[biz-engineer]

We can say the same to the people that argue on positions without any picture to show their point. What we read from you is theory.

Ah no, I have posted one photo in this thread to illustrate what I was saying. And I have posted a number of photos in the 300mm+ thread of PF. So, you must be referring to yourself I suppose.

One doesn't need to be expert wildlife photographer to see some photos here are great technique, some are not as great. One just need to open his eyes.

The shooting conditions and the technique may vary a lot from photo to photo, therefore you can't assume that the focal length and the lens is sole responsible for the images you see. See here if you dare getting some hint of technique http://www.birdsofparadiseproject.org/content.php?page=101 and : Birds-of-Paradise Project: Leaf-Cam

There is nothing they couldn't have done with Pentax gear. BTW, they don't put forward any brand of camera or lens.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-10-2016 at 08:35 AM.

[Dan Rentea]

If you ignore aperture... what happens when you only want one eye in focus?

You focus on the eye?

[IMG]image hosting 10mb limit[/IMG]

[IMG]uploading images[/IMG]

How do you do 200mm ƒ2.8 with a 150-600?

I can do 500 ƒ6.3, with my DA* 200 and a couple of converters... but how do you get to ƒ2.8?

Do you realise that there is also a:
- Canon 200mm f2.8 (which is cheaper than DA*200mm), right ?
- or the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 which will give me 200 or 300mm at f2.8 and 600mm at f5.6, right?

How do you get 150mm, 250mm, 500mm or in between with a prime lens? You saw the biz-engineer example where he had to go back with this car in order to get the bird in the frame, right?

You talk about the best image quality you can get and yet, each and every TC added lowers the quality of the image.

But yow know what? You stay with your TC's and try to convince people that you have a point when you speak about image quality. There are enough images of mine in this thread to back up my comments regarding the Sigma 150-600mm vs your lenses + TC's.

You keep talking about lenses you never tried because this will make you even more credible.

---------- Post added 09-10-16 at 03:56 PM ----------

Ah no, I have posted one photo in this thread to illustrate what I was saying. And I have posted a number of photos in the 300mm+ thread of PF. So, you must be referring to yourself I suppose.

You have images to back up your comments as I've seen them when the guy from DPReview tried to put down the af from K1.

There is nothing they couldn't have done with Pentax gear. BTW, they don't put forward any brand of camera or lens.

Of course it can be done with Pentax gear. I'm not arguing that, never did. What if the lenses used were Sigma lenses? It will be a huge shock to you? After all, we don't know what brand of camera or lens have been used.

[normhead]

So what you are saying is, to get ƒ2.8 with your 150-600 now you have to carry all these other lenses?

That was exactly my point, I guess I need to spell things out in really simple language.

How do you get 150mm, 250mm, 500mm or in between with a prime lens? You saw the biz-engineer example where ha had to go back with this car in order to get the bird in the frame, right?

You do know I have a DA*60-250 don't you? That with a 1.4 gives me 350mm 5.6 or with a 1.7x gives me 425 6.3?

The thing is, if you were paying attention you'd already know this because I've posted images taken with every combo, but hey, you're just arguing for the sake of it. I've had this conversation with so many good photographers, many of them pros before breaking down and starting my own ƒ2,8 collection, not one of them were into 150-600 type lenses. I've actually been on your side of this argument... but I've seen the light.

My simple conclusion... everything else being equal, the fastest aperture provides the most flexibility. A faster lens provides more accurate and faster AF, a longer shooting time in failing light, and more ability to utilize higher shutter speeds for action photography. When your fast telephoto is a 200, even weight is an advantage.

But I was talking about a portable kit for wild life. Usually I take an 18-135 and the DA*200 and TCs.

Like on this day.

200mm


At 280mm HD DA 1.4 TC


At 340mm F 1.7x AF adapter.


I could have gone to 476mm stacking the adapters, but on this day there was no need to do that.

I'm not convinced I missed out at all. If you can move backwards and forwards 5 feet, you can frame the way you want without a zoom, a K-3 gives you lots of crop room. On this day, using a prime instead of a zoom was absolutely no issue. The birds were on some kind of 40minute loop. They were there then they were gone, then came back again. I just changes FLs while they were gone that was no problem.

[Venom3300]

Untils you show us many great pictures with the K3 and DA*300 + TC this is only a claim.

The best looking pictures here are from 150-600 and 50-500 lenses.

1- there are plenty of examples from that combo if you bother to search. Its a very capable combination. The best? No, but still ver good.

2. That's the most ignorant statement I've heard in a while. While you are looking up the DA*300 plus TC photos, perhaps you can also look up the FA*600/4, DA560/5.6, sigma 500/4.6, FA* 250-600/5.6... The 150-600 and 50-500 dont even compete.

[Dan Rentea]

SO what you are saying is, to get ƒ2.8 with your 150-600 now you have to carry all these other lenses?

That was exactly my point, I guess I need to spell things out in really simple language.

Do you realise that I get the same DOF or even smaller than your 200mm f2.8 if I take the shot at 600mm, don't you? Look at the DOF in the image bellow the one with the frog. You see the DOF at 400mm and f8, don't you?

You do know I have a DA*60-250 don't you? That with a 1.4 gives me 350mm 5.6 or with a 1,7 gives me 425 6.3?

The thing is, if you were paying attention you'd already know this because I've posted images taken with every combo, but hey, you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I saw some images with lack of details and lack of sharpness, but with nice composition. Thanks, but I rather buy a proper lens for wildlife then adding TC's in order to get those noisy images.

I'm not convinced I missed out at all. If you can move backwards and forwards 5 feet, you can frame the way you want without a zoom. On this day, that was no problem.

As I said, try and move backwards and forwards 5 feet when you're on a kayak. And while you do that, just make sure the bird is asleep in order to wait for your 5 feet forward or backward.

---------- Post added 09-10-16 at 04:40 PM ----------

1- there are plenty of examples from that combo if you bother to search. Its a very capable combination. The best? No, but still ver good.

Again, I'm not arguing this, never did. My friend who I travel with shoots with this combo and he gets excellent images.

2. That's the most ignorant statement I've heard in a while. While you are looking up the DA*300 plus TC photos, perhaps you can also look up the FA*600/4, DA560/5.6, sigma 500/4.6, FA* 250-600/5.6... The 150-600 and 50-500 dont even compete.

I think Nicholas is referring to images from this particular thread, not to images from the entire forum. Bringing into discussion lenses that costs more than 3000$ in a thread about consumer tele lenses is pointless.

[normhead]

1- there are plenty of examples from that combo if you bother to search. Its a very capable combination. The best? No, but still ver good.

2. That's the most ignorant statement I've heard in a while. While you are looking up the DA*300 plus TC photos, perhaps you can also look up the FA*600/4, DA560/5.6, sigma 500/4.6, FA* 250-600/5.6... The 150-600 and 50-500 dont even compete.

Some folks are completely incapable of objectively evaluating photos, when compared to the lenses they own. They honestly believe the 150-600 type lenses are capable of competing with the best out there. That Sigma and tamron have some magic advantage that allows them to produce lenses of the same quality as the lenses Pentax produces for twice the price. And all those people who lay out $10k for a 600 ƒ4? They are all fools, suckers who don't know anything. It's left to the reader to evaluate, who knows something and who doesn't.

[Dan Rentea]

Some folks are completely incapable of objectively evaluating photos, when compared to the lenses they own. They honestly believe the 150-600 type lenses are capable of competing with the best out there. And all those people who lay out $10k for a 600 ƒ4? They are all fools, suckers who don't know anything. It's left to the reader to evaluate, who knows something and who doesn't.

Well, now I finally know...You take advantage of Venom3300 comment because you don't have arguments for your comments and so you bring into discussion lenses which costs more than 4000$ or 8000$ trying to make a point. Please, show me any comment where anyone from this thread said that the Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses competes with those top class lenses!

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 09-10-2016 at 10:26 AM.

[biz-engineer]

You have images to back up your comments as I've seen them when the guy from DPReview tried to put down the af from K1.

