[aslyfox]

. . . Anyway, I've also got a B&H voucher now, I've no idea what to get with that.

I suggest you use it for something they sell

[3by2]

Ok, I'll tell you where I'm leaning at the moment :-)

All considerations considered, I've come down towards a lens rather than other things like filters etc... having explored things more. I still lack that longer tele lens but I've decided of itself, a 200 prime is not going to see much use. I also lack an ultra wide and I lack a more normal WR lens, though the D FA 100 i have is WR. The only WR that interests me is the 20-40 which I've got covered by the smaller more packable 21 and 40 DA's, so to buy that lens just for the WR doesn't appeal at the moment. I don't know how often I'd use an ultra wide lens and I can't decide if a fisheye or rectilinear look would be where I wanted to go, I'm looking at Normhead's dog picture and thinking it looks quite cool but..... The one that's calling to me the most is the longer focal length but preferably with some flexibility, so that means a zoom and as I've had a total of five Pentax zooms, all at the more consumer end and sold them all, it means a better quality zoom.

With that in mind I've identified the DA 60-250 F4 as my target. It's more flexible than a prime, which I think is important for this range, is WR, is compatible with the K5, is only slightly heavier than the DA200 and only slightly longer so will fit in my small camera bag as swoppable replacement to the D FA100. It is more than I wanted to pay @£6-700ish 2nd hand but it looks like this years other projects and hols won't now be happening, so..... I think I've read the various ups and downs with the lens, sdm failures etc... but any thoughts and warnings most welcome.

[robgski]

I could invest in a filter system but all my lenses are 49mm thread and I have a polarizer and ND but I'm thinking about graduated filters and whether that would be better than adding graduation in PP.

I fall in the camp that believes that actual filters in front of the lens are better than PP filters.

Lots of great lens suggestions.

I don't know how much your voucher is worth, but consider this lighting kit. The Lume Cube offers a lot of bang for the buck, and is in a small package

[normhead]

Ok, I'll tell you where I'm leaning at the moment :-)

All considerations considered, I've come down towards a lens rather than other things like filters etc... having explored things more. I still lack that longer tele lens but I've decided of itself, a 200 prime is not going to see much use. I also lack an ultra wide and I lack a more normal WR lens, though the D FA 100 i have is WR. The only WR that interests me is the 20-40 which I've got covered by the smaller more packable 21 and 40 DA's, so to buy that lens just for the WR doesn't appeal at the moment. I don't know how often I'd use an ultra wide lens and I can't decide if a fisheye or rectilinear look would be where I wanted to go, I'm looking at Normhead's dog picture and thinking it looks quite cool but..... The one that's calling to me the most is the longer focal length but preferably with some flexibility, so that means a zoom and as I've had a total of five Pentax zooms, all at the more consumer end and sold them all, it means a better quality zoom.

With that in mind I've identified the DA 60-250 F4 as my target. It's more flexible than a prime, which I think is important for this range, is WR, is compatible with the K5, is only slightly heavier than the DA200 and only slightly longer so will fit in my small camera bag as swoppable replacement to the D FA100. It is more than I wanted to pay @£6-700ish 2nd hand but it looks like this years other projects and hols won't now be happening, so..... I think I've read the various ups and downs with the lens, sdm failures etc... but any thoughts and warnings most welcome.

The DA*60-250 is an amazing lens... I'm guessing 25% of my images are taken with it., even though it's 5% of my lenses. But there are times I take the DA 55-300 PLM or DA*200 to avoid the weight.

The 60-250 is excellent edge to edge and an excellent lens for just about anything, landscape, environmental portraits, wildlife etc. and is still very good with the 1.4TC. But if cost or weight is an issue, the DA 55-300 PLM version is also an excellent option.

Be prepared for some kind of holster bag if you do get a 60-250. A bag that fits your current gear may not be long enough to protect it, and carrying it around your neck on a long outing is a recipe for pain. That's another plus for the DA 55-300, it fits in even the smallest DSLR bags and holsters.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-03-2020 at 08:52 AM.

[3by2]

The DA*60-250 is an amazing lens... I'm guessing 25% of my images are taken with it., even though it's 5% of my lenses. But there are times I take the DA 55-300 PLM or DA*200 to avoid the weight.

The 60-250 is excellent edge to edge and an excellent lens for just about anything, landscape, environmental portraits, wildlife etc. and is still very good with the 1.4TC. But if cost or weight is an issue, the DA 55-300 PLM version is also an excellent option.

Be prepared for some kind of holster bag if you do get a 60-250. A bag that fits your current gear may not be long enough to protect it, and carrying it around your neck on a long outing is a recipe for pain. That's another plus for the DA 55-300, it fits in even the smallest DSLR bags and holsters.

