Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-24-2016, 08:07 AM   #16
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,084
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
I thought the DA 560mm was already FF compatible, despite not having "DFA" label.
It IS compatible.

02-24-2016, 08:12 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,647
In my opinion 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses are obsolete. Not necessary anylonger. They are from a time 100ISO was the standard speed. A600/4 is twice as heavy as a 600/5.6 or a 500/4, and even in the film days many bird shooters switched from a 600/4 to a 500/4 for weight alone in spite of needing all reach they could get. Not to mention the cost difference. Don't mention DOF (or lack there of). Wide open they are hardly usable due to non-existent DOF.
A 300/2.8, however, is likely.
02-24-2016, 09:28 AM   #18
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,354
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Don't mention DOF (or lack there of). Wide open they are hardly usable due to non-existent DOF.
A 300/2.8, however, is likely.
You do realize how depth of field works, correct? Meaning the further away the subject is, the more depth of field.
For a 400mm lens, at f2.8, and a subject distance of 100 meters, (which is not that far at all for a lens this long) the depth of field for a full frame camera is 10.6 meters. Are there any birds that are 10.6 meters long?
02-24-2016, 09:48 AM   #19
Pentaxian
PePe's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 546
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
You do realize how depth of field works, correct? Meaning the further away the subject is, the more depth of field.
For a 400mm lens, at f2.8, and a subject distance of 100 meters, (which is not that far at all for a lens this long) the depth of field for a full frame camera is 10.6 meters. Are there any birds that are 10.6 meters long?
You are right! Another area where there is no substitute for lens speed is serious wildlife photography. A lot of animals have an awkward habit of showing up when the light is bad, the sun is going down etc. Despite high ISO you eventually run out of light. With fast lenses you have a bit more leeway.
Fast lenses also allow you to freeze motion with fast shutter speeds when necessary

02-24-2016, 10:13 AM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,621
Some of these dream lenses y'all are discussing might cost over $10,000 USD. Would Ricoh sell enough of them to be profitable?

The Sigma 500/4.5 for "only" $5k is a relative bargain.

---------- Post added 02-24-16 at 12:26 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by photolady95 Quote
For me 300 isn't long enough for my bird shots and 600 is too long. With a 600 I'd have to stand in the neighbors yard to shoot my birds or across the river to get the wading birds/herons, and such. So something in the 400 to 500 range would be nice. Though even 500mm is too long. I had a 100-500mm once and the 500mm was too much lens. So, I guess a 400mm would be just right, maybe. I don't know what I meant to say here but the longer lenses just don't work for where I shoot. But the shorter ones don't either.
Have you considered the 300/4 with 1.4 TC, or the 150-450 zoom? Would f5.6 meets your needs? I think that's okay for stationary birds, and even BIF in good light.

Wider apertures might be needed for BIF at dusk and dawn, or birds within bushes when you want a narrower DOF to blur away more branches.
02-24-2016, 11:36 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,914
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
Have you considered the 300/4 with 1.4 TC, or the 150-450 zoom?
Yes, I know about the lenses currently available. But... the way I see it: the 560 f5.6 is not versatile enough, because it offers good reach for birding but is too long for larger animals/subjects. The DA*300 f4 is too short for birding, and not so fast aperture / AF for using it with a TC. DFA150-450 , should deliver super image qulity on FF but equivalent to having a 100-300 on apsc (too short) , and not tack sharp for croping on apsc, a zoom having focus breathing , so actually shorter than 450mm for birding (short distance).

To my taste, I'd imagine having a good use of a DFA 400 f4 or DFA 500 f4 (or faster), that could be used either with crop or TC to be versatile for at least two ranges. For shorter than 400mm I'd use a 70-200. I use the DA300 on K-3, but honestly it's short... from 300mm to 400... get you a lot more shots for birds.

---------- Post added 24-02-16 at 19:40 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by redpit Quote
Why not a DFA* 400/2.8? Otherwise I would like a 600/4 not 5.6! (Since we discuss what we would prefer!...)
Would be nice to have (the 400 f2.8 on APSC) or 600 f4 on FF, but those would be large, heavy and expensive.

Between a DA300 f4 prime and beyond 400mm primes, there's a world of difference in terms of price, which I can't really explain. I could explain a jump in price between a 300 f4 and a 600 f4, but I can't explain why no DFA 400 f4 at $2000.
02-24-2016, 12:11 PM   #22
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,325
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
You do realize how depth of field works, correct? Meaning the further away the subject is, the more depth of field.
True, but long focal lengths compress a scene, resulting in shallower perceived depth of field. When I shoot a subject at 5m away with f/8, I usually get a pretty sharp background, if I do so with a longer focal length at 50 m the background will be very blurry.
02-24-2016, 02:58 PM   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,647
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
You do realize how depth of field works, correct? Meaning the further away the subject is, the more depth of field.
For a 400mm lens, at f2.8, and a subject distance of 100 meters, (which is not that far at all for a lens this long) the depth of field for a full frame camera is 10.6 meters. Are there any birds that are 10.6 meters long?
I don't know what birds you are shooting but it must be one those prehistoric ones; they could easily be 10.6 metres or more!. No one is shooting birds at 100m with 400mm lens unless they want to use a magnifying glass to find the bird.
The fox in my avatar (heavily cropped) is shot at F:5.6 with a 600mm lens. The ears and the snout is out of DOF. And this is a large animal compared to most birds except ostriches.

