[SunnyG.]

The main issue with the 60-250 is the AF speed, which is the main improvement (apart from weight - the DFA is 250g lighter) in the new lens. If they wanted to (or could) re-issue the 60-250 with updated AF and the FF baffle, they would have done so - I recall that Mistral commented some time ago that, according to a Pentax person, changing the AF motor would have called for a full barrel redesign and at that point you might as well go for upgrading the optics.

On top of that, the 60-250 is 1500€. The 70-210 is 1200€ and actually went on sale for 1080€, so there's a significant price difference in Europe...

The Tamron version of this lens is 400$! The optics are fine! What more could they hope to achieve with an optical redesign? It would perform better. But then they would have to hike the price too. A barrel redesign, along with the newer HD coatings, would be awesome! They could just install a removable plastic baffle, that's user removable! With the new 70-210 out and about. Everyone has forgotten, how amazing the 60-250 is. And it's better built. That's why it's heavier

[pres589]

Where are you seeing new Tamron 70-210's in any mount for $400 USD?

[Kunzite]

The Tamron version of this lens is 400$! The optics are fine! What more could they hope to achieve with an optical redesign? It would perform better. But then they would have to hike the price too. A barrel redesign, along with the newer HD coatings, would be awesome! They could just install a removable plastic baffle, that's user removable! With the new 70-210 out and about. Everyone has forgotten, how amazing the 60-250 is. And it's better built. That's why it's heavier

No, they couldn't "just install a removable plastic baffle".
First, that means reusing optics introduced in 2008 and tweaked for APS-C - to be used with the future, high resolution FF cameras; and also using the problematic SDM micromotors (which they haven't done since 2008).
Micromotor SDM lenses should be all phased out, perhaps this is even more important than for the last screw drive ones.

A barrel redesign OTOH is expensive enough that it only makes sense to redesign the optics, too. And so we get into the reason why they chose the Tamron: price. If the renewed f/4 would be too close to the D FA* 70-200, who would buy it?

[BigMackCam]

The optics are fine! What more could they hope to achieve with an optical redesign? It would perform better. But then they would have to hike the price too. A barrel redesign, along with the newer HD coatings, would be awesome! They could just install a removable plastic baffle, that's user removable! With the new 70-210 out and about. Everyone has forgotten, how amazing the 60-250 is. And it's better built. That's why it's heavier

I certainly haven't forgotten... but if I were buying a zoom lens for this focal length range today, I'd choose the 70-210.

I love the optical quality of the 60-250... however, the SDM AF motor is painfully slow at times, requiring manual pre-focusing for decent performance, and with little hope of tracking fast-moving subjects. The focus breathing at shorter distances is eye-watering - to such an extent that if I'm using it for close range shots, I have to couple it with the HD DA 1.4x rear converter to get the kind of reach I was hoping for. And whilst the build quality is superb, it's not just heavier... it's positively heavy. Frankly, it's much more of a niche lens than I originally expected.

I'll say again, I love the 60-250's optical performance, but I rarely use mine these days. I now rely on my screw-drive HD DA55-300, which - although not in the same league optically, and with a variable aperture - is very decent, doesn't suffer from horrendous focus breathing, and is mercifully light-weight.

Anyway, we've gone way off-topic for a thread about a forthcoming 16-50

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-12-2020 at 04:14 AM.

[Serkevan]

Where are you seeing new Tamron 70-210's in any mount for $400 USD?

Not 400 USD, but I've seen it for 430€ (including 19% tax) in Canikon mount.

Back to the 16-50/2.8: I'm guessing around 400-450 g of weight and around 1000-1100€ on release.

[repaap]

My 16-50 was my travelcompanion for several yrs. If this 16-50 is improved optically too, it is going to be bought. I’m looking for to sell my very good DFA15-30 in favor of 11-18 and then my old (SDM still working) 16-50 in favor of this new one.

[Breakfastographer]

I certainly haven't forgotten... but if I were buying a zoom lens for this focal length range today, I'd choose the 70-210.

I love the optical quality of the 60-250... however, the SDM AF motor is painfully slow at times, requiring manual pre-focusing for decent performance, and with little hope of tracking fast-moving subjects. The focus breathing at shorter distances is eye-watering - to such an extent that if I'm using it for close range shots, I have to couple it with the HD DA 1.4x rear converter to get the kind of reach I was hoping for. And whilst the build quality is superb, it's not just heavier... it's positively heavy. Frankly, it's much more of a niche lens than I originally expected.

I'll say again, I love the 60-250's optical performance, but I rarely use mine these days. I now rely on my screw-drive HD DA55-300, which - although not in the same league optically, and with a variable aperture - is very decent, doesn't suffer from horrendous focus breathing, and is mercifully light-weight.

Anyway, we've gone way off-topic for a thread about a forthcoming 16-50

This may be both off-topic and unsolicited, but if you're using a screwdrive lens instead of a DA* that you like in at least some respects, have you considered screwdrive conversion of the 60-250? If SDM is really the cause of the autofocus woes, the conversion should make it behave more in line with the 55-300...

