Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-07-2020, 04:30 AM   #1366
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,283
QuoteOriginally posted by WorksAsIntended Quote
A k-mount option would propably be bigger than the e-mount.
There is no reason for that. Only wide angle lenses can be made more compact for mirrorless.

04-07-2020, 04:40 AM   #1367
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
There is no reason for that. Only wide angle lenses can be made more compact for mirrorless.
For wide angle it matters much more, right. Still at 180mm you need to converge the light towards the sensor and it is easier to find a compact setup if the last element does not need to open the beam too much.

In general, I would wait a bit before praising the new Tamron too much. The real performance is still pretty unclear at this point.
04-07-2020, 04:43 AM   #1368
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,088
QuoteOriginally posted by WorksAsIntended Quote
A k-mount option would propably be bigger than the e-mount.
As a DI-III, if it really is designed for mirrorless, a Kmount is impossible anyway (or you go by corrective lenses which would be stupid IMO).
04-07-2020, 05:43 AM   #1369
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,847
From the optical design and the pictures of the lens itself, the rear element looks reasonably small and quite far away from the mount (which of course means it's not quite close to the sensor); of course I don't know if there is rear-element focusing/zooming. So potentially this tele could work on some DSLR mounts...


The Tamron DI iii trinity is incredibly light if nothing else; the three lenses put together weigh roughly the same as the D FA* 70-200/2.8 (!)

04-07-2020, 06:00 AM - 1 Like   #1370
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoUptons Quote
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...
My comment wasn't clear, and indeed your way of putting it would be a good addition to the review. I'll try to include a comparison of the fields of view of both lenses at their long end.

My comment was meant to say that, when operating both lenses at or close to 210mm, both show comparable focus breathing. Not identical (and it becomes difficult to measure an out-of-focus image, even if the effect is obvious).

QuoteOriginally posted by TwoUptons Quote
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.
My tests show that, at the tele end (and to a lesser extent at all focal lengths), the 60-250 has better uniformity and better corner sharpness. The 70-210 is better in the center.

Let's be careful with the word "better" : none is bad. They just have different perks. But the 60-250 is certainly no slouch.

QuoteOriginally posted by nocturnal Quote
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.
Sell it? Many people would love to own it.

QuoteOriginally posted by nocturnal Quote
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.
60 vs 70mm is indeed an important difference.

QuoteOriginally posted by cport Quote
I think that there is almost no reason to prefer 60-250/4 over 70-210/4.
I disagree. The choice is not as clear-cut as you put it.

QuoteOriginally posted by cport Quote
Pros (for 70-210/4):
- lighter
- new
- new SDM
- IF
- internal zoom
- cheaper
- KAF4
New is not a perk. It's a characteristic. IF is also common to both lenses. But you forgot a few perks.

Narrower profile
Allows built-in camera corrections in FF
Sharper in the center
Focus limiter
Blazing fast AF using the viewfinder.

QuoteOriginally posted by cport Quote
Cons:
- FL range
- WR (not AW)
- lens pouch
Bokeh cannot be compared. It's the biggest letdown of the 70-210
Even converted to FF, the 60-250 is sharper in the corners
Included tripod foot with the 60-250 (if you purchase the Tamron accessory for the 70-210, the weight difference becomes almost null)
70-210 hood lacks a window for polarizers
70-210 hood completely hides the zoom ring when reversed
70-210 is longer, enough so that it compromises the fit in several bags (see below)
KAF4 is crippling for some people
Somewhat slow AF using live view with the 70-210.

Regarding the bags, here are a few observations (I have many bags)

With my Mindshift Gear Horizon, the 60-250 can fit, barely, standing up in the camera compartment. Not possible with the 70-210.
With my Peak Design Messenger 15, the 60-250 fits vertically, mounted on a K-1. The 70-210 doesn't.
With my Peak Design Zip 20, the 60-250 mounted on K-1 fits horizontally while still leaving space at the end to fold down a divider. Not so with the 70-210 (you might have to become familiar with the dividers system to better understand that comment).
With my Peak Design Sling 10L, the 70-210 doesn't fit vertically (biggest bummer as workarounds are more limited).

