DA 560mm F5.6 - is it a Full-frame lens?

The problem with Pentax is that they really don't build the bodies to support an expensive very long tele. Both Nikon and Canon have cameras with tracking AF sensor arrays, and if you are really into tele photography one will get one of these and a lens from their much larger selections. A long Pentax tele can only be for an occasional use and for that this one is far to expensive.
Unfortunately there are only a few and rare good and less pricy alternatives on the used market.

LXNight:
I too enjoy the Tamron 400mm but I often miss the AF. You reminded me of the SP 200-500mm and I just now snatched a reasonable priced one off ebay! Thanks for that!

"The corners at F5.6 become too dark (w/ 1.3 stops of underexposure)"

There are lenses with worse than 1.3 stops of vignetting on APS-C (see for example Photozone's review [on Nikon mount] of the excellent Sigma 8-16mm). So on a full frame _digital_ SLR the 560 looks like it would be entirely useable.

To LX
While the "Hoya Captivity" was not the best for the product line, mostly due to reluctance to embrace full frame, the current pricing decisions and the release of K-01 were under Ricoh. Neither are really conducive to generating market share. Some of that behavior is manifest with the price of the 560mm which is just nonsense. This has to cost less to manufacture than the 500 f4.5 from sigma. So what is the point of this lens at current price point?

SO my big concern is given where pentax is now, will they be able to recover ground against Nikon, Sony and Canon? Late to the fold with FF and not many lenses to cover.

Look, for the longest time I have been supporting pentax and even stuck my neck out for them in the Consumer Reports forum to generate recongition for the brand. I used to post weekly in their DSLR forum and even communicated some market feedback from that forum back to Ned B.
But right now, unless one of those three stumble, I am struggling to see how Pentax wins now that the playing field has been elevated to FF.

I think some of the harsh critics need to lighten up a bit. Pentax has been in almost a continual vortex of corporate activity since 2007 which led to Hoya buying just for the scientific division and dumped it as soon as they could. At last with Ricoh, it looks like Pentax has found stability, and the products of the next few years should reflect that. I believe it when the scuttlebutt says that the 560mm lens was designed before Ricoh came in, before the new company realized FF here to stay. After the new FF Pentax is introduced and assuming it does well, here's hoping all new lens design will reflect the new format. In saying that, I would suggest to Pentax their FF DSLR be multi format like Nikon and all new lens development go toward FF (which they should have done all the time, since, in my opinion, FF was always inevitable). In the meantime, I would suggest all Pentaxians relax and be patient. Sometimes Pentax will really test our patience but when the product comes out, it usually turns out to have been well worth the wait (LX, ME Super, Super Program, PZ-1, IstDL2, K20D, K-5), doing the same things the others do but only better and less expensively, delivering superlative quality. I'm taking Ricoh at its word that it wants to take Pentax to the next level, and I'm willing to wait for them to sort this out. It might be interesting to see Pentax take some some recent designs like the 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom, 300mm f/2.8, 600mm f/4, 250-600mm f/5.6 zoom, and upgrade them to get the proper results from a digital SLR. I would hope that would save a great deal on development costs. In the meantime, I will continue to use and enjoy my Pentax K-5 and K-7 along with my 300mm f/2.8 A*, Tamron 400mm f/4, and Tamron 200-500mm f/5.6 zoom to get my birding and motorsports photos. I'm confident that finally, after all the turmoil, I can at last see the light at the end of the tunnel. Hang in there, Pentaxians.

I am disappointed that this lens cost so much, esp for a telescope based design which has less optics than a telephoto based design. Also that it is on the boarder of a full frame design. (I imagine that a digital sensor will only make the edge performance worse compared with film).

In additipn the close focus is not good.

So what was pentax thinking that they priced this lens for 7K?

As others have said, the 500 4.5 from Sigma is a better deal. Hell, my 300 F2.8 Tamorn with TC is better.

Let's see how this lens does what it was designed to do: some birdies with a K5(iis) please!

As a bird shooter and currently shooting mostly with Nikon 1 V2 inspite of owning a D4, all I have to say is...reach.

1.3EV vignetting is pretty normal on full frame for wide-angles lenses.
not for super tele.

