Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**fredok1** · 01-05-2011, 08:51 AM

Well I held out as long as I could but when it became apparent that Pentax would not be announcing a super telephoto lens any time soon I went over to the dark side. After shooting exclusively with Pentax for 30+ years I spent the big bucks for a Nikon 200-400mm f/4 AF-S VR zoom lens and D300S camera body. I wish the Pentax Corporation and all it's loyal shooters the best of luck and hope that someday they will have a new prime lens in the 400mm or 500mm range.

Mike.P® · 01-05-2011, 09:03 AM

Bye then .

mikemike · 01-05-2011, 09:05 AM

With the APS-C crop factor, doesn't the DA* 300 mm have a longer effective focal length than your new setup?

**Miguel** · 01-05-2011, 09:14 AM

D300s is a crop body. The OP's got a sweet combo there. For birds the leap from 300mm to 400mm is significant. Most wildlife shooters are insatiable so 500mm is even better. But at f4 the cost is hefty as is the glass.

M

Blue · 01-05-2011, 10:02 AM

The FA* 600mm/4 can still be had by special order even though it has officially been canceled. However, it will be ~ $8500 usd if not more.

The MSRP on the Nikkor 600mm f4 G ED VR is $10,300 and the Nikkor 500/4 is $8580. I doubt the MSRP can be beat by much on these be glasses. They also have the Nikkor 400/2.8 is $9550.

Nikon also has 3 different 300mm lenses listed:

AF-S Nikkor 300mm/4 D IF ED ($1500 msrp)
AF-S Nikkor 300mm/2.8 G ED VR II ($5900 msrp)
AF-S Nikkor 300mm/2.8 G IF VR II ($5500 msrp)

There are some Sigma super tele alternatives as well. The big thing for me is the cost of these glasses whether it is Nikon or Pentax. As a biologist, I could put these things into service, but the capital outlay isn't there for me and not entirely Pentax.

Originally posted by Mike.P®

Bye then .

sterretje · 01-05-2011, 11:34 PM

Enjoy your new gear.

**fredok1** · 01-06-2011, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by mikemike

With the APS-C crop factor, doesn't the DA* 300 mm have a longer effective focal length than your new setup?

The new setup also has a 1.5 crop factor. In addition, the 200-400mm f/4 will autofocus with a 1.4x teleconverter for an effective focal length of 840mm at the long end. The fact that Pentax does not make a 1.4x converter to autofocus with the DA* 300mm and DA* 60-250mm zoom is what made me switch. Otherwise I would have hung in there until Pentax gave us a new super telephoto like their roadmap indicated a couple of years ago.

**fredok1** · 01-06-2011, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Blue

The FA* 600mm/4 can still be had by special order even though it has officially been canceled. However, it will be ~ $8500 usd if not more.

The MSRP on the Nikkor 600mm f4 G ED VR is $10,300 and the Nikkor 500/4 is $8580. I doubt the MSRP can be beat by much on these be glasses. They also have the Nikkor 400/2.8 is $9550.

Nikon also has 3 different 300mm lenses listed:

AF-S Nikkor 300mm/4 D IF ED ($1500 msrp)
AF-S Nikkor 300mm/2.8 G ED VR II ($5900 msrp)
AF-S Nikkor 300mm/2.8 G IF VR II ($5500 msrp)

There are some Sigma super tele alternatives as well. The big thing for me is the cost of these glasses whether it is Nikon or Pentax. As a biologist, I could put these things into service, but the capital outlay isn't there for me and not entirely Pentax.

:Hysterical:

I paid $4,800 for the Nikkor lens (used). Plus the 1.4x AF teleconverter was an additional $350 (new).

**fredok1** · 01-06-2011, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

Enjoy your new gear.

Thank you.

**Kammerer** · 01-06-2011, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by fredok1

I paid $4,800 for the Nikkor lens (used). Plus the 1.4x AF teleconverter was an additional $350 (new).

This isn't too bad. VR, I presume, not VR II? Good luck shooting with it. Please share your images with us when you get a chance - it's always interesting to see what a modern 400mm can do.

