Improving on DAL 55-300

three nice shots

[quote="Stuey"]I have a Pentax M 200 f4 and love it - there are a few pic's on my flickr site if you want to take a look [/quote]Thanks - I did and am now officially very tempted.

Regards
Neal[/quote]Just a thought - why not chance your arm on something like the M200mm f4 for now and have a little time to play with it whilst you make your decision on whether or not to buy a more expensive item

You should be able to recoup your cash on resale if you don't spend too much

Regards


Stu

I wasn't particularly taken with the 200mm/f4 - didn't seem any sharper than my little Pentax-A 80-200mm zoom (and also heavier & less convenient).

I'm looking for a Pentax F 70-210mm at the moment, which I believe will still be fairly compact and would have the advantage of AF as well!

Just a thought - why not chance your arm on something like the M200mm f4 for now and have a little time to play with it whilst you make your decision on whether or not to buy a more expensive item

You should be able to recoup your cash on resale if you don't spend too much

Regards


Stu[/quote]Exactly what I was thinking I've thought of the DA* 200 but I'd have to sell the 60-250 for that, it's not a lot smaller/lighter, and I don't really need f2.8.
Regards
Neal

I sold my M 200mm f/4 when I realised that it was identical in sharpness to my M 80-200mm which is a very good lens.... so good I bought TWO!
I've never found anything that's better than it the A 70-210mm f/4 is equal but bigger.

Now that's interesting because I hadn't really thought about it and I've come across a (probably) version 2 M 80-200, which is supposed to not have exposure issues (though it's a bit heavier). Anyone have any idea of the performance difference between the two versions? They are optically very different, and version 2 is much less common.
Regards
Neal

Never seen any results from v2, but, v1 was very well made and I suspect v2 involved a bit of cost cutting. The chrome ring was 1st to go

Many thanks to everyone on here! There are many super pictures and links.

I'm slowly reviewing the suggestions but early impressions do show that the 60-250 has some sort of edge even if it sounds like I'd need to eat three of those breakfast biscuits every day to handle it.

Is it fair to say that the 60-250 gives an image with the overal look and balance of the 50-135 DA* because thats how it looks at the moment.

Sigma do a 70-200 f2.8 for a lot less money than the 60-250

One for the review list Steve, thanks. Is that a lens you have worked with? It sounds great to have the DOF options from the 2.8 but maybe its not so much different from my 50-135 2.8....?

The Sigma 100-300 was mentioned above also.

I have a slight down on Sigma based on the performance of the budget zoom (70-300) which was the half price offer at Jessops when I got my K10.

As an after-thought I also saw the comments in PC Pro about Pentax DSLRs not offering the lens choices that the you know what brands do...

Thanks from me too for the suggestions - some of them I hadn't considered at all until now.

Quite likely I guess - fewer elements but a bit heavier.
Regards
Neal