7000 USD for APS-C lens - it's ridiculous

+1 on seventhdr and uluru... I'm also waiting that you will shoot some shots on that thing(MZ-S) with this beautiful Sigma...and go from there. I'm looking forward to see how 560 is working on APS-C and Q. If you could do that, it would be nice. Can't really say that I can ever afford this one, but it looks really good. Those shots made on film, looked good already, maybe some different type of targets too? Birds? And please, leave FF for later, when we have one in digital format IMO.:)

I'm glad photography has become about the format and not the resultant image. That whole art and skill thing was a total snore.

Ditto Seventhdr. I have looked through those links, like this on The Digital Picture . com which describes the vignetting on both Nikon and Canon long lenses and understand now that article about the DA560 was a fantastic example of a half-baked journalism on Pentax Forum's side. It does more damage and misinformation that what's worth it.

I think you guys are talking through a hole in your head when you complain about the amount of vignetting in the new HD Pentax-DA 560 f5.6 lens. I went over to the-digital-picture where you can call up many Canon and Nikon long lenses and they ALL have vignetting of between 1 and 2 stop wide open. Based on the table you show of light fall off I think the this new Pentax lens has the same level of vignetting as its direct competitors. And the price is right too. You may complain about $7,000 being too much but the "list price" of the Canon 500mm f4 and 600 f4 lenses are $10,400 and $12,800 respectively.

Well, I wanted a lens in this focal length range very badly. It was a bit of a gamble
but I bought an FA 600 f/4 last year. I do not regret the decision. No one has
explained to me how this lens might be superior to the FA600

Not bad to me. Also I like that vignetting.

1.3EV vignetting is pretty normal on full frame. It's the corner resolution that matters more.

Come on people. It's a DA lens. Not a FA-lens. It seems to be still pretty usable on FA. The vignetting is not so bad it can't be dealt with in post, or even in camera. You could see that as a bonus.

Well this just confirms that Pentax are fire fighting: a seriously overpriced and over long lens with tragically underwhelming results is the pinnacal of their product development for 2012/2013. Expect an announcement in 2013/14 that Pentax will only supply P and S and bridge technologies in future.

With much regret I have sold all my Pentax kit. I really loved my K5IIs but I simply can't wait whilst the executives at Pentax decide what if anything they are going to offer wildlife photographers in the near future that is competitive with Nikon and Canon - it certainly isn't this lens. For the price of the 560 I have bought a AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II, plus the 14E II and 20E II TCs. I can use this lens/TC combination hand held and the AF works right back to f5.6 on 20E II. Even with a TC attached the lense is quick and so, so sharp with beautiful contrast. With the px value of my Pentax kit I've been able to buy a serious FF Nikon body. This isn't a brag, just one more sad note in the history of the decline in a once great camera company that is still strong on design but managed very badly.

As a photographer in taking bird and wildlife photos and still using Pentax nowadays, I really don't know why to emphasis whether DA560 is a full frame lens or not. I have a Sigma 500mm f4.5 already, however, I will still consider to shift my 500mm back to DA560 not because of covering full frame or not! But because of focussing speed, sharpness, bokeh and color rendition whether better than Sigma 545 or not. I really hopes the coming review could help Pentax users whom are interested in wildlife photography to have an in-depth understanding of the performance of this lens.

Well let's see some birdies then.

It is indeed an impressive looking lens. The comments regarding Photokina and the recent interview of the two statues indicates that Pentax had no plans at all of producing a FF Camera until very recently.

While I fully appreciate the effort and time spent by PF/Ole to provide information on this new and much demanded lens, lets not taint this positive event with an unrelated issue (no FF) that I am betting is far less important to buyers than its performance with current bodies. As a birder and potential buyer, my interest is likely the same as all other birders.

If the 560 can noticably out-perform the Sigma 500 and F*250-600mm, I will sell those lenses and buy a 560. All predicated on how it does with K-5 though. Its a DA lens, thats what I want.
edit: (my credit cards are not paid off)

I'm just jealous of that clear blue sky!! But seriously they made us a super telephoto lens its got the modern conveniences and works with the camera bodies they are CURRENTLY producing. If you want to buy it then do it, if you don't then start a petition or maybe we can start a picket line outside Pentax head quarters.

A lens marketed as and sold as an APS-C performs best on an APS-C sensor (and the only sensor available in Pentax "DSLRs) ... not all that surprising is it ? (if not disappointing for some who perhaps are unlikely to buy it anyway). I have difficulty seeing anyone who can afford to pay $10K for a FF equivalent lens, investing all that much into a Pentax system to begin with. Those who can and will pay $15K for a basic setup would be fool not to invest in Canon or Nikon, lets be realistic. If Pentax does produce a FF, it's principal interest will be for portrait and landscapes. Now I'm interested to see if it performs as expected on the K5IIs.

