[c.a.m]

There is something really weird at the end where they compare the DFA *70-200 and the DFA 15-450 combined with a K-1 (for "70-450 coverage") with the KP with the DFA 70-210 f4 and the teleconverter (for 70-450 coverage). But the thing is that if you are going to use the APS-C conversion on the 210 combined with the teleconverter to reach 450, then you should use it on the 70mm too. So it should be, what, 105 to 400mm coverage mounting the lens on the KP with and without the TC?

Likewise, I had to think about that comparison. I'm not certain, but I think what they mean is with the two cameras, the 70-210 lens, and the teleconverter, it's possible to attain a range from 70mm (lens on K-1) through to an equivalent focal length of 450mm (lens + TC on KP). At the Special Content page, they say "When mounted on an APS-C-format camera, its focal length range is extended to the equivalent of 107mm to 322mm in the 35mm format."

I think the intent is to suggest that a fairly wide range of coverage (e.g., angle of view) is possible with a relatively lighter-weight kit.


- Craig

[repaap]

There is something really weird at the end where they compare the DFA *70-200 and the DFA 15-450 combined with a K-1 (for "70-450 coverage") with the KP with the DFA 70-210 f4 and the teleconverter (for 70-450 coverage). But the thing is that if you are going to use the APS-C conversion on the 210 combined with the teleconverter to reach 450, then you should use it on the 70mm too. So it should be, what, 105 to 400mm coverage mounting the lens on the KP with and without the TC?

Anyway, some of those things feel like a bit of a stretch. Understood that APS-C with slower lenses is lighter than full frame with heavier lenses, but use the real numbers.

Actually they suggest that one should use it with K-1, then K-P as teleconverter, and expand range by adding also HD DA X1,4 in game. Still save some weight compared to 70-200 + 150-450 combo. While it is true and save you some €€€, it sounds almost too smart. But with this new K-new on it's way it could be actually great idea

[Serkevan]

They mean two cameras, yes. K-1, KP, 70-210 and teleconverter as opposed to K-1 + 70-200+150-450

[troenaas]

They mean two cameras, yes. K-1, KP, 70-210 and teleconverter as opposed to K-1 + 70-200+150-450

That was my interpretation too...

[Rondec]

Actually they suggest that one should use it with K-1, then K-P as teleconverter, and expand range by adding also HD DA X1,4 in game. Still save some weight compared to 70-200 + 150-450 combo. While it is true and save you some €€€, it sounds almost too smart. But with this new K-new on it's way it could be actually great idea

OK. I guess I understand. It still doesn't feel like it would truly be the same. Also the weight savings would be less if you just used the 70-210 plus the 150-450 to cover the range rather than doing the DFA *70-200 on the K-1 side. So on one side you have the K-1 plus DFA 70-210 f4 and 150-450 and the other side, you have a K-1 a KP, a 1.4x TC, and the 70-210 f4. There's still some savings with the K-1/KP combo, but more like 2 kg.

Anyway, in my opinion, it is the worst way to sell lenses. "How long is this lens? Well, it depends on the camera you mount it on." I know what they are saying and probably everybody on this thread does too, but there are plenty of confused folks who show up who have absolutely no clue how long their lenses really are, but are sure that something magical happens when you mount certain lenses on APS-C cameras.

[Paul the Sunman]

Actually they suggest that one should use it with K-1, then K-P as teleconverter, and expand range by adding also HD DA X1,4 in game. Still save some weight compared to 70-200 + 150-450 combo. While it is true and save you some €€€, it sounds almost too smart. But with this new K-new on it's way it could be actually great idea

Yes, interesting comparisons. I must say I have never even contemplated carrying the 70-200 and 150-450 at the same time. So it's more like "you'll be able to do this" rather than "it will be much lighter when you want to cover 70-450". However, if I wanted that range (and more) at present, I'd just take the K1, 150-450, and 28-105 and be very happy.

[repaap]

something magical happens when you mount certain lenses on APS-C cameras.

But, it almost feels like they are,

A) trying to sell to you not only this new lens, but also TC
B) trying to sell you K-1 II to go with your K-P and your new lens

And being rational, while doing it. (Yes, some might know that I have tendency to be sarcastic about things) But it is also true. I also sometimes wish for something lighter/smaller, but high quality to use instead of my big(even more so when I looked it from their page) 70-200/2.8, when I don’t need that f 2.8. The thing is that I don’t know if I need it or not, before hand. Only way to make this go, would be the need of bring something like this with me to my travels, with limits in weight at airplane. I have DFA 28-105, and it is small, but it does come with it’s limitations. But, after I have in my hand all of DFA* lenses, and If I have money, I would be hard Time to resist this one.

