Da* lenses


obione

Link Posted 05/04/2014 - 15:55
I had the 50-135 F2.8,but sold it on, bought 60-250 F4 and it's a great lens,
I am impressed with the shots with this lens, yes its heavy, but with sr it is not a problem And it great for video work at F8, taken video at wedding, Its crystal clear with K-5iiS .
wadna wrote:
There's been little mention of the 60-250 f4 here. How do people rate it or isn't it a lens you would consider for whatever reason you might have.

I've started thinking about it to replace my Sigma 70-300 which is disappointing. It's slow to focus & IQ, particularly at the long end, pretty ordinary. The downside to the 60-250 is the weight & the price......


k-5, K-5ii,60-250 f4, 50 f1.4 af,17-70 f4, 100mm macro wr,siggy 10-20 siggy 100-300f4
Last Edited by obione on 05/04/2014 - 15:57

SteveEveritt

Link Posted 05/04/2014 - 16:33
I have the DA*50-135 and find it an awesome lens. It has a certain something that sets it apart, some people term it as pixie dust, whatever Pentax do to that lens, I don't know, but it is special. I have the DA*16-50 too and I have had a love hate relationship with it, but it's still with me, why? I think it is the way the pictures look, even though they may not be perfect there is something about them that stops me selling the lens.
My Flickr link

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" (John Lennon)

cabstar

Link Posted 05/04/2014 - 17:15
I have been happy with both the DA* lenses I have owned the 16-50mm and the 50-135mm. I certainly hope any FD* or DF* or whatever Pentax decide to call the FF* lenses for the FF body are as good as those lenses.
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

Daronl

Link Posted 06/04/2014 - 13:06
MattyH wrote:
After a couple of forum members have bought the 50-135mm this last month and seen the results I have started to think this maybe my first DA* lens I buy, anyone compared it to the Sigma 50-150mm or own/owned both.

More importantly how do they compare for handling ie size, weight and AF speed.

Apart from the 50-135mm and 300mm the rest of the range of DA* range doesn't really interest me as I have the rest covered by my cheaper lenses and as I tend to shoot 90% Jpegs I doubt I would be able to tell the difference.


Daronl

Daronl

Link Posted 06/04/2014 - 14:24
Hated zooms until I met the 50-135 DA* and now the superlative 60-250 DA* (wow = I say it every time I see the results)

However, I described the 50-135 as the best lens I have ever owned - I have most of the DA* and an assortment of other Current Pentax and independents (Tamron / Sigma

The Pentax DA* was bought for me by my daughters when I had already aquired the Sigma 50-135 which was a nice lens.

The Pentax is in a different class, based on comparison of identical shots taken when I had both in my possession; from a handling standpoint they are both good but again the Pentax is nicer to use and frankly whilst I have read comments regarding it’s focussing speed; I have never felt it an issue and never seen the lens challenged.

The Pentax has a habit of growing on you and never ceases to remind me why I came back from a "Canikon" period.

And now, as I said above, a there's the superlative 60-250 DA*; wow is all I can say, and that is after my own evaluation against Prime DA* 200 and 300 on many, many field trips . It is simply as good a tool a wild life photographer can carry.

The 60 - 250 is not in anyway overshadowed by the 300mm DA* optically and is a complete pleasure to use.

People, who say "it's big" puzzle me too, take a look at professionals in the field or on the side of a soccer pitch. do they look as if size bothers them; they just want the best chance in the worst light hence ; the saucepan size lenses that deliver incredible images in dark cold drizzly environments.

Also in reality , overall the DA*s are not that big when compared to other marks of a comparative spec'.
Last year I took trip through Borneo and I met some guys who were very keen and excited to be there; whilst out "on orang-utans" one day they more than once commented on the size of the DA* 300 and the 60-250 zoom on a K5-2S which I had in a Tamrac Holster.


They were using more compact Canon lenses, remarking on the smaller construction and the fact they could get more in their bags.

