Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-18-2016, 07:08 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,991
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I don't know of any camera maker offering a prime in that range and speed that is not at least nudging $7K. That was the initial price on the DA 560 as well. I would not assume a cheap prime. If Sigma keeps making Pentax mount lenses, that would be the best bet.
I think only Canon has a 400/4? It does use diffractive optics to make it more compact and I think this might up the price. For what it's worth, Nikon has two 300/4 lenses, a standard one for ~1,300USD and one using diffractive optics (or phase fresnel as they call it) for ~2,000USD.


Either way, I can't see it falling into what I'd consider budget territory, and it's going to be on the massive size which puts a crimp on casual use. As it is, I find the 300/4 to be big enough that it only goes in the pack if I actually have a specific use planned for it.

I wonder how many of the FA*300/2.8 or larger lenses were sold in their time, absolute numbers and to what percent of Pentax slr owners.

12-19-2016, 07:09 AM   #47
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,819
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I think only Canon has a 400/4? It does use diffractive optics to make it more compact and I think this might up the price. For what it's worth, Nikon has two 300/4 lenses, a standard one for ~1,300USD and one using diffractive optics (or phase fresnel as they call it) for ~2,000USD.


Either way, I can't see it falling into what I'd consider budget territory, and it's going to be on the massive size which puts a crimp on casual use. As it is, I find the 300/4 to be big enough that it only goes in the pack if I actually have a specific use planned for it.

I wonder how many of the FA*300/2.8 or larger lenses were sold in their time, absolute numbers and to what percent of Pentax slr owners.
I'm not seeing a current 400/4 from any other maker, either. Nikon had a 500/4 in a similar (high) price range. For $11k, you can get a 400/2.8.

300mm/4 seems to be the last point before the price really takes off. Others may have different needs, but for me the only big advantage to faster extreme telephoto is the availability of a teleconverter. A 400/4 lets you make a 560/5.6, and Pentax offers that as a single lens. Price has gone back up on that one now, but it is still less than the Canon 400/4.
12-19-2016, 07:20 AM   #48
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,703
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
but for me the only big advantage to faster extreme telephoto is the availability of a teleconverter.
Exactly, 300 2.8 and 1.7x give you a relatively lightweight 510 ƒ4.5. With the 1.4 TC, 420 ƒ4. Sure you can buy a 560, but look at the flexibility you'd lose, and the 510 4.5 combo is 2/3s stop faster.

Last edited by normhead; 12-19-2016 at 10:59 AM.
12-19-2016, 09:23 AM   #49
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,819
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Exactly, 300 2.8 and 1.7x give you a relatively lightweight 510 4.5. With the 1.4 TC, 420 4. Sure you can buy a 560, but look at the flexibility you'd lose, and the 510 2.8 at is 2/3s stop faster.
Maybe, but not for me when it gets to this price range. The price of either of those lenses from a camera manufacturer is not far off a Sigma 500/4.5, or a Pentax 560 (some Canon models are significantly more), and it weighs about the same. There is a huge jump in weight from 300/4,to 300/2.8 or 400/5.6 to 400/4.

12-19-2016, 10:56 AM   #50
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,703
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Maybe, but not for me when it gets to this price range. The price of either of those lenses from a camera manufacturer is not far off a Sigma 500/4.5, or a Pentax 560 (some Canon models are significantly more), and it weighs about the same. There is a huge jump in weight from 300/4,to 300/2.8 or 400/5.6 to 400/4.
And the old Pentax optimized it's lenses to have the best performance for a given weight, hence a 200 2.8 and a 300 ƒ4, designed to be easily manageable in a camera bag... the new Pentax, not so much. 150-450 is big, the 70-200 is the heaviest in it's class, or close to, I suspect we've seen the last of that old philosophy.
12-19-2016, 11:14 AM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,704
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And the old Pentax optimized it's lenses to have the best performance for a given weight, hence a 200 2.8 and a 300 4, designed to be easily manageable in a camera bag... the new Pentax, not so much. 150-450 is big, the 70-200 is the heaviest in it's class, or close to, I suspect we've seen the last of that old philosophy.
I fear you are right and it reflects the deeper divergence in the photography industry between low-cost casual photography (now done on a smartphones) and high-end photography where nothing less that the brightest apertures and highest image performance are competitive. It also reflects Pentax's shift from high-volume sales of lower-end cameras (in retail shops where novice photographers can find them) and toward sales to more discerning photographers who have the confidence to pick a non-Canikon camera and expect more performance from that equipment.
12-19-2016, 12:43 PM   #52
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,819
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And the old Pentax optimized it's lenses to have the best performance for a given weight, hence a 200 2.8 and a 300 4, designed to be easily manageable in a camera bag... the new Pentax, not so much. 150-450 is big, the 70-200 is the heaviest in it's class, or close to, I suspect we've seen the last of that old philosophy.
I started as a screw mount user and stayed with Pentax decades ago in large part because I loved the M series lenses and the compact size of the mx and lx. Back when a different ISO meant another body, that small size was even more critical. The DA Ltd series continued the philosophy. I hope the FF will not end it completely. The 28-105 is a nice size.
12-19-2016, 02:29 PM   #53
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,703
I was MF until my *ist. I never saw the need for an AF film body. The 28-015 is nice, but if you are used to an 18-135, it's pretty limited. But it's beautiful lens.

