The 60 - 250
Posted 05/12/2010 - 19:01
Link
Anvh wrote:
The DA17-70 is a very different lens though so it's strange to compare it with that one, it doesn't even have the same range.
This made me laugh Steffan...I completely mis-read the OPs original thread & thought it was about the DA 16-50The DA17-70 is a very different lens though so it's strange to compare it with that one, it doesn't even have the same range.
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Posted 06/12/2010 - 00:50
Link
Although the 60-250 is expensive, unlike some other lenses it isn't actually that out of step with the competition: doesn't Canon's 70-200 f4 L IS go for around the £900 mark? An extra £120 or so for significantly more range (10mm wider, 50mm longer) doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me - not that I'd ever be paying that sort of money for a lens of course!
Posted 06/12/2010 - 06:28
Link
MrCynical wrote:
Although the 60-250 is expensive, unlike some other lenses it isn't actually that out of step with the competition: doesn't Canon's 70-200 f4 L IS go for around the £900 mark? An extra £120 or so for significantly more range (10mm wider, 50mm longer) doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me - not that I'd ever be paying that sort of money for a lens of course!
But shouldn't you be comparing it with the Non IS version?Although the 60-250 is expensive, unlike some other lenses it isn't actually that out of step with the competition: doesn't Canon's 70-200 f4 L IS go for around the £900 mark? An extra £120 or so for significantly more range (10mm wider, 50mm longer) doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me - not that I'd ever be paying that sort of money for a lens of course!
I know Pentax has inbody SR but that has nothing to do with the build of the lens and certain people on here are always saying we should compare like for like. The Canon lens in question is around £450.
Saying that I still thinl the 60-250mm is a fantastic lens.
Posted 06/12/2010 - 09:10
Link
Quote:
But shouldn't you be comparing it with the Non IS version?
You could argue that either way, but I would suggest that as we need SR these days we should compare what it would cost for us to overall get the same features.But shouldn't you be comparing it with the Non IS version?
That is, if there's any point comparing at all. A Pentax User needs Pentax lenses, so what Nikon or Canon lenses cost doesn't really matter.
Best regards, John
Posted 06/12/2010 - 09:24
Link
I'm with George on this, I would like the lens but I dont really need it, Its a bit short for wildlife and to long (over the 50-135) for general photography, I would guess its more suited to sports photographers or perhaps voyeurs
Posted 06/12/2010 - 14:07
Link
I use mine all the time and I am not a sports photographer or a voyeur
Hyram
Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Posted 06/12/2010 - 14:44
Link
But, Hyram, all photographers are voyeurs. Of one sort or another.
G
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 06/12/2010 - 16:12
Link
This is driving me nuts ! My post missing again and I know why
I must have written a 100 posts and then hit Return to Forum instead of the tiny Add Comment ! Make it bigger PLEASE !!
I must have written a 100 posts and then hit Return to Forum instead of the tiny Add Comment ! Make it bigger PLEASE !!
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Posted 07/12/2010 - 08:34
Link
George Lazarette wrote:
But, Hyram, all photographers are voyeurs. Of one sort or another.
G
A fair point But, Hyram, all photographers are voyeurs. Of one sort or another.
G
You have changed from being 'crustier and crustier'
Hyram
Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
8192 posts
22 years
London
Which is not to disparage it, or its owners. A Ferrari is quite expensive, and I don't need one, but that's not to say I wouldn't quite LIKE one.
G