[reh321]

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...

I do have a KP, and I cover lots of focal lengths with my 18-135 DC and my 77-420mm PLM (*) at a weight even this 72-year-old can carry; in "FF" terms. this combination covers focal lengths 28-630mm. To be honest, though, I have been sorry that Pentax's adapter doesn't carry appropriate electrical contacts - otherwise I would consider purchasing a second 55-300mm lens to use just with my Q-7.


(*) My 55-300mm PLM lens is semi-permanently attached in a 1.4X TC, making what I call my "77-420mm" lens

[Mistral75]

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.

(...)

They had to make do with a two-positions switch since this is the on-off switch of the lens stabilisation on the Tamron lens. Hence this arrangement instead of the more common three-positions (close / far / no limit) switch.

[mstahulak]

They had to make do with a two-positions switch since this is the on-off switch of the lens stabilisation on the Tamron lens. Hence this arrangement instead of the more common three-positions (close / far / no limit) switch.

Maybe, but the HD Pentax-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW has the same two-position switch for this feature. Maybe this is the non-* way of doing things…

[RobA_Oz]

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...

I can imagine that the coatings on the HD 1.4x make a fair amount of difference to flare etc. I’ve used a variety of TC over the years, with film and digital, the most recent of which is the SMC AFA1.7x, and while that one performs the best (not to mention has AF capacity) it’s only worked well on a few lenses.

I would also guess that modern optical design has minimised the inevitable degradation that comes with more glass and surfaces.

[Mistral75]

Combat flare, not only with coatings, was high on the priority list.

[MMVIII]

They had to make do with a two-positions switch since this is the on-off switch of the lens stabilisation on the Tamron lens. Hence this arrangement instead of the more common three-positions (close / far / no limit) switch.

Maybe, but the HD Pentax-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW has the same two-position switch for this feature. Maybe this is the non-* way of doing things…

Okay, does that mean with two positions you always have one focus area limited? How does the 560 handle in this regard?

[Mistral75]

Okay, does that mean with two positions you always have one focus area limited? How does the 560 handle in this regard?

It's an on/off switch with a differentiated effect: when the focus range limiter is switched to the LIMIT position the focus range is automatically set to one of two ranges (either 0.95 meter to 2 meters or 2 meters to infinity) according to the focusing distance of the moment.

[MMVIII]

It's an on/off switch with a differentiated effect: when the focus range limiter is switched to the LIMIT position the focus range is automatically set to one of two ranges (either 0.95 meter to 2 meters or 2 meters to infinity) according to the focusing distance of the moment.

Sure! Thank you. I should have had a look at it... my bad.

[Serkevan]

My Tamron 90/2.5 macro also has a two-position limiter at roughly half the throw. It basically just drops a block at that point, restricting the focus range from 0.39-0.6 m or 0.6 - inf. Simple, but it works.

[clackers]

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.

Different class of lens, Steve. The 55-300 (I've owned both PLM and non-PLM versions) is a lower end lens price wise, a variable aperture, a good second lens for someone to buy after the 18-55. Punches above its weight, no doubt.

This thing is in the Canon/Nikon/Sony 70-200mm f4 territory, and its FF if you ever upgrade to the K-1.

[clackers]

My Tamron 90/2.5 macro also has a two-position limiter at roughly half the throw. It basically just drops a block at that point, restricting the focus range from 0.39-0.6 m or 0.6 - inf. Simple, but it works.

Yeah, I love my DFA 100 Macro even as a general purpose lens, but its lack of a limiter means if you miss focus first time, it racks all the way into 30cm then all the way back out again ....

[SteveinSLC]

Different class of lens, Steve. The 55-300 (I've owned both PLM and non-PLM versions) is a lower end lens price wise, a variable aperture, a good second lens for someone to buy after the 18-55. Punches above its weight, no doubt.

This thing is in the Canon/Nikon/Sony 70-200mm f4 territory, and its FF if you ever upgrade to the K-1.

Well, I gave up my K-1 to move to a 645z...so going back to that would sort of be a downgrade :-) And I had both the Tamron 70-200 and DFA 70-200 at various times with the K-1. So I have a pretty good idea what quality is in that focal range on FF. Had I hung on to the K-1, I'd be thinking about buying the 70-210 once it drops in price.

I fully understand what the 55-300 PLM is, and as you say, from my experience it punches above its weight. And I think those Pentax charts might make sense if one did have both a KP and K-1. But for just an APSC owner, buying the 70-210 and the TC puts one at $1500, and you won't be at F4 anymore. It's probably still better than the 55-300 PLM, but is it enough better to justify 3x cost and 3x size and weight?

[reh321]

I fully understand what the 55-300 PLM is, and as you say, from my experience it punches above its weight. And I think those Pentax charts might make sense if one did have both a KP and K-1. But for just an APSC owner, buying the 70-210 and the TC puts one at $1500, and you won't be at F4 anymore. It's probably still better than the 55-300 PLM, but is it enough better to justify 3x cost and 3x size and weight?

I suppose I would accept one if someone wanted to give me one, but I cannot image purchasing a 70-210mm; yes, it has a wider aperture, but my KP gives me satisfactory images at the {higher} ISO values needed, even in the 210-300mm range.

[redpit]

Maybe already posted somewhere in here too, but anyway good to have it:

You Tube

You Tube

[sundown]

Maybe already posted somewhere in here too, but anyway good to have it:
Pentax DFA 70-210 F4 lens on Field Test - YouTube

Moooooore!

Love the ricoh+pentax-tamron collab