Interesting that you've got both lenses, that in itself tends to suggest the 55-300 isn't a bad lens. I had considered it but looking through pictures taken with both lenses liked the results from 60-250 which also seemed to be more consistent than the 55-300. I've been disappointed in zooms too often, hence aiming a bit higher this time. Like you have, I'd also considered adding a TC at some point in the future to extend the range if I needed to. Interesting to know where you see it in terms of size too, that's often difficult to gauge from stats and pics. Strategy for carrying it would need to be worked out but I'm seeing it more as a static lens which will come off when I need to move on.

[normhead]

Interesting that you've got both lenses, that in itself tends to suggest the 55-300 isn't a bad lens. I had considered it but looking through pictures taken with both lenses liked the results from 60-250 which also seemed to be more consistent than the 55-300. I've been disappointed in zooms too often, hence aiming a bit higher this time. Like you have, I'd also considered adding a TC at some point in the future to extend the range if I needed to. Interesting to know where you see it in terms of size too, that's often difficult to gauge from stats and pics. Strategy for carrying it would need to be worked out but I'm seeing it more as a static lens which will come off when I need to move on.

My feeling is the DA* is a safer bet. My first DA 55-300 PLM was so so, but I dropped it on the camera and it broke in half. I missed it so much I bought a new copy and the new one is stellar. But, I can buy three copies of the 55-300 for the same money as the 60-250.

The thing is, even with the TC, the 60-250 is only 50mm more than the 55-300.
I'm still ambivalent about using the 55-300 with a TC, but I do have some good shots taken with that combo. You think 420mm, but you probably need to keep the 55-300 and TC at less that say 370mm to get good images, so really not much difference at all there.

Some more images for you....
DA*200 with 1.4


K-3 and DA 55-300 PLM @150mm


K-3 and DA 55-300 at 300mm


DA* 60-250 with 1.4 TC for 350mm


As you can see, these three lenses in terms of IQ are pretty similar. The 200 gives you 2.8, the 60-250 give you ƒ4, or with the 1.4 TC ƒ5.6. So you'll get some shots with the 200 and 60-250 you might miss with the 55-300, but to my mind, if you aren't sure how much telephoto you'll shoot, the DA 55-300 is the lens to get and play with before you decide you want more. On the other hand, if you know you'll want a fast lens, you want the DA*200 2.8. And the 60-250 is the best "I know I will use it and I want it for a lot of different circumstances " lens." The difference between ƒ6.3 and ƒ4 is huge when you are running out of light. (And of course between ƒ6.3 and 2.8 even being even more huge.)

[3by2]

My feeling is the DA* is a safer bet. My first DA 55-300 PLM was so so, but I dropped it on the camera and it broke in half. I missed it so much I bought a new copy and the new one is stellar. But, I can buy three copies of the 55-300 for the same money as the 60-250.

The thing is, even with the TC, the 60-250 is only 50mm more than the 55-300.
I'm still ambivalent about using the 55-300 with a TC, but I do have some good shots taken with that combo. You think 420mm, but you probably need to keep the 55-300 and TC at less that say 370mm to get good images, so really not much difference at all there.

Some more images for you....
DA*200 with 1.4


K-3 and DA 55-300 PLM @150mm


K-3 and DA 55-300 at 300mm


DA* 60-250 with 1.4 TC for 350mm


As you can see, these three lenses in terms of IQ are pretty similar. The 200 gives you 2.8, the 60-250 give you ƒ4, or with the 1.4 TC ƒ5.6. So you'll get some shots with the 200 and 60-250 you might miss with the 55-300, but to my mind, if you aren't sure how much telephoto you'll shoot, the DA 55-300 is the lens to get and play with before you decide you want more. On the other hand, if you know you'll want a fast lens, you want the DA*200 2.8. And the 60-250 is the best "I know I will use it and I want it for a lot of different circumstances " lens." The difference between ƒ6.3 and ƒ4 is huge when you are running out of light. (And of course between ƒ6.3 and 2.8 even being even more huge.)

Interesting, thanks. The DA* definitely has an edge but that 55-300 isn't far behind. You mention having a bad copy of the 55-300 and that's my fear. I think I got a bad copy of the 18-135, it went back the same day it arrived and reading the reviews of the 55-300 there's enough variation in quality to fear the same thing again, whereas the DA* range just seems not to have that inconsistency and I've been through enough lenses now to know what I'd be comfortable buying.

Still, I could take a chance, I'll think on it. My son came to me this afternoon and made noises about taking over one of my bikes (cycling). I said no but it got me thinking I could replace it with something else if I gave it to him which has disturbed my new lens thinking now.

