[Wheatfield]

Do you think there's any chance of Pentax updating the AF assembly on the 60-250?

Not likely. The mechanical stuff is locked in by design. The best you can hope for is a new lens with a new AF system that doesn’t have the death wish that the original SDM carries.
I wouldn’t hold out much hope for that, either. I expect Ricoh is going to put most of their effort over the next few years fleshing out the D FA line.
APS-C users who want a more reliable AF mechanism in a medium tele zoom should be looking at the 70-210, in spite of its shorter length.

[normhead]

Ya, I've only owned my DA*60-250 about 8 years now and taken 1000's of exposures with it. Maybe you should be talking down some other lens.

[bdery]

Will the 70-210 'kill' the 60-250?

I doubt it. Range, bokeh, and other optical characteristics are different.

Do you think there's any chance of Pentax updating the AF assembly on the 60-250?

I strongly doubt it. If this was their intent, they would have done so instead of releasing the D FA 70-210.

[Wheatfield]

I doubt it. Range, bokeh, and other optical characteristics are different.



I strongly doubt it. If this was their intent, they would have done so instead of releasing the D FA 70-210.

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.
The trade off for crop format users is get the extra 40mm at infinity with the 60-250 or get reliable AF and close to the same focal length at close distances with the 70-210.
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.

[luftfluss]

The best you can hope for is a new lens with a new AF system that doesn’t have the death wish that the original SDM carries.

Ya, I've only owned my DA*60-250 about 8 years now and taken 1000's of exposures with it.

According to the SDM Reliability Survey Results the 60-250 is by far the most reliable of the old-school SDM zooms. Of course these are dated results, but I think the sample size is enough to draw meaningful conclusions.

[Wheatfield]

According to the SDM Reliability Survey Results the 60-250 is by far the most reliable of the old-school SDM zooms. Of course these are dated results, but I think the sample size is enough to draw meaningful conclusions.

Thats a bit like saying your dog has better breath than my dog.
Personal experience, one sample only, my 60-250 failed not once, but twice.

[monochrome]

According to the SDM Reliability Survey Results the 60-250 is by far the most reliable of the old-school SDM zooms. Of course these are dated results, but I think the sample size is enough to draw meaningful conclusions.

As the owner of two failed SDM DA* zooms that I’ve converted to screwdrive, “better” doesn’t move the needle for me.

[WorksAsIntended]

I seriously wonder if they still produce sdm lenses or they just have a bit enough stock that they will let run out at some point. Is there any information if those lenses are still produced in 2020?

[luftfluss]

Thats a bit like saying your dog has better breath than my dog.
Personal experience, one sample only, my 60-250 failed not once, but twice.

For years I volunteered at an animal shelter. I'm perfectly fine with dog breath.

As the owner of two failed SDM DA* zooms that I’ve converted to screwdrive, “better” doesn’t move the needle for me.

I get it. If the 60-250 genuinely interested me, I would carefully consider the SDM situation, given that screwdrive conversion does not seem to be an option. Last year I took the plunge on the DA 17-70 and all has been well, but that lens is 1/4 of the price of the 60-250 on the used market.

According to the survey, 101 DA* 60-250 lenses, 6 SDM failures.

[normhead]

As the owner of two failed SDM DA* zooms that I’ve converted to screwdrive, “better” doesn’t move the needle for me.

What about "by far the most reliable"?

I'd be interested info seeing that the SDM on the lens is less reliable than that in the motors in any lens from any company.
I haven't, so I don't really care what other different SDM motors that were used in different SDM cameras were like.

There seems to be this notion that the different lens motors labelled SDM all had the same motor that failed on some lenses. We we've always know that wasn't true. Some are irresponsible and con the gullible for no other reason than they can (or possibly vindictiveness over Pentax's poor response to the failures in the 16-50 and 50 -135), as far as I can tell.

We've been through this enough times now people should understand, you need to name the lenses that were problems and not blame SDM as a whole.

SDM was a departure in that lenses like the 16-50 and 50-135 could be converted to screw drive and still had the full screw drive mechanism intact in the lens assembly. Not all SDM lenses are like that. While Pentax clearly didn't get it right out of the gate, I see little evidence the problem wasn't fixed after the 50-135.

I own three SDM lens and have had no problems, DA*60-250, DA*200, DA*55 1.4. Anyone who passes on one of these lenses based on SDM failure is missing out on some good lenses for no more risk of failure than any electric motor in any lens. They'll never have the reliability of screw drive.. but that's life, adding additional parts makes for a more complex design and more chance of failure in the various components.

Back when most of the Pentax lenses sold were screw drive their reliability was off the charts compared to other companies. Pentax owners got spoiled.

[luftfluss]

What about "by far the most reliable"?

I'd be interested in seeing that the SDM on the lens is less reliable that the motors in any lens from any company.

I'm the one who stated "by far the most reliable".

The 1st gen SDM has been really bad. According to the PF Survey, users reported that 134 of 251 DA* 16-50 lenses had SDM failures. That is incredibly horrible, even accounting for the fact that people tend to report negative experiences more than positive.

I'm active on a couple other photography forums, and the only thing even remotely similar I've encountered is a number of Olympus users noting the failure of several four-thirds (not m4/3) lenses, due to their SWD motors dying.

[luftfluss]

Back when most of the Pentax lenses sold were screw drive their reliability was off the charts compared to other companies. Pentax owners got spoiled.

Do you have a source? I've always had the impression that screwdrive AF has always been extremely reliable.*

* Canon never used it.

[normhead]

Do you have a source? I've always had the impression that screwdrive AF has always been extremely reliable.*

* Canon never used it.

The original source was a lens rentals blog post, whether or not it's still there is another question.
Wouldn't even look at info like this from anyone but lens rentals.

At the height of the SDM failures Pentax was still well ahead of the pack.
And with so many screw drive lenses still in the catalogue, I doubt it's changed.

I posted this info at the time with a link (That has to be at least 5 years ago now.) There's really no excuse for folks not understanding it at this point.

[Wheatfield]

For years I volunteered at an animal shelter. I'm perfectly fine with dog breath.

Exchange it for camel breath.

[rosettaquarrier]

Loved my 60-250, but the SDM was sleepy - it would take a few seconds to 'wake up', And bam, I'd miss the shot :-(

Sold it to get funds to put towards a 70-210 purchase eventually. In these troubling times I've banked the cash and will do fine with my Sigma 70-200mm HSM