New lenses announced - a bit disappointed...

Brett St Pierre · Sep 20, 2006

leopold said:
Probably it's big because of it's f/4 constant aperture(or the
other two are small)!It' looks like a very interesting lens,hope it
will be sharp at all settings and f-stop(probably it's a DA*).

Yes, the constant f/4 is the key (every stop makes a difference) to the size and of course 250mm focal length. The APS-C format coverage has probably made it somewhat smaller. I wonder how it compares in size weight to the full frame Canon 70-200 F/4 L? -- they should probably be somewhat close in dimensions...

--
Brett
http://www.pbase.com/shreder

The Journey is the Thing

popopow · Sep 20, 2006

Am I alone to not understand the range of the 60-250 ?

We have a 50-135,wouldn't it be more logical to see a 100-300 F4 or 135-400 f4-5,6 or something like that to complete the range ?
--
http://www.popopow.com/

popopow · Sep 20, 2006

Am I alone to not understand the range of the 60-250 ?

We have a 50-135,wouldn't it be more logical to see a 100-300 F4 or 135-400 f4-5,6 or something like that to complete the range ?

--
http://www.popopow.com/

Lance B · Sep 20, 2006

Reinhard said:
Sigma's DC 50-150/2.8 weighs about 770g and is 13.5 cm long. Since
Pentax is famous for compact designs I don't expect it to be much
larger/heavier...

Not necessarily. These are Pentax DA* lenses and not your run of the mill jobs and therefore will have less "compromises" of a lesser lens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them use more metal etc which will add to the weight. The very fact that Pentax has made them a 2.5x zoom also makes me think that these were designed for optimum image quality rather than for compactness and zoom reach. This is the same thinking as they did for their FA* zooms etc.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I would be more inclined to think that these lenses will err on the heavier rather than lighter side of things due to their "premium pretentions".

Also, don't forget that for Sigma to be attractive to potential C*non and N*kon lens buyers, Sigma lenses need to have some advantages and these advantage maybe weight/size and/or price, so therefore they may have shaved weight from the lenses at the expense of quality. Just a thought.

Reinhard #50659 said:
--
--Reinhard

--
Lance B

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +10hours

wlachan · Sep 20, 2006

popopow said:
Am I alone to not understand the range of the 60-250 ?
We have a 50-135,wouldn't it be more logical to see a 100-300 F4 or
135-400 f4-5,6 or something like that to complete the range ?

Or DA16-45/4 + DA*60-250/4 will make a great pair for travel or scenery.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan

fototim · Sep 20, 2006

popopow said:
Am I alone to not understand the range of the 60-250 ?
We have a 50-135,wouldn't it be more logical to see a 100-300 F4 or
135-400 f4-5,6 or something like that to complete the range ?
--
http://www.popopow.com/

Multyply with crop factor 1,5 and you have something very close to 135-400mm. 90-250mm would be a perfect match, but that would leave a too large gap between 16-50 and 60-250.

I'm not Pentax so I don't know, but this makes sense to me.
--
Fototim

Lance B · Sep 20, 2006

popopow said:
Am I alone to not understand the range of the 60-250 ?

We have a 50-135,wouldn't it be more logical to see a 100-300 F4 or
135-400 f4-5,6 or something like that to complete the range ?

Yes, this struck me as a bit at odds with previous lens design thinking too and I was just commenting to Brett St Pierre about this the other day. I would have thought that a DA*100-300 f4 would/should have been the lens to release.

There maybe a possible reason, though, in the fact that it is a 5x zoom. Even though the 50-250 is a "premium" zoom, the image quality may not be as good as the 50-135 f2.8, so if you are after optimum image quality, you would opt for the 50-135 in that range, but if you were after reach you would opt for the 50-250. If you need longer optimum telephoto lenses after the 50-135, Pentax is also going to release the DA*200 f2.8 and the DA*300 f4, so these maybe for the longer each?

Just some thoughts, but I still do not really understand the reasoning behind a 50-250.

popopow said:
--
http://www.popopow.com/

--
Lance B

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +10hours

dslrenvy · Sep 20, 2006

This lens will still be about 2.5lbs I'd think.

For example. the Olympus 50-200 2.8-3.5 for the four thirds has a similar range is a little faster but weighs 2.4lbs without the collar.

The Pentax is for a larger sensor has a USM drive. I'd be suprised if it weighs less than 2.5lbs.

It should at least be offered the option of having a collar.

Of course it still won't keep me from wanting or getting one if it is a good lens.

