[reh321]

Believe me, this was debated ad nauseam at the time. Pentax's lack of communication made everything worse. Pentax's philosophy seems to be admit nothing, work quietly in the back ground on a fix. With problems the magnitudes of the DA*16-16 /DA*50-135 fiasco that was really poor strategy.

But in the end, a poor design or an issue blown out of proportion by the internet? Probably both were factors.

Pentax used to send equipment to Benjikan for testing. Having a 16-50 fail after they sent him back a defective lens probably hurt Pentax more than a multi-million ad campaign could fix. He was our poster boy.... even if you didn't experience a failure it made you wonder "If this is how they treat benjikan, how are they going to treat a nobody like myself.?" It was the last straw in Pentax's market share decline.

Salemen in stores bookmarked threads on their computers and showed customers why they shouldn't buy Pentax by pointing to the riot going on over here on the forum.

At another discussion forum, I have encountered several former Pentax users who blame Pentax's response {none} to K-30 or K-50 aperture control failures to their decision to change brands. I purchased a used FA 28-105mm and then shot with "green button" metering until I got a KP. Some people will always be looking for an excuse for the GAS that makes them determined to spend money.

[bdery]

Except the 60-250 doesn’t quite cover the full 35mm frame across its entire zoom range in spite of what people do to try to make it happen.

That's simply not true.

And for the records, the new 70-210 vignettes more of less the same way than the modified 60-250mm at the long end. Approximately 1.5 (70-210mm at 210mm) vs 1.7 EV (60-250mm at 250mm). At 210mm the 60-250 is indistinguishable from the 70-210m.

get reliable AF

You mean SDM? If you buy new, you get the updated version, from after the Hoya era.

close to the same focal length at close distances with the 70-210.

Again, not supported by experience. I've tested focus breathing with both lenses and you'll see the results in the review, but the 70-210 is no better than the 60-250 regarding this.

Having had experience with the 60-250 AF, for me it’s a no brainer. Just buy the 70-210. It will still be your friend if you go full frame.

That's your opinion, and a fair one. I was expecting, prior to testing, to come up with the same conclusion. So far the new lens hasn't convinced me that it'S really better, except for AF speed maybe (and the jury is still out for this).

In the long run, Pentax needs to replace the SDM in the lenses with something else.

But they did. The Hoya-generation SDM has been updated. Where Pentax failed users is that they should have offered an upgrade path. Which they did, in a unique move, for the K-1 II. But not regarding SDM.

Look at Nikon's D600 debacle, we're not alone in being unhappy with customer support

Of course, nowadays when a new D FA lens is labelled "SDM", it's a completely different system than the one from the older DA and DA* lenses.

[Rondec]

That's simply not true.

And for the records, the new 70-210 vignettes more of less the same way than the modified 60-250mm at the long end. Approximately 1.5 (70-210mm at 210mm) vs 1.7 EV (60-250mm at 250mm). At 210mm the 60-250 is indistinguishable from the 70-210m.



You mean SDM? If you buy new, you get the updated version, from after the Hoya era.



Again, not supported by experience. I've tested focus breathing with both lenses and you'll see the results in the review, but the 70-210 is no better than the 60-250 regarding this.



That's your opinion, and a fair one. I was expecting, prior to testing, to come up with the same conclusion. So far the new lens hasn't convinced me that it'S really better, except for AF speed maybe (and the jury is still out for this).



But they did. The Hoya-generation SDM has been updated. Where Pentax failed users is that they should have offered an upgrade path. Which they did, in a unique move, for the K-1 II. But not regarding SDM.

Look at Nikon's D600 debacle, we're not alone in being unhappy with customer support

Of course, nowadays when a new D FA lens is labelled "SDM", it's a completely different system than the one from the older DA and DA* lenses.