That, and the bokeh, are the two biggest dealbreakers for me. I've been seriously considering taking the loss and exchanging my 60-250 for the 70-210. Now the jury is still out, but part of me thinks it's better to keep the money and, at worst, pay to eventually have the SDM system replaced if it fails (not likely, but if it does...)

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I'm looking forward to Bernard's review and his comparisons between the two lenses...
I'm hoping to have my first draft completed soon. Even then editing and corrections will take some time. Plus Adam decides when to publish a review, not me
04-07-2020, 06:05 AM   #1371
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 290
...

bdery: sure. Everybody has its own needs and preferences ;-) I wrote about my preferences ... anyway, looking forward to see some examples of bad bokeh of 70-210/4
04-07-2020, 06:20 AM   #1372
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Baltimore, MD
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,155
So the Pentax flavored 70-210 is a few percent different in weight and size from the 60-250 with the 60-250 actually being shorter physically? And the 60-250 outperforms the 70-210 in the corners?


Why didn't they do basic updates (coatings? cosmetics?) and redo the baffle for FF support and call it the 60-250 II and not bother with the 70-210?


Disillusioned.
04-07-2020, 06:32 AM - 1 Like   #1373
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,954
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
So the Pentax flavored 70-210 is a few percent different in weight and size from the 60-250 with the 60-250 actually being shorter physically? And the 60-250 outperforms the 70-210 in the corners?


Why didn't they do basic updates (coatings? cosmetics?) and redo the baffle for FF support and call it the 60-250 II and not bother with the 70-210?


Disillusioned.
Maybe bdery has the same copy the other two sites tested.

The 60-250 was one of those lenses a few people bought into Pentax for, it's that good.
Thinking they were going to surpass it may have been a pipe dream from the start.
The best 70-200 is always going to be the DFA*70-200 2.8
The second best will likely be the DA* 60-250.

Notice after the DFA there is no star for the DFA 70-210.
Pentax might be trying to tell you something.

---------- Post added 04-07-20 at 09:41 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
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.
The biggest factor in focus breathing would be that simpler lenses extend the front element when focusing, and that creates magnification.
A simple one element lens would produce the least focus breathing as the lens would get closer and closer to the subject and produce more magnification as the lens moves further from the film plane
With a complex design, in the more the complex designs, where the front element doesn't move forward during focusing, there is going to be focus breathing dependant on the internal design of the lens.
If I don't want focus breathing I can use my old F 70-210. The F 70-210 has 13 elements, but it was designed so that the front element still move forward during focusing. It's going to be less focus breathing than a modern design... but is that really what you want? The fact that the front elements moves forward means it's going to be sucking in dust every time you focus. You're going to have much heavier CA and purple fringing at the long end. Those are two serious problems. I don't know if there other ways of addressing them, but the advantages of modern design are pretty clear even if focus breathing is s side effect. It's a side effect introduced as a result of other improvements.



You can definitively discus focus breathing, without discussing maximum magnification at all. It's kind of a red herring. Whether or not it's related depends on the design of the lens. I suspect the amount of magnification you can achieve in the DA*60-250 or DFA 70-210 depends on how much internal room the lens design allows for you be able to move the internal focussing elements. On simpler design like the F 70-210 you can design a tube to hold the front element that will extend the front element from here to China if you choose. You don't have the same kind of constraint. You can push the magnification as much as you want, but more practically, as much as your design criteria to control CA and purple fringing will allow.


