[biz-engineer]

Hello, just wondering how the DFA150450 @450 with / without TC compare with the DA560 f5.6 in terms of sharpness. Could anyone having experience with both lenses share his/her impressions. Also if anyone know where to find image to image comparisons in the same conditions, I'd be interested. Thanks.

[biz-engineer]

As I can see, so many answers...wow.

[Mikesul]

There are not too many DA 560s out there to compare to.

[stevebrot]

There are not too many DA 560s out there to compare to.

Yes, $$$$ to own them both.


Steve

[biz-engineer]

Yes, $$$$ to own them both.

I'd be hoping to find to MTF charts or side / side image comparisons. So far, I did not find...

[Ex Finn.]

Two different animals, why bother to compare?
My money would be on the 150-450 just due to the flexibility of the lens. With the 560, you have 560mm, no matter how good the optics might be.

[biz-engineer]

Two different animals, why bother to compare? My money would be on the 150-450 just due to the flexibility of the lens. With the 560, you have 560mm, no matter how good the optics might be.

Thanks for posting. To clarify why I posted this thread: I also use the DFA150450 with TC, that gives me about 600+mm f8, and in order to get "sharp" images I stop down to f9 or f10. If the DA560 was as sharp wide open as the DFA450+TC stopped down, the DA560 would provide almost 2 stops of additional light. But if the DA560 should be stopped down to f7 or f8 to be sharp, there would be only one stop advantage over using a DFA450+TC. It is difficult to evaluate without seen real images of the two lenses in the same conditions.

[Chris Mak]

Thanks for posting. To clarify why I posted this thread: I also use the DFA150450 with TC, that gives me about 600+mm f8, and in order to get "sharp" images I stop down to f9 or f10. If the DA560 was as sharp wide open as the DFA450+TC stopped down, the DA560 would provide almost 2 stops of additional light. But if the DA560 should be stopped down to f7 or f8 to be sharp, there would be only one stop advantage over using a DFA450+TC. It is difficult to evaluate without seen real images of the two lenses in the same conditions.

I do not own the DA 150-450, but I have used the DA560 for two years now, and although the 1.4tc is a useful addittion when wanting serious reach, the IQ of the bare lens, as well as the AF performance, cannot be matched by the lens + 1.4tc combo. Something of the ultra fine resolution and certainly of the stellar light transmission is lost. The bare DA560 always surprises me with the relatively low iso setting (using T-AV mode at 1/500s f6.3).

I assume that the DA150-450 will be much the same: lack of the fine resolution and compromised light transmission and AF performance, but still useable and satisfying when not comparing to the bare lens directly.

Chris

[biz-engineer]

I assume that the DA150-450 will be much the same: lack of the fine resolution and compromised light transmission and AF performance, but still use-able and satisfying when not comparing to the bare lens directly.

Well, when used with the TC, the DFA150-450 @400 (about 600mm) can be sharp is there is no shutter / mirror induced vibration, with max sharpness achieved between f11 and f14 (using electronic shutter). The problem is, at f11, and ISO <= 800; unless sunlight falling on the subject, it is hard to get a shutter speed fast enough to avoid vibrations and motion blur of the subject (such as bird). If I was turning this problem around with a 600mm lens, I'd need several stops of improvement, i.e f5.6 , shooting wide open with a DA560, but it is ain't sharp wide open, it wouldn't be worth the money,=; that's what I trying to evaluate.

[noelpolar]

I have nothing to hang this on.... but I wouldn't be surprised if the 560 has 3+ stops advantage over the 150-450 plus TC..... at comparable apertures.. (light transmittance rules...aperture is a bit misleading I reckon) ... then there's 5.6 of course!

[zapp]

560 is longer, so it is better.

I really see no point in the 560 mm lens from Pentax. Designed for APS-C ok´d for FF. Not really a 600 too long for 500, too expensive and left alone without any brothers and sisters.

[Kunzite]

It's much better than no lens in that range

[clackers]

560 is longer, so it is better.

I really see no point in the 560 mm lens from Pentax. Designed for APS-C ok´d for FF. Not really a 600 too long for 500, too expensive and left alone without any brothers and sisters.

A 600 f4 on FF is a top wildlife photographer's standard. Certainly most amateurs can never afford one. Pentax used to make such a thing.

The 560 is an attempt to trade off one stop in return for a Pentaxian not paying $12,000.

[Na Horuk]

As I can see, so many answers...wow.

Haha how surprising, eh? Its almost like very few people buy those rare, expensive lenses that have a very, very specific use.
I'd love to give you a very detailed comparison, but someone will first have to sponsor the review I have neither of those lenses. I saw a 560mm at a photo salon. Looks good. That's all I can say reliably.

Btw, I think the PentaxForums staff posted some DA 560mm reviews, no? And possibly comparisons to the Sigma supertelephoto zooms. Anyway, hope you get the answers you want

[riseform]

Late to the conversation here, but I'll give my two cents as an owner of each. I'm not a pro and continue to learn each day, so take what I say with that perspective.

I bought the 560 when I became frustrated with the softness of the Sigma 150-500. I went with the 560 over the Sigma 500 prime for the weather sealing, given I live in the Pacific Northwest where rain and melting snow falling from trees are a frequent reality. At the time, the DFA 150-450 was not an option. I have been very happy with the lens, with its primary weakness being size, expense and purple fringing in high contrast shots. I have no problem lugging it around with a tripod as long as it's a reasonable trek. I will shoot handheld when targeting birds in flight or really fast smaller birds.

I hadn't planned on the 150-450 until I saw the incredible photos people were getting when if first came out. I think it is a fantastic lens, adding the advantage of portability for travel and zooming out to fit larger wildlife when you're really close. I primarily use this lens for pelagic trips and travel. I find it is quite easy to get sharp pictures hand held.

As long as you can get reasonably close to your target (the secret to all good wildlife photography), I honestly don't think there is much difference in sharpness between the two lenses. I've been very happy with shots from each lens wide open. I've never put each lens to the test side by side, but I have a specific use for each that makes the issue irrelevant as both make great shots.

I'm not a fan of the existing TC on either lens (or the 60-250 for that matter) and tend to agree with what Chris Mak stated. I have taken some good practice shots of birds in my yard and static subjects, but I don't trust it for moving wildlife where I may only get a few shots before losing the subject. I recently tried it on a trip with a relatively close "life" bird in the grass and got multiple disappointing shots in a row (150-450). I ended up taking it off. I'm keeping it for record shots of distant subjects at this point. I had hoped I'd be much happier with it.

If I had to choose one lens of the two, I'd go with the 150-450 for the advantage of cost, portability and a zoom to fit larger wildlife in the frame when close. I really think it's that good.