12-20-2016, 07:11 AM   #54
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,819
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I was MF until my *ist. I never saw the need for an AF film body. The 28-015 is nice, but if you are used to an 18-135, it's pretty limited. But it's beautiful lens.
I use and enjoy both. I do not see APSC disappearing from my kit. The difference in weight and range is not justified by the difference in quality most of the time. Sony makes a 24-240 for its FF A7 line. I'm thinking of renting one for my A7r to see how it handles and performs. This might be where Pentax should go before fast esoteric primes. A one lens solution gets one attached to a system.
12-21-2016, 12:54 AM   #55
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,604
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Sony makes a 24-240 for its FF A7 line. I'm thinking of renting one for my A7r to see how it handles and performs.
A 'super zoom' ... I'm loathe to pay good money for the image quality of a FF camera then put more than a 3x zoom on the front of it, Gene! ;-)

The 28-105 'pushes the envelope' for me.
12-21-2016, 06:41 AM - 1 Like   #56
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,819
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
A 'super zoom' ... I'm loathe to pay good money for the image quality of a FF camera then put more than a 3x zoom on the front of it, Gene! ;-)

The 28-105 'pushes the envelope' for me.
I guess I disagree a bit with that philosophy. I'm not too worried about sullying my K1; I'd just like to keep a one body solution where possible. There are times when you are traveling but want both convenience and the availability of superior quality when you need it. A superzoom with a compact prime or two at hand could do that. I do that with the K3/18-135 and DA ltd. primes now.

I would also expect the quality of the super zoom shots on 36mp FF are a bit better, too. The reviews of the Sony are pretty decent. I'm more concerned that a FF superzoom for a DSLR will be too honking big to be handing. Testing that theory is what Lensrentals is for.

Last edited by GeneV; 12-21-2016 at 06:59 AM.
12-21-2016, 07:46 AM   #57
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,704
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I guess I disagree a bit with that philosophy. I'm not too worried about sullying my K1; I'd just like to keep a one body solution where possible. There are times when you are traveling but want both convenience and the availability of superior quality when you need it. A superzoom with a compact prime or two at hand could do that. I do that with the K3/18-135 and DA ltd. primes now.

I would also expect the quality of the super zoom shots on 36mp FF are a bit better, too. The reviews of the Sony are pretty decent. I'm more concerned that a FF superzoom for a DSLR will be too honking big to be handing. Testing that theory is what Lensrentals is for.
Exactly! It's better to get a picture with a superzoom than no picture at all. Sure, I'll have the bag full of primes but if I'm on the move (hiking, cars, buses, boats, airplanes) and know there will be no time to stop, then a longer-range zoom will be on the camera.
02-15-2018, 07:25 AM   #58
Pentaxian
angerdan's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 912
The 400mm 4.5 optical design by Jun Hirakawa still waits
US4904070A - Telephoto lens system - Google Patents

An excellent D FA 400mm 4.5 ED DC AW with covered focus ring for secure AF functions without unwanted interfering through contact by hand would be great.
Realistic price seems to be 2800€.
Preisentwicklung für Konica Minolta AF 400mm 4.5 G APO schwarz (2651116) (90 Tage) | heise online Preisvergleich / EU

QuoteOriginally posted by angerdan Quote
Role model can be the Minolta AF 400mm f/4.5 APO G HS, which has only 1.920g and 27,5cm lengh.
Including the retractable focus ring cover, this kind of design is perfect for the AF-Era.
dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-400mm-F4.5-HS-APO-G_lens22.html

Last edited by angerdan; 02-15-2018 at 01:25 PM.
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, 560mm, af, benefit, canon, da, da*/dfa 400mm, da*300, f2.8, f4, f5.6, ff, hd, k-mount, lens, lenses, love, nikon, pentax, pentax lens, people, photography, shots, sigma, slr lens, tc, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diglloyd reviews DA 35, DFA 50 and DFA 100 Macro lenses on the K-1 Matchete Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 06-09-2016 09:18 AM
Natural Light: Making a 'fake room', thoughts? dstructor Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 17 03-12-2013 04:14 PM
Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG Vs Pentax 300mm F4 SMC DA ED IF SDM rayhf1485 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 04-07-2011 12:32 PM
For Sale - Sold: DFA 50mm F2.8 Macro, DA 300mm F4, DA 17-70mm F4, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 (US/CAN) Doczi Sold Items 8 08-16-2010 12:13 PM
Thoughts on making a Softbox? Are flashes really needed? jct us101 Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 22 04-25-2010 04:14 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:19 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