Last edited by normhead; 04-07-2020 at 07:22 AM.
04-07-2020, 07:12 AM   #1374
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,847
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
So the Pentax flavored 70-210 is a few percent different in weight and size
70-210: 860 g with hood

60-250: 1115 g with hood

That's 23% lighter, not "a few percent". In absolute terms, it's 255 g, which gives you "for free" your choice of D FA 50/2.8 macro, FA 50/1.4, FA 20/2.8 or - if you're shooting crop sensor - a DA 15 + DA 40 XS (not enough for the 40 Ltd, though )
04-07-2020, 07:36 AM - 1 Like   #1375
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,954
QuoteOriginally posted by Serkevan Quote
70-210: 860 g with hood

60-250: 1115 g with hood

That's 23% lighter, not "a few percent". In absolute terms, it's 255 g, which gives you "for free" your choice of D FA 50/2.8 macro, FA 50/1.4, FA 20/2.8 or - if you're shooting crop sensor - a DA 15 + DA 40 XS (not enough for the 40 Ltd, though )
The issue won't be when you want couple of lighter lenses. It's when you want longer.
The DA*60-250 is in many cases long enough you can avoid the DA*300 especially if you add the TC.
210 is a lot further away from 300 the 250 is.

Da* 60-250 with hood 1115 grams. HD DA TC 1.4 126 gms = 1241. The range is 60-350.

DFA 70-210 859 gms with DA*300 1160 gas = 2019 gms. Range 70-300 with nothing between 210 and 300.

More weight (by 800 gms) for less range.(60 mm less)

We can play these kinds of games all night.

How about gms per mm of range?190 mm of range for 1115 gms =5.86 gms per mm of range for the 60-250.
For the DFA 70-210 859gms for 140mm of range = 6.14 gms per mm.

It would appear to me the 70-210 is designed for those who have no need for 250mm (or more) and would like a bit of reduction in weight. Those are valid concerns for many and the lens will appeal to them. But lets not pretend that in any way it's capable for replacing a DA*60-250. Less weight for less functionality, it is as simple as that.

For shooters like myself self looking for maximum functionality for the least weight, the DA* 60-250 remains king. I notice in your comparison you didn't include a 60mm lens or a 250mm lens, which you'd need to be a direct comparison. After that you could start adding in one of the lightest lenses ever made like the 40XS just to make your point.

Last edited by normhead; 04-07-2020 at 07:52 AM.
04-07-2020, 07:39 AM   #1376
pid
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 408
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I guess if you're used to aDA 55-300 or 50-200 I guess both of them are chunky and heavy. If you're used to a -150-450 they are light and easily manageable. Such terms are always relative to something, and confusing if it isn't stated what that something is.



A DFA 100 macro WR with the 1.4 probably out resolves it at a fraction of the weight and superior ease of use.
sure, I did that too, but the bokeh with the converter isnt as good and it is not a f2.8 lens anymore and no zoom. I think you can not compare this.
04-07-2020, 07:51 AM   #1377
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,847
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The issue won't be when you want couple of lighter lenses. It's when you want longer.
The DA*60-250 is in many cases long enough you can avoid the DA*300 especially if you add the TC.
210 is a lot further away from 300 the 250 is.

Da* 60-250 with hood 1115 grams. HD DA TC 1.4 126 gms = 1241. The range is 60-350.

DFA 70-210 859 gms with DA*300 1160 gas = 2019 gms. Range 70-300 with nothing between 210 and 300.

More weight (by 800 gms) for less range.(60 mm less)

We can play these kinds of games all night.
Of course, it depends on what you need or want. In my particular case, most photos are taken around the range covered by the 28-105. Thus, I want the longer and shorter lenses to be as light as possible because I don't use them enough to justify carrying 1 kg+ of additional objectives.