I think you know what I mean. SDM isn't just one motor of course, but I own the DA *55 and it would really benefit from having some DC style motor. The same with the DA *50-135. It isn't the name, it is the fact that the micro motors they used in the DA * lenses are pretty under-powered. I haven't shot with the 60-250, so I hesitate to say anything about that, but my experience with the other lenses is that they are sharp enough, but aren't really great at keeping up with action of any kind.

[bxf]

You mean SDM? If you buy new, you get the updated version, from after the Hoya era.

There have been many references to improved SDM on the older DA* lenses, but I've never encountered anything definitive regarding this. I think there was even some statement made by a Pentax technician to that effect, but this was never corroborated.

Are you in a position to enlighten us on this with any specific information? Is there a date or serial number that one could reference to determine whether a given lens is pre or post SDM update?

[normhead]

There have been many references to improved SDM on the older DA* lenses, but I've never encountered anything definitive regarding this. I think there was even some statement made by a Pentax technician to that effect, but this was never corroborated.

Are you in a position to enlighten us on this with any specific information? Is there a date or serial number that one could reference to determine whether a given lens is pre or post SDM update?

As you know, there was no need to update the motors in the vast majority of SDM lenses.

However, it seemed once failed, another failure was imminent.

Pentax quietly upgrade the AF drive under warranty with better components when repaired, as confirmed by the German technician, and started using them on their production lines, but saw no need to encourage a wholesale up date since so many units worked as advertised.

It would have been irresponsible to offer an upgrade to working lenses that had nothing wrong with them given that they were the vast majority.....

But hey, we've been over this a million times, no one's going to change their minds now. Just saying, there are a lot of ways of looking at this, and in some of them, Pentax doesn't look as bad as many have made out.

My speculation was that the original motor wasn't strong enough to cover the torque needed if components at the high and low end of spec. came together to produce more friction than the motor was designed to overcome. A case of over engineering a product with not enough attention paid to the minimum and maximum torque need to run the AF system based on predictable variation using the accepted specs for various components. I'm not sure how only upgrading only the lenses that needed it was a bad thing. The biggest complaints came from people who's lenses were the worst.They had a tight lens, they sent it in. Their motors were replaced with the same motors that failed the first time, and they failed again, because the problem was too much friction in the AF drive, not the motor.. In benjikans case the first time he used it at high end magazine cover photo shoot it failed within minutes of being put on the camera.. Those people deserved some special consideration.

That's my take anyway, and no one is ever going to confirm it, so file it in the circular file if you wish.

Bottom line, every electric motor is going to fail eventually. Replacing the drive with every new camera body as in screw drive was always going to be the most reliable, for any system. If you want lens that might be working 20 years from now, my guess is get screw drive and buy the last system available before KAF4 is all that comes in new camera bodies.

[Mistral75]

(...)
Again, not supported by experience. I've tested focus breathing with both lenses and you'll see the results in the review, but the 70-210 is no better than the 60-250 regarding this.
(...)

Maximum magnification:

• DA★ 60-250mm f/4: 0.15x at 1.1m
• D FA 70-210mm f/4: 0.32x at 0.95m

The maximum magnification of the D FA is more than twice that of the DA★ at a 14% shorter focusing distance with a 16% shorter focal distance at infinity. So...

[bdery]

There have been many references to improved SDM on the older DA* lenses, but I've never encountered anything definitive regarding this. I think there was even some statement made by a Pentax technician to that effect, but this was never corroborated.

Are you in a position to enlighten us on this with any specific information? Is there a date or serial number that one could reference to determine whether a given lens is pre or post SDM update?

There was, if memory serves, an interview by Pentaxforums with Pentax/Ricoh management, several years ago, where they answered this. Repair shops also gave information, as normhead wrote.

The maximum magnification of the D FA is more than twice that of the DA★ at a 14% shorter focusing distance with a 16% shorter focal distance at infinity.

I'm not talking about magnification, but about focus breathing. That's not the same thing. Focus breathing occurs also even when you're not at the closest focus distance.

[Mistral75]

(...)

