Compare the lens prototypes

Mistral75 · 01-06-2015, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

Ricoh may have determined there's no feasible way to implement IBIS on a FF K-mount camera when shooting at long focal lengths. The amplitude of the sensor movement, which increases with focal length, may be too much for reasonably sized image circles. OIS eliminates this problem. Perhaps the delay in revealing a FF camera is linked to them having to go back and rework the FF telephoto lens strategy?

What about Sony Alpha 900 / 850 / 99 and their 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 (the latter dating back from the Minolta era)?

zzeitg · 01-06-2015, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

Actually, it's a 45-900mm f/1.2-1.8.

I'll buy at least 3 of them

IchabodCrane · 01-06-2015, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

What about Sony Alpha 900 / 850 / 99 and their 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 (the latter dating back from the Minolta era)?

True, those are non-stablized lenses but how well do they work with Sony's IBIS? From the A99 specification sheet:

"Compensation effect: Equivalent to approx. 2.5 to 4.5 steps in shutter speeds *Varies according to shooting conditions and lens used."

Not a Number · 01-06-2015, 08:17 AM

I thought I read that one or two of the lenses Pentax/Hoya/Ricoh released in the last 2-3 years had in-lens stabilization.

lytrytyr · 01-06-2015, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Not a Number

I thought I read that one or two of the lenses Pentax/Hoya/Ricoh released in the last 2-3 years had in-lens stabilization.

HD Pentax-D FA 645 90mm F2.8 ED AW SR Macro Reviews - 645 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

"It has built-in Shake Reduction"

davidsladek · 01-06-2015, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by mee

The EXIF on both of the 70-200 looking images (2nd and 4th images listed) is all but the same.. down to a few seconds difference on time at 11:33:34 and 11:33:55 ...very odd. Why would they do that?

I think you've confused the images a little.
2 and 4 are two different lenses and both images from the new release. No magic here, I am afraid

Here is the Last modified EXIF record for all the images:

Large diameter (Photokina 2014)
Last Modified Date/Time = 2014:09:09 10:30:29
Large diameter (CES 2015)
Last Modified Date/Time = 2014:12:25 11:33:55
Super Telephoto (Photokina 2014)
Last Modified Date/Time = 2014:09:09 10:30:45
Super Telephoto (CES 2015)
Last Modified Date/Time = 2014:12:25 11:33:34

**boriscleto** · 01-06-2015, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

Actually, it's a 45-900mm f/1.2-1.8.

16-1200 F/1 that costs $200. And there would still be complaints. Why is the wide end only 16mm? 12mm is so much better...

soycory · 01-06-2015, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

16-1200 F/1 that costs $200. And there would still be complaints. Why is the wide end only 16mm? 12mm is so much better...

360 degree - 10,000 telescope with f0.75 with in lens stabilization for future proofing, large format capable for the future as well as HD SMC and HD+ coatings, inlens triple speed silent motor that can foces perfectly in 0.01 seconds, free with new camera body $199.99 otherwise

derekkite · 01-06-2015, 09:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Mistral75

What about Sony Alpha 900 / 850 / 99 and their 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 (the latter dating back from the Minolta era)?

It isn't the lens, it is focus. A stabilized image makes focus much easier. With the K-5, the internally stabilized Sigma 150-500 was much quicker and accurate in focus compared to the DA*300. The advantage lessened with the K-3, but my 500 f4.5 Sigma would be much easier and accurate handheld if there was stabilization in the lens.

A friend who is in his mid 70's and has a slight palsy manages stunning shots with his 300 VR IS Nikon. He usually has a 2x tele on it.

zzeitg · 01-06-2015, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

16-1200 F/1 that costs $200. And there would still be complaints. Why is the wide end only 16mm? 12mm is so much better...

Some people will always keep complaining. But speaking about the Pentax lenses line up, there's definitely whitespace above 250 mm focal length. I'd be OK with something in DA* standard and zoom range 50-500 or 150-500 (or even -400 f4, -but that's rather impossible- allowing usage of TC 1.4x).

This is not any caprice. To take a photo of a small bird (even from not so long distance), that's IMHO a hard job without having a lens in the range 400-500 mm.

**boriscleto** · 01-06-2015, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by zzeitg

Some people will always keep complaining. But speaking about the Pentax lenses line up, there's definitely whitespace above 250 mm focal length. I'd be OK with something in DA* standard and zoom range 50-500 or 150-500 (or even -400 f4, -but that's rather impossible- allowing usage of TC 1.4x).

