Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-09-2012, 03:08 AM - 1 Like   #46
Senior Member
Kennod's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 126
I know it probably seems like the least interesting new offering. But if the DA 50/1.8 is optically based on the F/FA 50/1.7 then it should be a super fast focusing all round good performer. Just short enough to be a cheaper lighter alternative to a DA40 or FA43 and just long enough to be an alternative to the DA70 or FA77 for available light portraiture.

Assuming pricing is similar to the DA35/2.4 then they should sell a gazillion of them. Although, I won't selling my Limiteds ever!

02-09-2012, 06:49 AM   #47
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by Kennod Quote
I know it probably seems like the least interesting new offering. But if the DA 50/1.8 is optically based on the F/FA 50/1.7 then it should be a super fast focusing all round good performer. Just short enough to be a cheaper lighter alternative to a DA40 or FA43 and just long enough to be an alternative to the DA70 or FA77 for available light portraiture.

Assuming pricing is similar to the DA35/2.4 then they should sell a gazillion of them. Although, I won't selling my Limiteds ever!
No any sense to use old optical scheme at all. All lenses will be NEW DEVELOPED.

There are only three lenses which use old optical scheme - DA40, DA35, DA200....BUT...DA lenses has another MTF, another glass, another colour rendition...
DA35/2.4 is cheap version of FA35 (which still easy to buy at B&H).
02-09-2012, 01:31 PM   #48
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wellington, the Sunny State
Posts: 18
QuoteOriginally posted by rvannatta Quote
I don't really like the 5/6 speed. I was truely hoping that it would beat that by half a stop.
yep.. unless it really is a 'cheap' lens I don't see the point of F5.6 on a 560mm lense. Okay its not 6.3 or worse... but it does point to smaller glass at the front that a F4.0 and that means less light to work with.

Last trip to Kakadu National Park presented many opertunities to shoot but some of the best shots went a little wanting at Dawn and Dusk because my zoom lense lacked the F4.0 or less. Tried all I could but too dark is too dark. I'll be heading back there with my newish K-5 and a better zoom lense one day and I don't think a 560mm F5.6 will be in my bag (but it might if nothing better turns up).
02-09-2012, 01:46 PM   #49
Pentaxian
Greyser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,096
QuoteOriginally posted by baker5 Quote
yep.. unless it really is a 'cheap' lens I don't see the point of F5.6 on a 560mm lense. Okay its not 6.3 or worse... but it does point to smaller glass at the front that a F4.0 and that means less light to work with.

Last trip to Kakadu National Park presented many opertunities to shoot but some of the best shots went a little wanting at Dawn and Dusk because my zoom lense lacked the F4.0 or less. Tried all I could but too dark is too dark. I'll be heading back there with my newish K-5 and a better zoom lense one day and I don't think a 560mm F5.6 will be in my bag (but it might if nothing better turns up).
f/5.6 is a compromise, indeed. However... It gives you possible mobility even with 560mm and cheaper lens in general. Try to imagine yourself with Sigma 500/4.5, chasing small birds . It's doable, but the attachment to a steady (also heavy enough) tripod is better choice and convenience. The tradeoff is mobility of f/5.6 vs. bulk and heaviness, but speed of f/4.5
At the same time your newish K-5 will allow to shoot easily at ISO 800-1600 which helps greatly in the dusk.

02-09-2012, 01:51 PM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by baker5 Quote
yep.. unless it really is a 'cheap' lens I don't see the point of F5.6 on a 560mm lense. Okay its not 6.3 or worse... but it does point to smaller glass at the front that a F4.0 and that means less light to work with.

Last trip to Kakadu National Park presented many opertunities to shoot but some of the best shots went a little wanting at Dawn and Dusk because my zoom lense lacked the F4.0 or less. Tried all I could but too dark is too dark. I'll be heading back there with my newish K-5 and a better zoom lense one day and I don't think a 560mm F5.6 will be in my bag (but it might if nothing better turns up).
I have the opposite experience when I shoot 600mm or larger. Because of the thin DOF, I use a narrower aperture (F13 to 20) to get more of the subject in focus. This sometimes means I need to crank ISO to 3200 or so, but I've been happy with the results. For me, a faster telephoto would simply mean a lot of weight to lug around.
02-09-2012, 05:24 PM   #51
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Are these pictures real?