My one (and only) point was that a quarter of a kg is not "a few percent", it's significant.
04-07-2020, 07:54 AM - 2 Likes   #1378
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,223
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
I'm hoping to have my first draft completed soon. Even then editing and corrections will take some time. Plus Adam decides when to publish a review, not me
All in good time, Bernard. I'm a patient man Whenever it is published, I'll enjoy it

QuoteOriginally posted by cport Quote
bdery: sure. Everybody has its own needs and preferences ;-) I wrote about my preferences ... anyway, looking forward to see some examples of bad bokeh of 70-210/4
I don't believe anyone has yet claimed that the 70-210/4 produces "bad bokeh"... only that the rendering from the 60-250 is superior in this respect; and that's not surprising, really, since (if I recall correctly) one of the design priorities for the 60-250 was out-of-focus rendering. In general use, I'd guess the 70-210/4's out-of-focus rendering is more than decent, and many folks will find it perfectly satisfactory when considering the lens' other advantages...
04-07-2020, 07:54 AM - 1 Like   #1379
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,954
QuoteOriginally posted by Serkevan Quote
Of course, it depends on what you need or want. In my particular case, most photos are taken around the range covered by the 28-105. Thus, I want the longer and shorter lenses to be as light as possible because I don't use them enough to justify carrying 1 kg+ of additional objectives. My point was that a quarter of a kg is not "a few percent", it's significant.
And my point was, per gram of range, the DA*60-250 is less weight per mm of range covered.
The only real argument agains it is "I don't shoot in that range." A fair argument but meaningless to anyone who does.

When I shoot my K-1 on long human powered trips, I take the DFA 28-105 and the DA 55-300 PLM. I'd avoid taking either of these lenses. I've carried the DA*60-250 over hill and dale, and if you have something like the DA 55-300 it will cover 90% of your need. But the shots you'll miss because you don't have an ƒ4 or an ƒ2.8 lens, will be the spectacular ones. So it is an entirely personal choice, but not exactly the same and not the same results.

Every lens has a place and a use. The DFA 70-210 has a place. But it's not the DA* 60-250's place.
The DFA 70-210 will be wonderful for those who never made use of the full range of the 60-250. (I suspect most of those are people who never owned the lens. After all, you can't shoot at 250mm or 60mm if you don't own a lens that can shoot at 60mm or 250mm. You'll have 0 images at those focal lengths.)
The DFA will not be at all desirable to those of for whom 50-300 ƒ4 would have been the choice if the optics were as good as the 60-250.

My personal FF focal length for use with my 28-105, would have been an ƒ4 100-300. It's unfortunate the 70-210 was bought out at all from my perspective. Made bearable by it being probably Tamron designed and manufactured, so no work for either the design team or the manufacturing facility. Something they could use to fill in the line up, but of less use in function than say a 20mm ƒ4 or a 24mm ƒ4 which would fill actual holes in the lineup.

Last edited by normhead; 04-07-2020 at 08:18 AM.
04-07-2020, 08:00 AM   #1380
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,847
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And my point was, per gram of range, the DA*60-250 is less weight per mm of range covered.
The only real argument agains it is "I don't shoot in that range." A fair argument but meaningless to anyone who does.
Norm, I'm not attacking your choice. I responded to a post that talked exclusively about the weight and size. We could also run circles about how the 70-210 "beats" (and I'm using the term liberally here) the 60-250 in the center, so what is better, the 250mm or an equivalently cropped sharper lens? There's no point in comparison, if you want to carry the entire Pentax arsenal you carry it and if you want to go out with a 50 mm you can still have fun.

By the way, the difference between 60 and 70 mm is one step back, and a short one at that. That's a whopping 0 g/mm.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
70-210mm, bishop field tests, body, change, coatings, dfa, euro, f/4 ed sdm, f4, fa, fa 70-210mm f/4, field, field tests dfa, firmware, half, hd pentax-d fa, internals, introduction, lens, lenses, macro, matt bishop field, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax-d, pentax-d fa 70-210mm, price, sdm, sense, tamron, test, weather, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hd pentax-d fa 24-70 mm f2.8 ed sdm wr Albi56 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 07-21-2019 11:47 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax HD D-FA 15-30mm F/2.8 SDM WR ED Lens w/Fotodiox Wonderpana Filter System jda17 Sold Items 2 06-24-2019 09:26 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top