[BigMackCam]

This may be both off-topic and unsolicited, but if you're using a screwdrive lens instead of a DA* that you like in at least some respects, have you considered screwdrive conversion of the 60-250? If SDM is really the cause of the autofocus woes, the conversion should make it behave more in line with the 55-300...

Sadly, unlike the other DA* models, screw drive conversion isn't possible with the 60-250 If it was, I'd have converted mine long ago, even though the SDM works fine...

[Breakfastographer]

Sadly, unlike the other DA* models, screw drive conversion isn't possible with the 60-250 If it was, I'd have converted mine long ago, even though the SDM works fine...

I see - thanks for clearing that up. Back to topic..

[SunnyG.]

No, they couldn't "just install a removable plastic baffle".
First, that means reusing optics introduced in 2008 and tweaked for APS-C - to be used with the future, high resolution FF cameras; and also using the problematic SDM micromotors (which they haven't done since 2008).
Micromotor SDM lenses should be all phased out, perhaps this is even more important than for the last screw drive ones.

A barrel redesign OTOH is expensive enough that it only makes sense to redesign the optics, too. And so we get into the reason why they chose the Tamron: price. If the renewed f/4 would be too close to the D FA* 70-200, who would buy it?

A lot of people would! It's on par with the 70-200! Initially it would be expensive! I agree! But but after a year or two, the price would eventually come down! It's such a sweet lens! That shouldn't ignore it!

---------- Post added 12-13-20 at 09:26 PM ----------

Where are you seeing new Tamron 70-210's in any mount for $400 USD?

Google it!

---------- Post added 12-13-20 at 09:29 PM ----------

I certainly haven't forgotten... but if I were buying a zoom lens for this focal length range today, I'd choose the 70-210.

I love the optical quality of the 60-250... however, the SDM AF motor is painfully slow at times, requiring manual pre-focusing for decent performance, and with little hope of tracking fast-moving subjects. The focus breathing at shorter distances is eye-watering - to such an extent that if I'm using it for close range shots, I have to couple it with the HD DA 1.4x rear converter to get the kind of reach I was hoping for. And whilst the build quality is superb, it's not just heavier... it's positively heavy. Frankly, it's much more of a niche lens than I originally expected.

I'll say again, I love the 60-250's optical performance, but I rarely use mine these days. I now rely on my screw-drive HD DA55-300, which - although not in the same league optically, and with a variable aperture - is very decent, doesn't suffer from horrendous focus breathing, and is mercifully light-weight.

Anyway, we've gone way off-topic for a thread about a forthcoming 16-50

You are right about the slow autofocus! That's why they need to do a V2 of this lens lol.


You are right about that. We have give way off topic

[BigMackCam]

You are right about the slow autofocus!

... and the eye-watering focus breathing... and the weight... and others are right that a new motor would require a barrel or optical re-design.

Back on topic, I understand the focusing design for the forthcoming HD DA*16-50 has changed to allow use of PLM for AF (PLM wouldn't have been strong enough for the old model). It's not a minor tweak to the lens, but essentially a whole new model that happens to cover the same focal length range...

[Serkevan]

... and the eye-watering focus breathing... and the weight... and others are right that a new motor would require a barrel or optical re-design.

Back on topic, I understand the focusing design for the forthcoming HD DA*16-50 has changed to allow use of PLM for AF (PLM wouldn't have been strong enough for the old model). It's not a minor tweak to the lens, but essentially a whole new model that happens to cover the same focal length range...

Just like the 55-300 PLM was a complete redesign. That means that we don't really have any indication of how the new 16-50/2.8 will render... Although I don't think we'll be disappointed.

[Jonathan Mac]

Once they complete the line refresh (motor upgrade) for 16-50/2.8, 50-135/2.8, 200/2.8 and 300/4, we will have a great apsc lineup!
Just do it faster Pentax!

I will look forward to that, probably some time around 2030...

[repaap]

Just like the 55-300 PLM was a complete redesign. That means that we don't really have any indication of how the new 16-50/2.8 will render... Although I don't think we'll be disappointed.

We don't know, but original one (16-50)had some cuffs and puffs, so it could be even a lot better than that.

No one knows if that 60-250 will have PLM update too. It is quite liked among pentaxians. Biggest problem with it was that AF, same goes for all DA* lenses. It is very good move to get them PLM.d and hopefully we will see that -trend?- go all the way. atleast 16-50 is coming and 50-135 is being rumoured to have similar workout. DA*55 is great lens, as is 200/2.8 and 300/4. should they do that for them, I'd get one of each(55, 200, 300) right away, when financially possible. (I love my DA*55 even on my K-1, it is just...eh, slow)

[BigMackCam]

No one knows if that 60-250 will have PLM update too. It is quite liked among pentaxians. Biggest problem with it was that AF, same goes for all DA* lenses.

I'm going to keep repeating myself, in case Pentax reps are reading and taking note - the DA*60-250 has not one, but TWO significant issues that need to be resolved in any update. One is indeed the SDM AF motor, but the other - and it has been a bigger issue for me than slow AF - is the focus breathing. It isn't a lens to use for close range work unless you're happy with way, way less than 250mm effective focal length. Really close in, it's more like a 135mm lens...

Anyway, back to the DA*16-50 PLM...