This is not any caprice. To take a photo of a small bird (even from not so long distance), that's IMHO a hard job without having a lens in the range 400-500 mm.

I have the Sigma 150-500 so I don't worry about it anymore.

**sholtzma** · 01-06-2015, 10:17 AM

Well, I'm hoping for a 70 (or 80)-200mm f2.8 zoom + a 200-400mm f4 (or more likely f4-5.6) zoom, both with excellent glass. Worst case scenario would be a 70-200 f4 and a super-tele but super slow zoom.

zzeitg · 01-06-2015, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by sholtzma

200-400mm f4 (or more likely f4-5.6) zoom

the absence of golden ring makes me think that it will more likely be f4-5.6 -> no autofocus with TC... (wish I was wrong)
(not a real difference compared to DA* 60-250 x1.4 -> 350 mm f5.6)

**boriscleto** · 01-06-2015, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by zzeitg

the absence of golden ring makes me think that it will more likely be f4-5.6 -> no autofocus with TC... (wish I was wrong)
(not a real difference compared to DA* 60-250 x1.4 -> 350 mm f5.6)

An F5.6 will autofocus with a 1.4x TC. It won't be as fast as a F4, but it will work.

Flugelbinder · 01-06-2015, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by sholtzma

Worst case scenario would be a 70-200 f4...

This wouldn't make any sense, since there already is a constant f/4 in the range, the 60-250...

How much do you guys think the 70-200/2.8 will be priced at? Considering that the Tamron is an excellent piece of glass, and has a very attractive price tag...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
4 New Pentax Prototypes at CES 2015	PF Staff	Homepage & Official Pentax News	7	01-06-2015 05:39 AM
How does the Sony A100 compare to the K-x?	ChopperCharles	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	03-03-2014 11:37 AM
How does the Samsung NX1000 compare to the Q7?	lebjohnson	Pentax Q	13	06-16-2013 07:07 PM
Sony Full Frame mirrorless prototypes still being tested, coming in mid 2014	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	17	02-17-2013 10:31 AM
Anyone compare the 'walkaround' Pentax zoom lens? DA*16-50 & DA17-70	JayR	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	10-24-2011 07:52 AM

01-06-2015, 07:31 AM	#31
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,526	Originally posted by IchabodCrane Ricoh may have determined there's no feasible way to implement IBIS on a FF K-mount camera when shooting at long focal lengths. The amplitude of the sensor movement, which increases with focal length, may be too much for reasonably sized image circles. OIS eliminates this problem. Perhaps the delay in revealing a FF camera is linked to them having to go back and rework the FF telephoto lens strategy? What about Sony Alpha 900 / 850 / 99 and their 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 (the latter dating back from the Minolta era)?

01-06-2015, 07:34 AM	#32
zzeitg Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: South Bohemia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,017	Originally posted by Mistral75 Actually, it's a 45-900mm f/1.2-1.8. I'll buy at least 3 of them

01-06-2015, 08:04 AM	#33
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Mistral75 What about Sony Alpha 900 / 850 / 99 and their 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 (the latter dating back from the Minolta era)? True, those are non-stablized lenses but how well do they work with Sony's IBIS? From the A99 specification sheet: "Compensation effect: Equivalent to approx. 2.5 to 4.5 steps in shutter speeds *Varies according to shooting conditions and lens used."

01-06-2015, 08:17 AM	#34
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,525	I thought I read that one or two of the lenses Pentax/Hoya/Ricoh released in the last 2-3 years had in-lens stabilization.

01-06-2015, 08:27 AM	#35
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by Not a Number I thought I read that one or two of the lenses Pentax/Hoya/Ricoh released in the last 2-3 years had in-lens stabilization. HD Pentax-D FA 645 90mm F2.8 ED AW SR Macro Reviews - 645 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database "It has built-in Shake Reduction"

01-06-2015, 08:34 AM	#36
davidsladek Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Surrey Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 346 Original Poster	Originally posted by mee The EXIF on both of the 70-200 looking images (2nd and 4th images listed) is all but the same.. down to a few seconds difference on time at 11:33:34 and 11:33:55 ...very odd. Why would they do that? I think you've confused the images a little. 2 and 4 are two different lenses and both images from the new release. No magic here, I am afraid Here is the Last modified EXIF record for all the images: Large diameter (Photokina 2014) Last Modified Date/Time = 2014:09:09 10:30:29 Large diameter (CES 2015) Last Modified Date/Time = 2014:12:25 11:33:55 Super Telephoto (Photokina 2014) Last Modified Date/Time = 2014:09:09 10:30:45 Super Telephoto (CES 2015) Last Modified Date/Time = 2014:12:25 11:33:34

01-06-2015, 08:55 AM	#37
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,474	Originally posted by Mistral75 Actually, it's a 45-900mm f/1.2-1.8. 16-1200 F/1 that costs $200. And there would still be complaints. Why is the wide end only 16mm? 12mm is so much better...