Here's hoping that Pentax will come up with a DA* 400/4.

**fredok1** · 01-06-2011, 02:21 PM

Right on!

Ron Kruger · 01-06-2011, 03:26 PM

It is a misconception that "pro" wildlife photographers all use super-telephotos. Generally, the closer you can get to the subject the better the shot. People who don't know anything about wildlife think they need 1000mm to get shots of wild critters. Those who take a professional approach, learn how to get close.
I saw a documentary about the best Nat Geo shots from the past decade, and every one of the wildlife shots featured were taken with lenses shorter that 50mm (mostly film, not crop sensors). I've been selling outdoor images for over 3 decades, and the longest lens I have is a 200mm.

**fredok1** · 01-06-2011, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Ron Kruger

It is a misconception that "pro" wildlife photographers all use super-telephotos. Generally, the closer you can get to the subject the better the shot. People who don't know anything about wildlife think they need 1000mm to get shots of wild critters. Those who take a professional approach, learn how to get close.
I saw a documentary about the best Nat Geo shots from the past decade, and every one of the wildlife shots featured were taken with lenses shorter that 50mm (mostly film, not crop sensors). I've been selling outdoor images for over 3 decades, and the longest lens I have is a 200mm.

So what's your point?

**boriscleto** · 01-06-2011, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by mikemike

With the APS-C crop factor, doesn't the DA* 300 mm have a longer effective focal length than your new setup?

No. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens.

Ira · 01-06-2011, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by fredok1

So what's your point?

I think the point is that you think you need 400mm to do wildlife work, while most of the wildlife pros don't need or use it.

Did I make it clearer for you?

01-05-2011, 08:51 AM	#1
fredok1 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 58	Needed a pro wildlife lens Well I held out as long as I could but when it became apparent that Pentax would not be announcing a super telephoto lens any time soon I went over to the dark side. After shooting exclusively with Pentax for 30+ years I spent the big bucks for a Nikon 200-400mm f/4 AF-S VR zoom lens and D300S camera body. I wish the Pentax Corporation and all it's loyal shooters the best of luck and hope that someday they will have a new prime lens in the 400mm or 500mm range.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
which lens for wildlife/birds?	axl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	09-06-2009 08:22 PM
What is the BEST wildlife lens?	Leo Miyanaga	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	08-30-2009 10:36 AM
Lens for wildlife??	Pic_Colo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	12-22-2008 03:42 PM
Lens for birding/wildlife	OrenMc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	111	06-01-2008 07:15 PM
Best wildlife lens?	ronald_durst	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-30-2007 09:34 AM

01-05-2011, 09:03 AM	#2
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	Bye then .

01-05-2011, 09:05 AM	#3
mikemike Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Orleans Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,053	With the APS-C crop factor, doesn't the DA* 300 mm have a longer effective focal length than your new setup?

01-05-2011, 09:14 AM	#4
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	D300s is a crop body. The OP's got a sweet combo there. For birds the leap from 300mm to 400mm is significant. Most wildlife shooters are insatiable so 500mm is even better. But at f4 the cost is hefty as is the glass. M

01-05-2011, 10:02 AM	#5
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	The FA* 600mm/4 can still be had by special order even though it has officially been canceled. However, it will be ~ $8500 usd if not more. The MSRP on the Nikkor 600mm f4 G ED VR is $10,300 and the Nikkor 500/4 is $8580. I doubt the MSRP can be beat by much on these be glasses. They also have the Nikkor 400/2.8 is $9550. Nikon also has 3 different 300mm lenses listed: AF-S Nikkor 300mm/4 D IF ED ($1500 msrp) AF-S Nikkor 300mm/2.8 G ED VR II ($5900 msrp) AF-S Nikkor 300mm/2.8 G IF VR II ($5500 msrp) There are some Sigma super tele alternatives as well. The big thing for me is the cost of these glasses whether it is Nikon or Pentax. As a biologist, I could put these things into service, but the capital outlay isn't there for me and not entirely Pentax. Originally posted by Mike.P® Bye then .