Gene

fototim · Sep 20, 2006

I detect some CA in the large image, bad lenses ;-)
--
Fototim

Derek L · Sep 20, 2006

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=20122170

It's to match 35mm equivalent. So they're focal lengths back when ppl still used film (or use full frame). They're not exact because of the optical formulas, I assume because they work better.

--
Derek Leung
http://www.pbase.com/dleung

pentaxowner · Sep 20, 2006

16-50mm f2.8 + 50-135mm f2.8 = top of the line
15-45mmf4.0 + 60-250mm f4.0 = middle
18-55mm f3.5-5.6 - 50-200mm f4-5.6 = low cost

I think it is pretty clear
--
Fero, London
My blog: http://feronovak.blogspot.com/index.html

KL Matt · Sep 20, 2006

Nahh.... That 60-250 looks like an A 70-210 on steriods to me, and it's probably the same weight or lighter considering the amount of plastic used in place of metal. I don't need no stinking tripod color with that lens, this should not be any different.

dslrenvy said:
It looks to be on the large heavy side. I would think that it would
stress the camera mount on a tripod or monopod.

Just wondering why.

Thanks
Gene

--
Take it easy,

-Matt

steven r halpern · Sep 20, 2006

they wont be more than say ... canon's f4 zooms... pentax has always been pretty competitive on price.

Lance B · Sep 20, 2006

Derek L said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=20122170

It's to match 35mm equivalent. So they're focal lengths back when
ppl still used film (or use full frame). They're not exact because
of the optical formulas, I assume because they work better.

Yes, we know they are 35mm film equivalents, but 50-250 is NOT an equivalent at 75-375 in effective FOV on APS C. It would make more sense if it were 50-260(265). The DA16-50 is a 24-75 FOV equivalent on fim, the DA50-135 is a 75-200 FOV equivalent on film, but the 50-250 at 75-375 FOV equivalent on film is a bit of an odd bod.

Derek L said:
--
Derek Leung
http://www.pbase.com/dleung

--
Lance B

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +10hours

Lance B · Sep 20, 2006

velocio said:
Well, this is good news indeed! If it's true, and the new line of
lenses will be screw AF compatible, I'm going to get one of the
longer two primes they have planned. How I'm going to be able to
afford it, I don't know yet... :-D
I hope they price them sensibly. There's no reason for a 300/4 to
cost more than say US$1500.

I would say that a DA*300 f4 would be under the US$1,000 mark, fingers crossed.

--
Lance B

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +10hours

AndrewF · Sep 20, 2006

If I was to guess, I'd say the 60-250 f/4 is to compliment the 16-45 f/4 as a middle of the road, constant aperture (but not too fast) zoom. I'm suprised they made it a DA* though.

Price might also be a factor (ie, it may be less expensive than the 50-135 f/2.8). Time will tell though

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewfaires/

Lance B · Sep 20, 2006

See my post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=20122401

magicone said:
I guess this gives me a little more time to save up!

--
Lance B

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +10hours

pentaxowner · Sep 20, 2006

I am quite scared about price. I want to have pair to my 16-45mm and 60-250mm looks like great lens.

But will it be in same price range as 16-45mm ? Logically it should be as it seems that pentax has :

16-50mm f2.8 + 50-135mm f2.8 = top
16-45mm f4.0 + 60-250mm f4.0 = middle
18-55mm + 50-200mm = low cost
--
Fero, London
My blog: http://feronovak.blogspot.com/index.html

jayson craig · Sep 20, 2006

Im sure you will find that internal focus was the obvious cost cutting solution to making them weather resistant. less gaskets.
it even makes sense to have no aperature ring.
--
Picture Of the Day
http://www.jaysoncraig.com/gallery/v/POD+2006/

KL Matt · Sep 20, 2006

Hi Lance,

Lance B said:
Just some thoughts, but I still do not really understand the
reasoning behind a 50-250.

This lens has me for one drooling. Depending on the price point and AF performance, this lens plus K10D could crush the competition and establish Pentax as a viable low-cost option for sports shooters. What semi-pro body does Canon have for less than 2500? The 30d. Their image-stabilized 70-200 f/4 lens is hugely popular, but costs 1250. Add to that the price of the 30d (1700), and you're just barely south of three grand.

K10D + 60-250 f/4 = 1900?
30d + 70-200 f/4 IS = 2950

OK, you lose 5fps, but the Pentax has 2 more megapixels and the zoom has a fantastic range for sports. When I use my 70-210, I both have instances where it's too long at 70 and not long enough at 210. 60-250 would be absolutely perfect for ultimate frisbee, and a bunch of other sports as well. If you're not the machine-gun shooter type, the K10D plus this lens will absolutely rock for sports.

-Matt

New lenses announced - a bit disappointed...

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

wlachan

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts