[twitch]

The Canon 100-400mm V2, and the Nikon 80-400 V2 both have extremely fast AF. Combined with their capable bodies and top notch optics, they made formidable outdoor sports lenses. The question is whether the Pentax combination will match it in Optical AND AF speed. They are certainly asking top dollar. When you pitch your product price-wise against the big boys then you'd better be at least as good.


The problem for the Pentax 150-450 / full frame combination is not only competition from the Canon/Nikon FF's, it's from their own amazingly capable DA*60-250. The 60-250 is astonishingly sharp, it's possibly the best zoom lens ever made by Pentax. I have a K-5c and DA*60-250, so to get an improvement from this combination I would have to go FF and spend over $5,000 AUD (Pentax FF body plus the 150-450), which is not something I'm prepared to do, not this week anyway

---

Last edited by twitch; 02-11-2015 at 03:22 PM.

[angus]

Absolutely too much money for a lens without stabilization. Canon, Nikon, Tamron and Sigma lenses all have stabilization in lens which is (in long end lenses) much better than Pentax SR in body.

Bob Atkins did a test on that once and found no difference between SR in lens or body. The only advantage would be a stabilised pic in the viewfinder. I use my 250-600 with TCs without problems with the SR in body - and I dont mind it not being stabilised before the click.

[jimr-pdx]

Any chance for a test with K-5 series?

..and a Q too, should be a fun match

Neither weight price or focal range meet any current need, but ask again after the powerball #s come out!

[Sandy Hancock]

I'll be sticking with the DA*300 and 1.4xTC. I have already paid the money, and it fits in my bag.

I'm sure this lens will be great for the serious out-in-the-field wildlife photographer, but I'm an occasional dabbler at best in that field.
The 70-200 is much more interesting to me.

[Pål Jensen]

It is about what I expected price wise. Do Nikon and Canon have zoom lenses that reach 450mm?

[dfujevec]

Bob Atkins did a test on that once and found no difference between SR in lens or body. The only advantage would be a stabilised pic in the viewfinder. I use my 250-600 with TCs without problems with the SR in body - and I dont mind it not being stabilised before the click.

Have you try long lens with stabilization? It is much more easy to use and lens without stabilization should cost less and not more than stabilized lens.

[jpzk]

Agreed.

With that short zoom, that huge price commands prime-like IQ.

If it manages that, it will sweeten the sour taste of the short zoom amplitude in a long price.

Hope real life test results are better than the 3 pics already shown, which were not very good.

Any chance for a test with K-5 series?

Agreed with that .... already several people here mentioning this.

[wtlwdwgn]

We'll have to wait to see but the price of the 150-450 is very competitive with the Canon 100-400 II and Nikon 80-400 especially with it's greater reach. Actually I think the Nikon-Canon comparisons should be made with the 200-400s at $6649 and $11,799 rather than the 80-400 and 100-400. Just my $0.02 (which is all I have!)

[UncleVanya]

OK - so here's where we are:

Range - similar to Canon and Nikon offerings. 10+% longer; but 25% shorter than the 100-600 from Sigma.
Price - similar to Nikon, more than Canon, far more than Sigma.
IQ - unknown but anticipated to be competitive with Canon and Nikon.
Optical Stabilization - None
Shake Reduction (IBIS) - Pentax only

The lens appears to be close competitor without significant downsides or advantages over Canon or Nikon UNLESS you are a Pentax user.

From a price perspective - if you have existing Pentax investments this makes sense. It's close to the pricing of the other systems and performance (if up to expectations). However if you are Ricoh and you want to grow the brand you need more than to stem the flow of users to the other brands from Pentax and capture at least some of the new users as well as convince others to dtich their brands and come to Pentax - particularly Sony who also has IBIS and smaller FF bodies. You need to solidify position in the market and grow - and that seems like it would call for prices that beat the competition significantly and still delivered quality. If anything you want early adopters to have the price discounts and grow the brand early. It is possible this will happen, there may be deep discounts - but it seems like pre-ordering a lens without any idea of the IQ would be when the price would be lowest.

Such is life. I think it will not be the end of Pentax nor the great rebirth we might hope for. Slow and steady wins the race - hopefully Ricoh has an eye towards the long game.'

[Pål Jensen]

Some seem to miss the point that it isn't a Sigma lens.
Anyone who expect an OEM lens like this to sell for less is living in a parallel universe...

[Adam]

We'll have to wait to see but the price of the 150-450 is very competitive with the Canon 100-400 II and Nikon 80-400 especially with it's greater reach. Actually I think the Nikon-Canon comparisons should be made with the 200-400s at $6649 and $11,799 rather than the 80-400 and 100-400. Just my $0.02 (which is all I have!)

I would say that the 200-400mm's are in an entirely different league. You're looking at F4 vs F5.6 at 400mm plus a much higher weight.

[Digitalis]

The Canon 100-400mm V2, and the Nikon 80-400 V2 both have extremely fast AF. Combined with their capable bodies and top notch optics, they made formidable outdoor sports lenses. The question is whether the Pentax combination will match it in Optical AND AF speed. They are certainly asking top dollar. When you pitch your product price-wise against the big boys then you'd better be at least as good.

I agree - if this lens can compete with those two, I think it will be worth it.

[zzeitg]

Actually I expected that the 70-200 will be the more expensive one of these two....

[robthebloke]

As in the FF? For all D-FA lens we plan on testing on both APS-C and FF. We also use current-gen camera for our reviews: the K-3 for higher-end lenses and the K-S2 for consumer lenses.

I think he means Q

[Miguel]

To me, the meaningful criteria for a long telezoom are:
1. AF accuracy and speed
2. Sharpness at the long end
3. Weight
4. Cost

If the first three criteria above are met nicely, then the cost is well justified. We'll see. I hope both of the new lenses are excellent.

I own and use the Canon 100-400mm L f4.5-5.6 Version 1 and the Tamron 150-600mm f4.5 -6.3. While both of these have differences, they are priced very fairly. From what I’ve seen of Version 2 of the Canon 100-400 the same fair pricing holds. The Sigma Sport 150-600mm, however, looks to be a bit underwhelming. It is both a lot heavier and optically not slamdunk superior to the Tamron which is almost half the price. Further making things interesting is that the Sigma Contemporary was just announced at about the same price as the Tamron.

Canon and Nikon 200-400mm zooms are in another more expensive class. Regarding equivalent focal lengths, remember that cropped Canon bodies have a 1.6x factor, so a 400mm focal length comes close to Pentax in that context.

M