Yes, I have posted them in the 300mm+ thread. If I can't post them a second time here, PF loader reject pictures already loaded. I have to find the links in this thread and post them again. It's true, if you don't believe it, go through the 1400+ pages of this thread and spend the time yourself. I won't spend 2 hours looking for examples to show anything to people of bad faith, especially because posting great photos does not seem to be sufficient to cure negativity. I posted links to documentary that shows that wildlife photography is only loosely related to gear and it was ignored. How many photos do we have to post to make some people shut-up? Someone post some excellent shots done with a Pentax camera and lens and it has no effect, the arguing goes on and on. Do you think I'm going to waste so much time for a Canon evangelist? It's just plain sad nasty provocation. What Canon owners are doing here behind the fake appearance of good minded people? Just wondering. The rule is, if a thread is about non Pentax gear, it's going to the non-Pentax section of the forum. Just wondering the tricks of Canon and Nikon owner just staying at the limit of non-Pentax cameras thread in order to keep in the Pentax section.

[Driline]

That Sigma and tamron have some magic advantage that allows them to produce lenses of the same quality as the lenses Pentax produces for twice the price.

So that's how they do it Norm! Magic elves sprinkling pixie dust over those half price Sigma and Tamron lenses. Pentax is doomed

[Dan Rentea]

Yes, I have posted them in the 300mm+ thread. If I can't post them a second time here, PF loader reject pictures already loaded. I have to find the links in this thread and post them again. It's true, if you don't believe it, go through the 1400+ pages of this thread and spend the time yourself. I won't spend 2 hours looking for examples to show anything to people of bad faith, especially because posting great photos does not seem to be sufficient to cure negativity. I posted links to documentary that shows that wildlife photography is only loosely related to gear and it was ignored. How many photos do we have to post to make some people shut-up? Do you think I'm going to waste so much time for a Canon evangelist. It's just plain sad nasty provocation.

Do you realised that I made you a compliment, right? Read from begining. I said that I know you have images to back up your comments, because I've seen them when you proved to the guy from DPReview that he is wrong about K1's af.

Anyway, this is not going anywhere as I keep seeing so much negativity, so...feel free to comment anything you want.

As for normhead, I gave him too much credibility but not anymore...

[biz-engineer]

Do you realised that I made you a compliment, right?

That's not the way I understood. Sorry.

[Dan Rentea]

That's not the way I understood. Sorry.

It's ok, I got used to in this thread with people jumping on my throat... It was the second time I told you that I take your comments seriously because I saw your images regarding Pentax K1 af and those images gave you credibility in my eyes.

[Nicolas06]

1- there are plenty of examples from that combo if you bother to search. Its a very capable combination. The best? No, but still ver good.

2. That's the most ignorant statement I've heard in a while. While you are looking up the DA*300 plus TC photos, perhaps you can also look up the FA*600/4, DA560/5.6, sigma 500/4.6, FA* 250-600/5.6... The 150-600 and 50-500 dont even compete.

You really don't want to get it... The point is not you can't get something decent. The problem is that people like normhead will continue forever showing photo that look like they where taken with a 300$ 50X bridge and cropped and give lessons on picture quality and lenses.

The whole point here is many lenses can do a great job and that include the 150-600... When you combine 600 + FF you get similar fov as DA*300 + TC on APSC, but you also gain 1 stop of light (f/6.3 vs f/9) still keep flexibility of zoom and keep more sharpness because the sensor is less demanding on the lens. That just how it is.

Thinking adding TC on top on TC on tiny sensor give you the best would be like me using my FA77 + 2X TC and heavy crop and claim I'll match 55-300 at 300mm because the lens less than half the price. This doesn't work like that. The 55-300 will never match the FA77 at 77mm but the 77 will neve match the consumer zoom at 300 or more. Otherwise we would just all buy an FA31, a few TC, ask for Pentax for a 36 or 50MP APSC body and be done.

And yes, a 600mm f/4 would be great as well as FA*250-600 f/5.6. Unfortunately, theses lenses are not available new and their cost is several time more the one of a DA*300 or 150-600 so most people will not ever get them. The DA560 f/5.6 is surely much sharper than 150-600 but not faster once cropped to 600mm. It say to be FF compatible, but Pentax say there may be reduced performance on FF borders on their own roadmap...

The 150-450 is state of the art and great, but again expensive.