However we were comparing pictures on a lap-top later one evening and they were stunned at the results from the two DA*s I was using; understanding that they were comparing more or less "entry level” Canons with the DA* lenses, there would be a difference but if the object of dragging yourself around the other side of the world into a deep and steamy ,” badly lit” jungle, why would you not take the lens for the job

Those guys were not buying the compact Canon zooms because of the price difference but because they wanted to reduce weight. An advantage they lost anyway by filling up their bags with several more lenses, lenses that were totally under specified for an expensive trek to Borneo.

Finally, I recently (with some reservation) bought the innocuous little WR 18 - 135, well, what a pleasant surprise; take a look at the little mouse in my portfolio, the little zoom is a very understated optic - great travel companion.

Going back to the very first topic – if you are a Pentax user and have a use for a 50-135 DA* don’t bother yourself with questions on it’s performance and handling, it is practically as good as it gets, as are all the DA stars, they don't have the "Star Rating" for nothing

Regards

Daronl
Daronl

Blythman

Link Posted 06/04/2014 - 14:34
I've got the 16-50, the 50-135 , 60-250 and the 300.

All have been exceptional, except the 60-250. Its just lies in the cupboard. Then comes out every 6 months when there is a thread saying how good it is. It came out yesterday and I was again disappointed. So back in the cupboard it goes.

Co-incidentally its the only one I didn't buy new.
Alan


PPG
Flickr

Daronl

Link Posted 06/04/2014 - 14:50
obione wrote:
I had the 50-135 F2.8,but sold it on, bought 60-250 F4 and it's a great lens,
I am impressed with the shots with this lens, yes its heavy, but with sr it is not a problem And it great for video work at F8, taken video at wedding, Its crystal clear with K-5iiS .
wadna wrote:
There's been little mention of the 60-250 f4 here. How do people rate it or isn't it a lens you would consider for whatever reason you might have.

I've started thinking about it to replace my Sigma 70-300 which is disappointing. It's slow to focus & IQ, particularly at the long end, pretty ordinary. The downside to the 60-250 is the weight & the price......



Daronl

tyronet2000

Link Posted 06/04/2014 - 15:51
In my dreams, 16-50mm, 50-135mm would cover my snapping. Have the Pentax 18-135mm WR, I'd say my most used lens. A Tamron 10-24mm with which I've had some good shots (luck), the Pentax 17-70mm which I should take out more I'm sure, and the 55-300mm which hardly sees daylight but is in my bag just in case (it's light enough not to be a burden). Sold the Sigma 150-500mm it wasn't worth lugging about for the results I got with it so have given up "wildlife" ambitions, although in the right hands seems a cracking lens. Lottery ticket purchased for Tuesday
Regards
Stan

PPG

weinelm

Link Posted 08/04/2014 - 11:23
There's been, I think, only a solitary mention of the DA* 200mm. Until recently I thought it a bit of an odd ball, although I see it might be useful for concert/event stuff. Anybody got this lens and what would you use it for?
Panasonic G80, GX80, Pentax K-1, Pentax K-3, Pentax MX, Mamiya 6.
Last Edited by weinelm on 08/04/2014 - 11:26

ilovesaabs

Link Posted 08/04/2014 - 13:38
I have the 16-50, 60-250 and 300...

Both the zooms have had failed SDM, the 300 sulks from lack of use. When the zooms came back from JSPS they went from being very good to absolutely superb. Definitely worth the investment.

Would I buy the 50-135? No, I have primes that cover that range

(I also have primes that cover much of the 16-50 range also)

Would I buy the 55? Don't think so, but occasionally tempted. I have 2 50s that are used infrequently.

Would I buy the 200? As an FA* yes, but also get an FA*70-200.

The 60-250 was bought to replace 2 lenses - the Sigma EX - rationalisation of kit.

Would be nice for Pentax to bring out a longer DA* zoom
AKA Welshwizard/PWynneJ
Assorted Pentax/Nikon/Mamiya stuff

Mike-P

Link Posted 08/04/2014 - 15:49
I have the 16-50mm/50-135mm/60-250mm/300mm and have had the 55mm and 200mm. I have to say by far my most used lens is the 60-250mm which I have loved since the day I got it.

