[sbh]

I'm surprised you guys don't look at macros for product work. Sharp edge to edge, maybe a little weak in the out of focus areas though.

I do, the 100 WR is my most used lens for that. Sharpness is top notch and no other lens performs edge to edge like this one. But star lenses do have a different kind of sharpness and iq that is very pleasing. So for some cases, I wish the 60-250 could get closer at longer focal ranges. Not necessarily macro but just a close-up.

[Rondec]

Thanks. How is the minimum focus distance of the 70-210? Although I love the image quality, the 60-250 isn‘t ideal for closeups like product shots. Smaller objects won‘t fill the frame. IIRC it‘s more than 1m (3+ ft) whereas the new fat fifty *50 can get really close at 40cm (a little over 1ft). This close distance was even advertised as a feature.

Minimum focus distance is 3.12 feet/95 cm with a max magnification of 0.32 . As compared to the DA *60-250 which is 3.6 feet/1.1 meters and a maximum magnification of 0.14x. Interestingly, the Canon 200mm f2 that Dan mentioned earlier has a minimum focus distance of 190 cm and a max magnification of 0.12x.

None of these is a macro lens, but certainly it seems as though this lens focus breathes a bit less than some of the other options out there.

[BigMackCam]

I agree, when I take the 60-250, I usually take a macro. With the 55-300 PLM, I'm usually happy with just that lens, leaving the macro-home.

It's conundrum for many. You have to ask, if there was a lens like the 70-210 available when we bought our 60-250s would we have bought that lens or this one?

If the answer is you would have bought this one, now you have to ask, is it worth it to buy this one and sell the 60-250 or whatever. So much of my work is landscape with the occasional wildlife, that's a tough one. I'm sure lots of 60-250 owners are dealing with it. Especially tough because they are both ƒ4 lenses.

I have no problem with my 300 2.8 or 200 2.8, because they bring something different to the table. For me, I've gotten so used to the 60-250 and like so much of what it does I'll probably just live with it. For 8 feet away in my blind, the Tamron 300 2.8 is my preferred lens. The DFA 70-210 wouldn't change that. So you're talking about replacing a lens for the areas where it's weakest and is already my second or 3rd choice.

The 55-300 PLM has become the essential "I'm going out for a walk, might see something nice, take a camera and lens just in case," lens. Around here it's much admired for it's simplicity, and Tess and I often both try and grab it when we go out. It's still first come first served situation around here. The DFA 28-105 has become the same type of lens. Under house rules, you're not allowed to take both.

I remember asking your advice on the DA*60-250 back when I was first considering it. Even though you'd fore-warned me about the focus breathing, I was somewhat taken aback by it in use. Thankfully, I bought the HD 1.4x AW at the same time, and quickly found a combination of the two worked perfectly and performed well at close range. Still, it was neither a light-weight nor inexpensive approach to achieving f/5.6 @ 200mm for close range work At distance, of course, its performance without the adapter at f/4 is marvellous, and magnification at distance with the adapter is nicely handy. It's a "swings and roundabouts" kind of a lens, even with the 1.4x converter added, but awesome when it fits the use case... It just doesn't fit as many - at least, not perfectly - as I first expected; though I've never regretted buying it.

I'm excited about this new lens as a potential longer-term replacement for my DA*60-250, but I'll have to research it carefully before I decide whether to acquire one for my APS-C gear when the prices have dropped in a year or two. My humble screw-drive HD DA55-300 f/4-5.8 has an f/4.5 aperture at 190mm, then f/5.6 all the way to 260mm. Of course, it's optically inferior to the DA*60-250, but I'm already choosing to shoot the 55-300 more often - and accept the IQ compromise - for the sake of convenience. I'd assume it's even more inferior to the new D FA70-210 f/4... but for anything other than large prints, I wonder how significant this inferiority will actually be. By the time raw images are very gently sharpened in post, then re-sized for medium-to-smaller prints or 24" desktop screen display, I'm wondering if the optical advantages of the 70-210 may not be obvious.

So, for my use cases, I'll have to do my research and think it over. Full-frame users will, I believe, have a much easier choice to make...

[Sandy Hancock]

Full-frame users will, I believe, have a much easier choice to make...

Indeed! Choice made

[JensE]

With the 55-300 PLM, I'm usually happy with just that lens, leaving the macro-home.

Just screw on a 58mm +3 (330mm) achromat for a serious macro tool - sample incidentally taken at 210mm setting. Handles very well. Looking forward to try that on the 70-210mm + K-1 combo for a little more field of view (~1.2*) at a little more magnification (~1.2*) for the same resolution.

[sbh]

Minimum focus distance is 3.12 feet/95 cm with a max magnification of 0.32 . As compared to the DA *60-250 which is 3.6 feet/1.1 meters and a maximum magnification of 0.14x. Interestingly, the Canon 200mm f2 that Dan mentioned earlier has a minimum focus distance of 190 cm and a max magnification of 0.12x.

None of these is a macro lens, but certainly it seems as though this lens focus breathes a bit less than some of the other options out there.

So 0.32 means that an object can be roughly twice as large in the frame as with 0.14?

[Mistral75]

So 0.32 means that an object can be roughly twice as large in the frame as with 0.14?

Basically, yes.

MM = 0.32 means the image of the object on the sensor is 0.32x the size of the object in real life.

[Sandy Hancock]

Or approximately 1:3 as opposed to 1:7, which is how macro magnification is more traditionally stated.

[sbh]

Basically, yes.

MM = 0.32 means the image of the object on the sensor is 0.32x the size of the object in real life.

Or approximately 1:3 as opposed to 1:7, which is how macro magnification is more traditionally stated.

Ok thanks, I wasn't sure whether it was the same measurement as the usual 1:1 or 2:1 we see for macro lenses.

[Riddler]

When is the lens available?

[Sandy Hancock]

When is the lens available?

Early March in Australia. Late February in better served areas.

[BigMackCam]

When is the lens available?

Are you getting fidgety? You pre-ordered yours about a week ago, right?

[Riddler]

Supplier Saïd it Will be march?
Yes pre order

[Rondec]

Yes, since the focal length of a lens is measured at infinity, there are usually 2 situations when you can notice focus breathing:

1. the first one is related to the magnification of the lenses at close distances. You put 2 objects one behind the other and without changing the distance you change the focus between the shots and look at the framing. This is simpler and most common way to test a lens for focus breathing
2. the second one is related to macro or anything that involves focus stalking when the angle of view will be different between close focusing and focusing at infinity.

It's true also that the Tamron lens has less focus breathing than other lenses, and I mentioned that for the ones interested in a possible comparison with the 60-250mm f4 lens.

---------- Post added 02-01-20 at 03:01 PM ----------



I usually don't put filters on my lenses, except situations like yours where the filter, the lens hood and the rain cover will extend the life of my gear, especially with the salty water or sand dust blown by the wind on beaches, deserts, etc.

I guess I just wondered at what distance you were shooting where you saw that the 60-250 was only 210mm long on the long end? Because that seems like a major discrepancy if you were shooting at infinity and it was really 60-210. If it was anything short of that then it doesn't surprise me at all.

[Mistral75]

When is the lens available?

On the 14th of February according to Ricoh Imaging Japan, not taking into account a possible coronavirus impact.