I'm not talking about magnification, but about focus breathing. That's not the same thing. Focus breathing occurs also even when you're not at the closest focus distance.

It's not the same thing but both are related. If a lens has half the maximum magnification of another lens with comparable focal distance and minimum focusing distance, it means its focus breathing between infinity and minimum focusing distance is (vastly) superior and most probably superior between infinity and any focusing distance or between any two given focusing distances.

[TwoUptons]

I'm not talking about magnification, but about focus breathing. That's not the same thing. Focus breathing occurs also even when you're not at the closest focus distance.

I'm guessing we'll know when you do the review, but I figured your earlier statement was asserting that the DA* 60-250 at 250mm and the DFA 70-210 had about the same equivalent focal length when used up close.

To me that means the DA* has a lot more focus breathing but that the end result is about the same at distances much less than infinity but farther than minimum focus distance...

I also thought the reason the DA* didn't get turned into a DFA* was that the quality of the images at the edges of a full frame image weren't up to * quality, and they couldn't very well take the baffle out and sell it as a * lens that way.
So nothing specific to vignetting...

-Eric

[nocturnal]

May I contribute by saying that if I bought my used DA* 60-250 f4 before my F* 300 f4.5 prime I would never have bought the F*300.

The F*300 f4.5 has stellar IQ but so does the DA* 60-250 f4 @ 250mm and everywhere else too.

Shamed to say I haven't used the F*300 again so what am I going to do with it? OK I used it for a bit with 35mm film but haven't done much of that in the last few years.

Not sure a 70-210 could 'replace' a 300mm prime. The 60mm vs 70mm allows a lot more width also, especially for landscapes for which I use this lens almost entirely.

[cport]

I think that there is almost no reason to prefer 60-250/4 over 70-210/4.

Pros (for 70-210/4):
- lighter
- new
- new SDM
- IF
- internal zoom
- cheaper
- KAF4


Cons:
- FL range
- WR (not AW)
- lens pouch

[BigMackCam]

I think that there is almost no reason to prefer 60-250/4 over 70-210/4.

Pros (for 70-210/4):
- lighter
- new
- new SDM
- IF
- internal zoom
- cheaper
- KAF4


Cons:
- FL range
- WR (not AW)
- lens pouch

I'm all for the 70-210/4 - it would probably be a more practical lens for me. But let's have some balance here...

The 60-250 is a star lens with build quality to match. It's optically excellent throughout its larger focal length range, and the out-of-focus rendering is superb. It has AW all-weather protection, the highest level offered by Pentax. Yes, it's heavy, suffers from severe focus breathing and uses the old SDM AF motor - these are its downsides, no question. But it's fully deserving of its star lens designation. That it comes with a tripod foot and pouch is almost incidental, but nice nonetheless.

For APS-C users, which lens is the better choice will come down to personal preferences and use cases. If out-of-focus rendering is a key priority, that alone could be enough to sway someone towards the 60-250.

I'm looking forward to Bernard's review and his comparisons between the two lenses...

[Serkevan]

Agreed with Mike there; "New" and "Internal Zoom" are not necessarily good things, while optics and bokeh matter a lot.

I would go with the 70-210/4 purely because I use a K-1 and a lens over 1 kg is too much for my needs , and even then I would probably stay with my 640g Tokina 70-210/4.5. It's not optically perfect, but it's sharp enough and has nice enough bokeh... If the 70-210/4 wows me I will consider it, I'm also looking forward to the in-depth review

[D1N0]

Tamron just did a trick that I would probably much prefer over the 70-210mm F4: Tamron's 70-180mm F2.8 lens should ship in mid-May for $1,199: Digital Photography Review

[WorksAsIntended]

Tamron just did a trick that I would probably much prefer over the 70-210mm F4: Tamron's 70-180mm F2.8 lens should ship in mid-May for $1,199: Digital Photography Review

A k-mount option would propably be bigger than the e-mount.