I like the "look" of the 560/5.6 lens (a "DA"), if that is going to be the real thing.

Cheers.

JP
Why so skeptical? Of course they're real... from Pentax Japan.
02-09-2012, 08:34 PM   #52
Pentaxian
Greyser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,096
QuoteOriginally posted by SteveM Quote
I have the opposite experience when I shoot 600mm or larger. Because of the thin DOF, I use a narrower aperture (F13 to 20) to get more of the subject in focus. This sometimes means I need to crank ISO to 3200 or so, but I've been happy with the results. For me, a faster telephoto would simply mean a lot of weight to lug around.
Exactly.
02-09-2012, 08:46 PM   #53
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,256
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Why so skeptical? Of course they're real... from Pentax Japan.
They're real ? Well, ok then.

When you see so many pictures on so many threads/posts, of the said lens, you sart wondering if any of this has been Photoshop'd.
Sorry but I have seen so many rumours and cooked up photos of seemingly upcoming lenses that you almost become suspicious.

Glad to know that this is the real thing.

JP

02-09-2012, 08:53 PM   #54
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,256
QuoteOriginally posted by SteveM Quote
I have the opposite experience when I shoot 600mm or larger. Because of the thin DOF, I use a narrower aperture (F13 to 20) to get more of the subject in focus. This sometimes means I need to crank ISO to 3200 or so, but I've been happy with the results. For me, a faster telephoto would simply mean a lot of weight to lug around.
I would agree that because of the K5 capability in low light conditions, one doesn't have to carry around a faster but heavier lens if the slower (the 560mm/5.6) lens will do the trick.
I very often shoot at ISO 1600 and find the rendering quite fine.
Not too often do I shoot at ISO 3200 but I did get a few keepers when I did, even at ISO 6400 !

I am used to carry my DA*300/4 for birding but I would certainly need a longer focal in nearly 50% of the time.

We shall "soon" see what the IQ of that lens is when released on hte market.
If it is close to the IQ of the DA*300, I'd be a happy camper.

JP
02-09-2012, 09:19 PM   #55
Pentaxian
Greyser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,096
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
We shall "soon" see what the IQ of that lens is when released on hte market.
If it is close to the IQ of the DA*300, I'd be a happy camper.
So far I'm pretty happy with my FA*300/4.5+Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF TC. If the IQ of the 560/5.6 is close enough to it, I'll buy it on a heartbeat.

Last edited by Greyser; 02-10-2012 at 11:34 AM.
02-09-2012, 10:53 PM   #56
Senior Member
telly0050's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 233
the 50mm looks so tempting to me
i have a DA35mm/2.4 that i extremely love and i believe the 50mm will be similar

i can totally see myself running to B&H the day it becomes available!
(hope they price it reasonably, similar to price of the 35mm)
02-10-2012, 08:56 AM   #57
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
At 560mm, f5.6 is pretty much unusably thin. You will be stopping that lens down past f10 regularly (although something tells me that lens isn't really for you). I really don't see much need of anything less than f5.6 on my 210mm...

On asp-c, I really don't see much need in fast apertures beyond 100mm... but I'm not a sports photographer. You really only need the speed for very specialized applications... and you pay for it with pounds and pounds of glass and $$$$$$.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50mm, 560mm, 90mm, cp, d-fa, da, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Official Pentax K-01 Specifications Revealed Adam Pentax K-01 60 02-26-2012 05:56 AM
Landscape Revealed by the tide Duplo Post Your Photos! 13 07-17-2011 07:55 PM
Leica lenses revealed RioRico Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-27-2011 09:42 PM
Sarah Palin's Speaking Contract Revealed... creampuff General Talk 82 04-24-2010 10:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top