Photozone reviews DA* 60-250

[amnesix]

<p>Tests confirm my own experience. This lens has forced my DA* 50-135 to early retiring... it is that good.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Nice review but I don't know why he's still using a nearly 4 year old body for these tests (K10D). Anything said about focus for example is no longer relevant to K-7, KX or even K20D owners. AF has improved since the K10D and the true abilities of the lens will not show up with this combo.</p>

<p>But sorry I'm not an SDM fan and after my second failure, no matter how nice this lens is, I'll buy old FA or 3rd party. Too bad as it seems like a sweet lens.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>This lens has been on my radar ever since I heard rumors of it a number of years ago...and the tests I've seen so far (also see <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1234/cat/all">slrgear.com</a> ) have left me impressed. The best competition for this lens is probably the Sigma 100-300/4...by all accounts excellent as well. Will I buy one? I don't know yet.</p>

<p>I think pairing with K10D is fine. Obviously it would be better if he used your equipment but since every other lens he tested was also tested with the same K10D it makes for better comparison--the resolution #'s would not be comparable to all the other Pentax glass. I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that the characteristics that make a lens that focus faster or slower on K10D will fairly likely appear on newer bodies as well. As far as I know, they still test with a D200 for Nikon and until they switched relatively recently to a 50D, were testing with a 8mp Canon 350D.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Klaus has addressed the body issue several times on his site's forum. Basically, it boils down to a few things:</p>

<p>The K20D and K-7 don't offer a big enough resolution increase over the K10D to warrant a switch;</p>

<p>He doesn't have the time or resources to re-test all of those lenses with a newer body;</p>

<p>He's been thinking about not testing any more Pentax lenses, since the number of people reading the Pentax reviews is actually outnumbered by Four Thirds readers. I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate that he's still testing Pentax lenses at all.</p>

<p>The primary purpose of the reviews is to measure things such as resolution, contrast, distortion, fringing/CAs, build quality, and bokeh. Autofocus speed and accuracy are usually mentioned briefly, but they're not extensively/exhaustively tested.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Thanks for posting, Olivier. I was going to buy a Panasonic GH1 this spring, but the K-x body and this lens really tip the scale in favor of Pentax. This might be better optically than the Sony 70-300 G, currently the best lighter-weight long zoom. Certainly I prefer constant f/4 aperture. Moreover the size 67 filter thread matches the 17-70/4. Of course the Sigma 10-300/4 is superb but it weighs 50% more and takes oddball size 82 filters.

[miserere_mei]

<p>R.T. beat me to the reply. Klaus makes little to no money from this venture of his, and buying new cameras from each system would be prohibitive. I'm surprised he still does any testing as it is time consuming, while offering few rewards.</p>

<p>As for the DA* 60-250mm, I was one of those who didn't understand why Pentax was releasing this zoom. Then they revealed the price, and I understood it even less (a price, by the way, which hasn't come down and is still $1,250 at B&H). Some 10 months after release, I have not come across very many people who own one, yet know many Pentaxians with a (latest version) Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Pentax shouldn't release this lens; what I am saying is that Pentax should release this lens after they've addressed the holes in the fast prime line-up below 200mm, and after adding a fast and affordable APS-C normal lens. You don't build a house by first putting a fancy, expensive chimney on the top of a non-existing roof.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Well said, Mis. I've been saying all along that they need to follow Nikon's lead and release something similar to Nikon's new 35/1.8... it's fast, it's inexpensive, and it makes good quality images. I can't afford the 35/2.8 Macro Limited, and the excellent 35/2 is gone, so it kind of leaves me with no choices for an affordable "normal" lens. They need to have a solid base of bread-and-butter lenses, like they used to have. And they need to know their audience. Right now, I'm not sure that they do. I think it's fair to say that many of us chose Pentax because we wanted the best bang for the buck (and didn't have a lot of bucks to spend). Truthfully, how many of us can really afford to shell out $700 for a 55/1.4? Are the poor among us not allowed to own primes anymore? Are we only allowed to have kit zooms?</p>

<p>Anyway, rambling aside, the 60-250 looks nice, and photozone's tests are very useful. There, I'm back on topic. ;-)</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Klaus discusses the 60-250 with his readers at the forum section of photozone.de:</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/active/forum/ShowMessage?ID=1113556A</p>

<p>As you go down through the responses, you'll note that Klaus mentions that this may be the last Pentax test he performs with the K10D until Pentax releases a new flagship camera. He also talks about his review terminology and explains that "average" is not a dirty word, even though some people interpret it that way.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>The 40/2.8 Limited, while not terribly fast, is the cheapest Limited lens and may fill the role of "cheap APS-C normal." Six months ago it was almost the same price as the Nikon 35/1.8 but regrettably prices have gone up since then..</p>

<p>I second the observation that the 60-250 is quite expensive. I would think unless the extra reach were direly needed, the 50-135 is a better deal (faster, cheaper).</p>

[amnesix]

<p>I had been waiting for the DA* 60-250mm since the day I had bought my first K10D. I bought it the day I found it in a shop. And it resides on my camera since. Practically.<br>

It is a fair trade : one f-stop for the range, without having to compromise for the quality.<br>

The price... well, the DA* 60-250 is the only lens of the type available. So I gulped, and paid. But I just love that lens.</p><div></div>

[ken_yee]

<p>Mis: I have a 60-250...now you know someone in Boston that has one ;-)<br>

I'm a little disappointed in the sharpness numbers wide open actually. I had expected it to be like Canon's 70-200/4 which is extremely sharp wide open, but I can tell it's softer wide open than stopped down a little.<br>

I'm puzzled why 50-135 folks like it better...the 50-135 looks like it has much better sharpness numbers from the photozone reviews...</p>

 

[ken_yee]

<p>Forgot to mention, weight wise, it's definitely lighter than the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (went through 3 copies and all had the seltzer front coating problem). It's roughly the weight of the Tamron 70-200/2.8 which should be sharper, but doesn't have weathersealing and has reliability issues according to cameralensrentals.com (sigma has problems according to lensrentals.com). And I'm still worried about whether it has the infamous SDM failure that the 16-50 and 50-135 seem to have because of the meager 1yr warranty...</p>

 

[staffan__gren]

<p>Ken, I do not agree with you. The 50-135 does not have better sharpness numbers from the Photozone reviews.<br>

Both lenses represent excellent or very close to excellent MFT levels almost all over the line. The 60-250 seems to have some relative border weakness related to the smallest aperture numbers at 60mm and less at 135 mm, while the 50-135 has some border as well as center weakness with f/2.8 at 135 mm, and still some relative border weakness with f/2.8 at 90 mm. Generally, the 60-250 border MFT is more on par with its center MFT than the 50-150.<br>

Furthermore, it is important that a long and wide tele zoom really has good figures when it is maximally zoomed in, otherwise it is not worthwhile to carry around with the weight it has. I think the 60-250 mm really delivers well enough in this respect. It is also the lens that is highly recommended by Photozone of the two compared.<br>

The SDM quality has likely been improved now, but I agree that this AF motor technology is not as good as the ones chosen by Canon and Nikon.</p>