01-05-2011, 11:34 PM	#6
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Enjoy your new gear.

01-06-2011, 10:39 AM	#7
fredok1 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 58 Original Poster	Originally posted by mikemike With the APS-C crop factor, doesn't the DA* 300 mm have a longer effective focal length than your new setup? The new setup also has a 1.5 crop factor. In addition, the 200-400mm f/4 will autofocus with a 1.4x teleconverter for an effective focal length of 840mm at the long end. The fact that Pentax does not make a 1.4x converter to autofocus with the DA* 300mm and DA* 60-250mm zoom is what made me switch. Otherwise I would have hung in there until Pentax gave us a new super telephoto like their roadmap indicated a couple of years ago.

01-06-2011, 10:43 AM	#8
fredok1 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 58 Original Poster	Originally posted by Blue The FA* 600mm/4 can still be had by special order even though it has officially been canceled. However, it will be ~ $8500 usd if not more. The MSRP on the Nikkor 600mm f4 G ED VR is $10,300 and the Nikkor 500/4 is $8580. I doubt the MSRP can be beat by much on these be glasses. They also have the Nikkor 400/2.8 is $9550. Nikon also has 3 different 300mm lenses listed: AF-S Nikkor 300mm/4 D IF ED ($1500 msrp) AF-S Nikkor 300mm/2.8 G ED VR II ($5900 msrp) AF-S Nikkor 300mm/2.8 G IF VR II ($5500 msrp) There are some Sigma super tele alternatives as well. The big thing for me is the cost of these glasses whether it is Nikon or Pentax. As a biologist, I could put these things into service, but the capital outlay isn't there for me and not entirely Pentax. :Hysterical: I paid $4,800 for the Nikkor lens (used). Plus the 1.4x AF teleconverter was an additional $350 (new).

01-06-2011, 10:43 AM	#9
fredok1 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 58 Original Poster	Originally posted by sterretje Enjoy your new gear. Thank you.

01-06-2011, 11:02 AM	#10
Kammerer Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Hampton Roads Photos: Albums Posts: 367	Originally posted by fredok1 I paid $4,800 for the Nikkor lens (used). Plus the 1.4x AF teleconverter was an additional $350 (new). This isn't too bad. VR, I presume, not VR II? Good luck shooting with it. Please share your images with us when you get a chance - it's always interesting to see what a modern 400mm can do. Here's hoping that Pentax will come up with a DA* 400/4.

01-06-2011, 02:21 PM	#11
fredok1 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 58 Original Poster	Right on!

01-06-2011, 03:26 PM	#12
Ron Kruger Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 534	It is a misconception that "pro" wildlife photographers all use super-telephotos. Generally, the closer you can get to the subject the better the shot. People who don't know anything about wildlife think they need 1000mm to get shots of wild critters. Those who take a professional approach, learn how to get close. I saw a documentary about the best Nat Geo shots from the past decade, and every one of the wildlife shots featured were taken with lenses shorter that 50mm (mostly film, not crop sensors). I've been selling outdoor images for over 3 decades, and the longest lens I have is a 200mm.

01-06-2011, 03:46 PM	#13
fredok1 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 58 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ron Kruger It is a misconception that "pro" wildlife photographers all use super-telephotos. Generally, the closer you can get to the subject the better the shot. People who don't know anything about wildlife think they need 1000mm to get shots of wild critters. Those who take a professional approach, learn how to get close. I saw a documentary about the best Nat Geo shots from the past decade, and every one of the wildlife shots featured were taken with lenses shorter that 50mm (mostly film, not crop sensors). I've been selling outdoor images for over 3 decades, and the longest lens I have is a 200mm. So what's your point?

01-06-2011, 03:49 PM	#14
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	Originally posted by mikemike With the APS-C crop factor, doesn't the DA* 300 mm have a longer effective focal length than your new setup? No. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens.

01-06-2011, 04:59 PM	#15
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by fredok1 So what's your point? I think the point is that you think you need 400mm to do wildlife work, while most of the wildlife pros don't need or use it. Did I make it clearer for you?

Needed a pro wildlife lens

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!