[normhead]

Interesting, thanks. The DA* definitely has an edge but that 55-300 isn't far behind. You mention having a bad copy of the 55-300 and that's my fear. I think I got a bad copy of the 18-135, it went back the same day it arrived and reading the reviews of the 55-300 there's enough variation in quality to fear the same thing again, whereas the DA* range just seems not to have that inconsistency and I've been through enough lenses now to know what I'd be comfortable buying.

Still, I could take a chance, I'll think on it. My son came to me this afternoon and made noises about taking over one of my bikes (cycling). I said no but it got me thinking I could replace it with something else if I gave it to him which has disturbed my new lens thinking now.

Hey, well, you can file all the information for later.

[3by2]

Hey, well, you can file all the information for later.

For sure. I think I'll probably aim for the 60-250, I think timing will be more dictated by what comes up 2nd hand, in what condition and at what price.

[normhead]

For sure. I think I'll probably aim for the 60-250, I think timing will be more dictated by what comes up 2nd hand, in what condition and at what price.

Always a good way to go, although I often wonder with second hand stuff it's going to be a good copy of the lens. But I have no data to suggest second hand is more or less of a crap shoot than buying new. I always think there have to be a few second hand items that make it to market that might not have had it been an excellent copy of the lens. That being said, I have some excellent second hand equipment.

[3by2]

I've taken a plunge and it so happens it's none of the above. I found a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 DI Ld for a good price and have gone for that. There were good deals on a DA200 and a 60-250 but I hesitated and it made me realize I'm not quite sure what I want out of this particular lens and how I'm going to use it and how often, so it made sense to plump for something a little cheaper and try it out. The Tamron seems to be optically what I'm after, it is bigger and heavier than the 60-250, it isn't AW, it does have a weird manual focus switch and is reportedly not the quickest AF. Any of those things could potentially be a deal breaker or they may not, I'll see. Often things are relative anyhow. I have no USM lenses and by far the noisiest slowest lens I ever had was a F70-210 followed by the FA100 macro, my expectations are therefore, low. I shall post some impressions after I've got it and tried it out.

[normhead]

I've taken a plunge and it so happens it's none of the above. I found a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 DI Ld for a good price and have gone for that. There were good deals on a DA200 and a 60-250 but I hesitated and it made me realize I'm not quite sure what I want out of this particular lens and how I'm going to use it and how often, so it made sense to plump for something a little cheaper and try it out. The Tamron seems to be optically what I'm after, it is bigger and heavier than the 60-250, it isn't AW, it does have a weird manual focus switch and is reportedly not the quickest AF. Any of those things could potentially be a deal breaker or they may not, I'll see. Often things are relative anyhow. I have no USM lenses and by far the noisiest slowest lens I ever had was a F70-210 followed by the FA100 macro, my expectations are therefore, low. I shall post some impressions after I've got it and tried it out.

Weird, my F 70-210 is one of may faster focussing lenses.

[3by2]

Weird, my F 70-210 is one of may faster focussing lenses.

Really. It's possible I'm mis-remembering and doing it a disservice then. I'm sure it was noisy though.

[normhead]

Really. It's possible I'm mis-remembering and doing it a disservice then. I'm sure it was noisy though.

And it tries to break your wrist when it reaches focus.
It's probably the least corrected 13 element lens you'll ever find.

[3by2]

So it arrived this morning. I did a quick AF adjust (why is it I can never remember which way to adjust for back or front focus and always go the wrong way first) and went out to the local pond to try it out after a quick indoor appraisal.

It is a big lens, especially compared to my current lens line up. It does fit in my everyday messenger bag. Yeah, walking around with it does tire your arm if you don't vary the position. It's large enough such that people do give you a 2nd glance. The strange manual focus ring doesn't bother me at all. AF is neither fast or slow to me in relative terms, quite similar to my DFA 100 is my first impression, it will require the same care to catch things moving as just about every lens I've owned but as I've never owned a fast lens I was expecting this.

Image quality I've only done a very quick evaluation at the 200 end as this is the end I'm most interested in and it looks good. The duckling shot is F5.6 hand held on a dull day, so failing a get a sharp shot will be user error rather than the lens. Don't yet know about colours and rendering compared to the Ltd's. Some purple fringing wide open in branches and things but nothing terrible like the M200


I will spend some time with it. I think if I don't get on with it it'll be the size, which may not bother a lot of people but might me, in which case I wonder if it would be worth moving to the DA 60-250 which is marginally lighter and smaller but like most constant aperture lenses still of roughly the same dimensions, so the DA200 might be the better option, easier to squeeze into the rucksack for walking days like yesterday.


PS - sorry about the blurry phone pics