---------- Post added 02-24-16 at 11:01 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by PePe Quote
You are right! Another area where there is no substitute for lens speed is serious wildlife photography. A lot of animals have an awkward habit of showing up when the light is bad, the sun is going down etc. Despite high ISO you eventually run out of light. With fast lenses you have a bit more leeway.
Fast lenses also allow you to freeze motion with fast shutter speeds when necessary
The lens that stays at home won't get you any images.
The law of diminishing returns set in brutally in fast long telephoto lenses. The diminishing returns set in earlier now due to better image quality, cropped sensor and unbelievably better high ISO performances.
Far fewer people need fast super telephotos now than 20 years ago. Very few will be willing to pay $6000 more for 3kg extra weight and one stop faster max aperture. Most will feel that the slight increase in noise for cranking up the ISO one stop, will be well worth it.


A typical bird photo at F:5.6 600mm (Z-1p). There isn't more DOF than you need.




Last edited by Pål Jensen; 02-24-2016 at 03:11 PM.
02-24-2016, 03:57 PM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,621
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Yes, I know about the lenses currently available. ... SNIPPED FOR BREVITY
My reply about the 300/4 + TC or the 150-450 was in response to PhotoLady's post. She was looking for something between 400 and 500mm.
02-24-2016, 07:20 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,207
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote


Between a DA300 f4 prime and beyond 400mm primes, there's a world of difference in terms of price, which I can't really explain. I could explain a jump in price between a 300 f4 and a 600 f4, but I can't explain why no DFA 400 f4 at $2000.
The difference is easy to explain.

F4 at 300mm is 75mm and that is the diameter necessary for the front objective lens element.

At 400 mm that becomes 100 mm in diameter. There is an approximate threshold of practical lens machining and fabrication, where beyond 85 mm things get really expensive in a hurry. Look at a 300/2.8 compared to 300/4. The sigma 300/2.8 is about $3500 today with a 112mm front filter, the 300/4 is pretty cheap in comparison. That is the whole issue front element diameter and what that drives in cost.

It is also a function of weight etc. Etc. As a result quantities are low compared to the lens design costs etc. The result is big, fast heavy lenses are limited production niche market lenses
02-25-2016, 12:35 AM   #26
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 819
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
In my opinion 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses are obsolete. Not necessary anylonger. They are from a time 100ISO was the standard speed. A600/4 is twice as heavy as a 600/5.6 or a 500/4, and even in the film days many bird shooters switched from a 600/4 to a 500/4 for weight alone in spite of needing all reach they could get. Not to mention the cost difference. Don't mention DOF (or lack there of). Wide open they are hardly usable due to non-existent DOF.
A 300/2.8, however, is likely.
I tought the same up until one year ago, when I started to use biurd hides with mirror glass to shot through. You are really invisibile (and un-hearable) to the animals, but you loose around two stop of light due to the mirror glass. If there is sun all is fine with 5,6 aperture, but with cloud, naturally great diffused light F/2,8 keep ISO at a maneageble value while keeping fast shutter speed to freezer movement. So I just bought a 400/2,8, a thing just one year and a half ago I would have never envisioned me to do.

But I agree with you. The only fast tele lens that Pentax could be going do to is a 300/2,8, and even that probably just rebranding the Tamron, IF Tamron is going to reintroduce that lens in its line-up.
02-25-2016, 11:51 AM   #27
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,354
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I don't know what birds you are shooting but it must be one those prehistoric ones; they could easily be 10.6 metres or more!. No one is shooting birds at 100m with 400mm lens unless they want to use a magnifying glass to find the bird.
The fox in my avatar (heavily cropped) is shot at F:5.6 with a 600mm lens. The ears and the snout is out of DOF. And this is a large animal compared to most birds except ostriches.[COLOR="Silver"]
How do you rectify the fact that people have been shooting american football, soccer, birds etc for decades using CaNikon's 400 f2.8 @ f2.8 while being able to get the entire subject in focus?
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!
400mm, 500mm, apsc, bif, birds, da300, depth, depth of field, dfa, f4, ff, field, iso, k-mount, lens, lenses, meters, pentax lens, price, ricoh, slr lens, subject, supertele, tc, update
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Search for a FF normal prime and wishlist Simen1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 90 08-19-2015 02:36 PM
How long for firmware update Sapper Pentax K-3 17 07-25-2015 01:13 AM
Long Zoom for K3 or update the 200mm prime mikeodial Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 09-09-2014 12:32 PM
Who else are waiting for a firmware update for K-r to fix the FF problem analyze7 Pentax K-r 278 06-21-2011 06:16 PM
How long will you wait for a Pentax FF? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 74 06-02-2010 03:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 PM. | 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