Anyway, i'm a wildlife and bird photographer and i would use that lens on an APS-C camera anyway and not on a FF. You never have enough reach especially with birds!

I guess the real question is "will the future FF pentax owner pay $7k for a lens he can't use wider than f/11?"

First, thanks for taking your valuable time to work on a review of this lens. I am curious as to why checking if it covers a full frame sensor was as you state the first major test performed? I can think of a host of tests that would be more useful in determining if buying this lens was going to help take great photos of distant objects. Did you get the review lens thinking it was for use on a film camera? I may have answered my own question.

Well this is good news, so we may get an APS-H sized sensor camera after all!

Anyone who buys a 500mm+ lens wants as much reach as possible. That's why bird photographers with $9k Nikon or Canon long lenses typically use cropped sensor cameras. Maybe that's what Pentax was thinking: Why add to the weight and expense of this lens by making it full frame if APS-C is the best format for its use.

This logic is so brilliant. Lets make the lens full frame right now (even though there is no full frame camera available) and the lens will be even heavier and more expensive (if it isnt already at $7k), which will further discourage the few people who would have bought it RIGHT NOW and make them go for the sigma instead. Life is full of trade offs. Some people just need to learn how to accept that and live happily with what they have...

I am not sure how large the market is of birders who are willing to pay $7k for a lens, however I commend Pentax for making the item and address the long time concern that they don't have some of the telephoto optics offered by the other camera makers.

All lenses have light fall off at full aperture, especially wide-angle lenses. Mitigating this problem is easier in longer lenses and can easily be remedied by creating a larger image circle. Pentax makes these lenses already, they are called medium format lenses. A different lens recipe could easily have handled this. Vignetting at f/8? Intolerable in a $7K lens.

It may well be the truth that
1) Pentax didn't consider ANY FF camera before the Photokina 2012, announced the lens and then had a sudden rush of hot blood and a wake up call when they saw all new budget FF cameras from Nikon and Canon
2) Lens was designed during the Hoya era, it was promised long ago too, and after the takeover Ricoh wanted a clear start: all Hoya stuff including the lens HAD to be delivered, no matter what old specs, no matter what future brings, only important matter being making current Pentax digital users happy. Even if it meant the sub optimum FF use for a FF camera which is to come in a few years. By then, if there is demand, they may reissue V2 of the lens for the FF.
I somehow think it's the latter and i think it's important not to misunderstand the intents; if this latter scenario holds any truth.

"We do fear that because of this, however, those interested in full-frame bodies in the future may instead opt for the Sigma 500mm F4.5, if not a different camera system altogether."



So, for the very, no extremely rare Pentax shooter wanting a 560mm lens on a not-yet-existing FF body at their current/expected price points, we fear something? What exactly?



Pentax is not going to survive by pleasing individuals but by attempting to play to the taste of larger groups/



Cameras and lenses are just tools, not a way of life! I have no issue with a professional sports photographer arguing why he doesn't use a Pentax but a Nikon or with a glamour photographer using a Canon FF in his studio. This would be the African game photographer wanting a FF with a 560mm lens and I have no problem whatsoever with him/her deciding Pentax is not for them.



Pentax does fine by showing off now and then with something ambitious, but its bread and butter will be APS-C DSLR's, mirrorless system bodies and quality retro-compacts.



Your fear therefore, is grossly overstated and the ongoing attempts of showing why this or that lens does or does not fit a non-existing FF body can only be damaging Pentax's reputation, not strengthening it.

@deadwolfbones
Excuse me my ignorance, but which FF Pentax wide angle has this fall-off. I have (all Pentax) A 15mm, K 18mm, FA 20mm, FA*24mm and NONE of them has a VISIBLE fall-off, much less one as pronounced as the DA560mm has. If it's a 3rd party glass, well that's their (expertise) problem... Hope for your clarification.

Bummer...was hoping Pentax would make this a FF. Not that I could ever afford it! Thanks for the test.

I've seen plenty of FF lenses with worse falloff, though admittedly they're usually wide-angle optics.

Not a FF? Come on!

1.3 stops is considerable light loss, but it might be interesting to see if that obstacle could be overcome with a lens correction profile. At the very least I would say the lens could be used to create 4:3 and 5:4 "full frame" images.

Thanks but this article was written by Ole, so please thank him!

Thorough and detailed. Thank you adam.