excellent image at F4 Tamron 70-200/2.8 is even lighter.



There are more important lenses that K mount lacks than DFA70-200/4.. trust me.




Old lens AF is loud.. sure.. but that is how reliability and compatibility sounds



---------- Post added 06-01-20 at 07:08 PM ----------

LOUD lenses were my main reason to go from Pentax to Canon in 1995, but by 2015 I had discovered many other reasons for coming back.

DA55-300 and DFA100/2.8 Macro can do nasty sounds in live-view AF too.. and they are modern. But usually you only do re-focus and not whole focusing range hunt. Even the 55-300 or 100/2.8 macro can be quite silent when they just do refocus from lets say 3m to 5m.. it is just short bzt and things are done.

With body driven 100-300/4 I have no problems to be few steps away from deer or small birds and they are more afraid od ME than of my camera noises But yes.. quiet focusing is nice option. Wedding ceremony with constant bzzt bzzt bzzt is annoying for example.

Read more at: New zoom 70-200 F4 - Page 65 - PentaxForums.com

[mlt]

A modern dc 100-300 limited (like the DA 20-40) with ff coverage would be nice, even if it was an f4-5.6 range

[Dan Rentea]

Old non-IS Canon EF 70-200/4 L did well on 12Mpix EOS 5DmkI for example. Put that on modern hi-res camera and you'll notice that you need to go to F6.3 to get good results. Later created EF 70-200/4 L IS is a bit better as modern elements were used and has sweet spot around F5.6+ with 780 grams, but that is without lens hood and with no tripod leg option.

I don't know if 5D Mark IV or EOS R fits in the "modern hi-res camera" category, but I have a few thousand portraits taken at f4 with the IS version of the 70-200mm f4 (the old one) if you want to see tack sharp images. I don't think I used that lens at f5.6+ more than a few occasions when I wanted different results.

Below just a few examples taken at f4

My Sig70-200/2.8 HSMII goes to 1kg without the tripod leg and lens hood. So we can compare apples and apples then. As result we have 200g more for lens capable of F2.8 and with excellent image at F4 Tamron 70-200/2.8 is even lighter

It all depends on what you're going to shoot with a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. I found that the 70-200mm f2.8 is suited for indoor sports mostly or for some wildlife with a 2x TC... For weddings, corporate events or for portraits with inexperienced models is intimidating and also a distraction. The old Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 lens which is available in Pentax mount isn't comparable with the f4 Canon version in terms of af speed (the Canon lens blows the Tamron in this department) and color rendition. An f4 modern Pentax 70-200mm f4 should also outperform the old Sigma/Tamron f2.8 lenses in terms of overall performance. If you ask me, for day by day use a 70-200mm f4 is a workhorse that can give excelent results wide open. Instead of buying the Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 lens, if I had to choose, I would buy the f4 version and with the difference of money I will wait and buy the Pentax 85mm f1.4 for low light situations.

[xmeda]

A modern dc 100-300 limited (like the DA 20-40) with ff coverage would be nice, even if it was an f4-5.6 range

Sure some modern DFA*100-300/4 or 100-400/4 would be great.. although I expect such lens to be very expensive.

Some long thing like 150-600 or 60-600 too.. If only Sigma waited a bit.... ehm

[Serkevan]

Considering the size and price of similar offerings from other OEMs, less than ~3000€ for such a lens might be wishful thinking, if it's a no-holds-barred star lens with amazing performance.

[Kunzite]

The D FA 140-450 is close enough to make a D FA 100-300 f/4 unnecessary.

[totsmuyco]

Sure some modern DFA*100-300/4 or 100-400/4 would be great.. although I expect such lens to be very expensive.

Some long thing like 150-600 or 60-600 too.. If only Sigma waited a bit.... ehm

I vote for a 100-400, f4, AW APSC lens.

[Dan Rentea]

I vote for a 100-400, f4, AW APSC lens.

The Canon 200-400mm f4 lens (the one with 1.4x TC built in) costs around 10000$. A 100-400mm f4 would probably cost 14000$.

[Serkevan]

The Canon 200-400mm f4 lens (the one with 1.4x TC built in) costs around 10000$. A 100-400mm f4 would probably cost 14000$.

Don't be silly, they said APS-C. 7000€ is enough!

[reh321]

The D FA 140-450 is close enough to make a D FA 100-300 f/4 unnecessary.

Since the DFA 150-450 is a f/4.5-5.6 lens, those who want "constant wide" may will not be satisfied at all with this choice.