---------- Post added 01-23-20 at 22:17 ----------

Yes, interesting comparisons. I must say I have never even contemplated carrying the 70-200 and 150-450 at the same time. So it's more like "you'll be able to do this" rather than "it will be much lighter when you want to cover 70-450". However, if I wanted that range (and more) at present, I'd just take the K1, 150-450, and 28-105 and be very happy.

That is true. For what I really like 70-200 for, is that high quality, and that f 2.8. So even at dusk you can have lovely colours, while having your ISO at okay leveys weight is still there thou.

[deus ursus]

They mean two cameras, yes. K-1, KP, 70-210 and teleconverter as opposed to K-1 + 70-200+150-450

What? Don't they want to sell the 150-450? 😳


😋

[Rondec]

But, it almost feels like they are,

A) trying to sell to you not only this new lens, but also TC
B) trying to sell you K-1 II to go with your K-P and your new lens

And being rational, while doing it. (Yes, some might know that I have tendency to be sarcastic about things) But it is also true. I also sometimes wish for something lighter/smaller, but high quality to use instead of my big(even more so when I looked it from their page) 70-200/2.8, when I don’t need that f 2.8. The thing is that I don’t know if I need it or not, before hand. Only way to make this go, would be the need of bring something like this with me to my travels, with limits in weight at airplane. I have DFA 28-105, and it is small, but it does come with it’s limitations. But, after I have in my hand all of DFA* lenses, and If I have money, I would be hard Time to resist this one.

---------- Post added 01-23-20 at 22:17 ----------



That is true. For what I really like 70-200 for, is that high quality, and that f 2.8. So even at dusk you can have lovely colours, while having your ISO at okay leveys weight is still there thou.

That's fine, I guess. But if I had a KP and wanted to cover a decent range for light weight, I would get a combo of the 16-85 (or 18-135) and 55-300 PLM. That gets me 24-450 coverage and surely it weighs less than the 70-210 plus two cameras plus a TC...

[repaap]

That's fine, I guess. But if I had a KP and wanted to cover a decent range for light weight, I would get a combo of the 16-85 (or 18-135) and 55-300 PLM. That gets me 24-450 coverage and surely it weighs less than the 70-210 plus two cameras plus a TC...

Sounds reasonable

[RobA_Oz]

There is something really weird at the end where they compare the DFA *70-200 and the DFA 15-450 combined with a K-1 (for "70-450 coverage") with the KP with the DFA 70-210 f4 and the teleconverter (for 70-450 coverage). But the thing is that if you are going to use the APS-C conversion on the 210 combined with the teleconverter to reach 450, then you should use it on the 70mm too. So it should be, what, 105 to 400mm coverage mounting the lens on the KP with and without the TC?

Anyway, some of those things feel like a bit of a stretch. Understood that APS-C with slower lenses is lighter than full frame with heavier lenses, but use the real numbers.

Never mind aperture reduction with the TC, let alone the “equivalence” arguments.

I’ve always been wary of using TCs on zoom lenses, but I must say the KP/70-210/1.4TC images don’t look too bad.

[BigMackCam]

I’ve always been wary of using TCs on zoom lenses, but I must say the KP/70-210/1.4TC images don’t look too bad.

The DA*60-250 plus HD 1.4x rear converter performs very well indeed on my K-3. I've tended to use the 1.4x mostly when shooting at shorter range to make up for the focus breathing, and just occasionally when I know I may need more reach for more distant work. I've been really surprised at how well the combo works, even wide open. I've no reason to think it would do any worse on the new 70-210...

[Sandy Hancock]

The focus limiter looks really interesting.

If I have understood its operation correctly, the "limit" setting allows either near (MFD to 2.0m) OR far limitation (2.0 m to infinity) depending on where the lens focus is set when you flick the switch.

My other DFA lenses with focus limiters (DFA* 70-200 and DFA 150-450) have three settings, but this achieves the same functionality with only two switch positions.

I won't have a strong need for this lens until November, so I'm tempted to wait a few months to see if the price drops a little, but I'll definitely be buying it.

[SteveinSLC]

Yeah, those are interesting comparisons, especially since I have the KP and 55-300 PLM and 150-450. Is the the 70-210+TC combination enough better than the 55-300 PLM to justify a lot more expense and size/weight? The 55-300 PLM is pretty good, very small, and very fast focusing.

And if we're using the same sort of calculations they are using, the 150-450 on APS-C is roughly equivalent to 225-675. So the 210+1.4TC on doesn't get to the same long end as the 150-450 on a KP.

[Sandy Hancock]

Is the the 70-210+TC combination enough better than the 55-300 PLM to justify a lot more expense and size/weight?

Well, the 55-300 is weakest at the long end (but not bad), and it doesn't cover the full frame particularly well, so for those of use with both crop and FF cameras the new lens is doubly versatile.

If you only have a crop camera then I think you have a fair point. I certainly won't be selling my 55-300 PLM anytime soon.