The 50-135mm is (I think) the fourth copy I have had ... having swapped back and forward between it and the Sigma 50-150mm HSM a number of times and the 300mm is always teamed up with a TC of some kind (previously the 1.7x but currently the new HD 1.4x).

The 16-50mm gets minimal use as I prefer the 17-70mm and my least used (by a country mile) was the 55mm. I still hanker after another DA* 200mm though, I sold it to buy a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS but still miss it tbh, may start looking for another one.

Blythman wrote:

All have been exceptional, except the 60-250. Its just lies in the cupboard. Then comes out every 6 months when there is a thread saying how good it is. It came out yesterday and I was again disappointed. So back in the cupboard it goes.

That's a real shame, I would get it checked over if I were you.
. My Flickr

Offertonhatter

Link Posted 08/04/2014 - 19:27
I must be lucky to have the two most regarded DA* lenses.
As has been said several times on this thread, the 50-135 is probably the beast zoom Pentax has ever made, and possibly the finest Zoom out there (although I think some Nikon owners may differ and say their 14-24 is the best. But I digress). It really is a stack of primes all in one, and possibly the main reason why I have never bought a dedicated portrait prime such as the 77 limited. How often do I use it? Well how about just about everywhere. Studio? Check. Street? Check. Travel? Check. Monsoon weather? Check. Events, Theatre etc. You name it I have probably used it for that purpose.

The DA*300? All I can say, sharp from wide open and basically my replacement for the Sigma 170-500 for Nature etc. And it is several times better. Oh and I have even used it for event photography hand held. Perfect for the Job.

I will get a 60-250 at some point, as it will give me flexibility between the two. It won't replace the 50-135, as it is too big for studio work and portraits. but things like airshows it will be perfect.

I have also considered the 55mm, but having compared it to my K55 and Tak55, there is no difference in IQ. It's only advantages are AF and weather sealing.


Some Cameras

davidtrout

Link Posted 08/04/2014 - 20:40
weinelm wrote:
There's been, I think, only a solitary mention of the DA* 200mm. Until recently I thought it a bit of an odd ball, although I see it might be useful for concert/event stuff. Anybody got this lens and what would you use it for?

Yes I mentioned the DA*200mm in my post earlier in this thread. Its superb. I plan to use it for the limited amount for sport I do - city centre cycle racing, Durham Regatta for instance. Its already been in action for shooting steam trains on the mainline, getting them in action at speed.
So far its been very useful at events like the Edinburgh Fringe and Pickering Steam Fair isolating people in the crowd to get close up portraits. And just today its been photographing along the Newcastle Quayside with long shots of the bridges.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout
PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout
Last Edited by davidtrout on 08/04/2014 - 20:41

sussexwolf

Link Posted 19/04/2014 - 21:58
I have a Sigma 18 - 125 which is okay and was a superzoom in its time. It's a great general purpose lens and does better up close than I thought it would.

I saw the 60-250 in Park Cameras and became intersted. F4 thoughout its range, looks and feels so well made. After saving up I bought it and have never been disapointed. The focusing is faster and quieter than anything I've had before. It's great for sport especially with a monopod to take some of the weight. I think the image quality is good. It's just a bit short for wildlife but the new teleconvertor will make it 84 - 350 F 5.6 which would give a lot of flexibility.

I now want a quality "standard zoom" to replace the sigma. The 17 -70 F4 looks good but many people do't seem to rate it.
K30, K-x, *ist DL. Pentax 60-250 F4, Sigma 18-125 & 70-300
Last Edited by sussexwolf on 19/04/2014 - 21:59

davidstorm

Link Posted 19/04/2014 - 22:15
sussexwolf wrote:
The 17 -70 F4 looks good but many people do't seem to rate it.

Don't believe them. The DA 17-70 is exceptionally good. I have this lens and a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM Macro. The Pentax is the better lens IMHO, although the Sigma is cheaper and has faster focussing it can't match the Pentax for IQ from my experience of using both.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.