The problem is about choice. Some people may appreciate more Den Rentea photographs than normhead and they may consider then his choice to work better.

And if photos of alternative are so much better all over the web and you want to push your point, nobody prevent you from actually showing some rather than saying they merely exist. Show us how much more stunning they look and we will discuss.

[Nicolas06]

Yes, I have posted them in the 300mm+ thread. If I can't post them a second time here, PF loader reject pictures already loaded. I have to find the links in this thread and post them again. It's true, if you don't believe it, go through the 1400+ pages of this thread and spend the time yourself. I won't spend 2 hours looking for examples to show anything to people of bad faith, especially because posting great photos does not seem to be sufficient to cure negativity. I posted links to documentary that shows that wildlife photography is only loosely related to gear and it was ignored. How many photos do we have to post to make some people shut-up? Someone post some excellent shots done with a Pentax camera and lens and it has no effect, the arguing goes on and on. Do you think I'm going to waste so much time for a Canon evangelist? It's just plain sad nasty provocation. What Canon owners are doing here behind the fake appearance of good minded people? Just wondering. The rule is, if a thread is about non Pentax gear, it's going to the non-Pentax section of the forum. Just wondering the tricks of Canon and Nikon owner just staying at the limit of non-Pentax cameras thread in order to keep in the Pentax section.

Go to advanced, when you post. There a link (in red with default theme at least) bellow the smileys called "Insert Album Photos". When you click on it, a window open and you can use the drop down box to select Attachments and then browser over them to include them again.

I agree the ergonomics are no perfect, it took me some time to figure it out the first time, but this would do what you ask.

Another alternative, is to use some online sharing sites. On flickr as an example you get 1TB of free storage, you keep 100% control on who can see it, download it and what size but you can upload them at native resolution, 36MP of your K1 if you want. There a viewer that while not perfect work quite well, and you can include the picture in forums like Pentax Forum, in as many threads and post as you want. Because you can add tags to your photos, and group them by albums, you should be able to find an old one instantly.

Beside there no Canon evengelist there, neither anti Pentax. There just some people that value more choice. And for some reason some other people that would prevent them to have that choice.

In particular, if the gear is not that important, as you seems to imply, to me you should welcome less expensive alternative that can also get the job done. Not all people are rich, and the more one can get for the money, the best it is.

[Venom3300]

You really don't want to get it... The point is not you can't get something decent. The problem is that people like normhead will continue forever showing photo that look like they where taken with a 300$ 50X bridge and cropped and give lessons on picture quality and lenses.

The whole point here is many lenses can do a great job and that include the 150-600... When you combine 600 + FF you get similar fov as DA*300 + TC on APSC, but you also gain 1 stop of light (f/6.3 vs f/9) still keep flexibility of zoom and keep more sharpness because the sensor is less demanding on the lens. That just how it is.

Thinking adding TC on top on TC on tiny sensor give you the best would be like me using my FA77 + 2X TC and heavy crop and claim I'll match 55-300 at 300mm because the lens less than half the price. This doesn't work like that. The 55-300 will never match the FA77 at 77mm but the 77 will neve match the consumer zoom at 300 or more. Otherwise we would just all buy an FA31, a few TC, ask for Pentax for a 36 or 50MP APSC body and be done.

And yes, a 600mm f/4 would be great as well as FA*250-600 f/5.6. Unfortunately, theses lenses are not available new and their cost is several time more the one of a DA*300 or 150-600 so most people will not ever get them. The DA560 f/5.6 is surely much sharper than 150-600 but not faster once cropped to 600mm. It say to be FF compatible, but Pentax say there may be reduced performance on FF borders on their own roadmap...

The 150-450 is state of the art and great, but again expensive.

The problem is about choice. Some people may appreciate more Den Rentea photographs than normhead and they may consider then his choice to work better.

And if photos of alternative are so much better all over the web and you want to push your point, nobody prevent you from actually showing some rather than saying they merely exist. Show us how much more stunning they look and we will discuss.

I dont necessarily disagree with any of this. Your orginal post sounded to me kike you were saying the 150-600 type lenses would be the best lenses of the type in k mount. All I was saying is there are better lenses- albeit at great cost.