01-06-2015, 09:08 AM	#38
soycory Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 93	Originally posted by boriscleto 16-1200 F/1 that costs $200. And there would still be complaints. Why is the wide end only 16mm? 12mm is so much better... 360 degree - 10,000 telescope with f0.75 with in lens stabilization for future proofing, large format capable for the future as well as HD SMC and HD+ coatings, inlens triple speed silent motor that can foces perfectly in 0.01 seconds, free with new camera body $199.99 otherwise

01-06-2015, 09:12 AM - 1 Like	#39
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Originally posted by Mistral75 What about Sony Alpha 900 / 850 / 99 and their 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 (the latter dating back from the Minolta era)? It isn't the lens, it is focus. A stabilized image makes focus much easier. With the K-5, the internally stabilized Sigma 150-500 was much quicker and accurate in focus compared to the DA*300. The advantage lessened with the K-3, but my 500 f4.5 Sigma would be much easier and accurate handheld if there was stabilization in the lens. A friend who is in his mid 70's and has a slight palsy manages stunning shots with his 300 VR IS Nikon. He usually has a 2x tele on it.

01-06-2015, 09:20 AM	#40
zzeitg Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: South Bohemia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,017	Originally posted by boriscleto 16-1200 F/1 that costs $200. And there would still be complaints. Why is the wide end only 16mm? 12mm is so much better... Some people will always keep complaining. But speaking about the Pentax lenses line up, there's definitely whitespace above 250 mm focal length. I'd be OK with something in DA* standard and zoom range 50-500 or 150-500 (or even -400 f4, -but that's rather impossible- allowing usage of TC 1.4x). This is not any caprice. To take a photo of a small bird (even from not so long distance), that's IMHO a hard job without having a lens in the range 400-500 mm.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2015, 09:47 AM	#41
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,474	Originally posted by zzeitg Some people will always keep complaining. But speaking about the Pentax lenses line up, there's definitely whitespace above 250 mm focal length. I'd be OK with something in DA* standard and zoom range 50-500 or 150-500 (or even -400 f4, -but that's rather impossible- allowing usage of TC 1.4x). This is not any caprice. To take a photo of a small bird (even from not so long distance), that's IMHO a hard job without having a lens in the range 400-500 mm. I have the Sigma 150-500 so I don't worry about it anymore.

01-06-2015, 10:17 AM	#42
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	Well, I'm hoping for a 70 (or 80)-200mm f2.8 zoom + a 200-400mm f4 (or more likely f4-5.6) zoom, both with excellent glass. Worst case scenario would be a 70-200 f4 and a super-tele but super slow zoom.

01-06-2015, 10:39 AM	#43
zzeitg Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: South Bohemia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,017	Originally posted by sholtzma 200-400mm f4 (or more likely f4-5.6) zoom the absence of golden ring makes me think that it will more likely be f4-5.6 -> no autofocus with TC... (wish I was wrong) (not a real difference compared to DA* 60-250 x1.4 -> 350 mm f5.6)

01-06-2015, 10:49 AM	#44
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,474	Originally posted by zzeitg the absence of golden ring makes me think that it will more likely be f4-5.6 -> no autofocus with TC... (wish I was wrong) (not a real difference compared to DA* 60-250 x1.4 -> 350 mm f5.6) An F5.6 will autofocus with a 1.4x TC. It won't be as fast as a F4, but it will work.

01-06-2015, 11:05 AM	#45
Flugelbinder Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Toronto - missing the ocean Posts: 466	Originally posted by sholtzma Worst case scenario would be a 70-200 f4... This wouldn't make any sense, since there already is a constant f/4 in the range, the 60-250... How much do you guys think the 70-200/2.8 will be priced at? Considering that the Tamron is an excellent piece of glass, and has a very attractive price tag...