[UserAccessDenied]

There is a DA*200 and a DA*300.

Why not a DA*400?

I understand with the new FF, Pentax is not likely designing new DA* lenses. They'll likely focus on DFA models since those can be used on FF and Crop.

But still, if they made a DA*400 F4 or a DFA400mm F4 for that matter, I'd likely buy it.

Paired with the 1.4x HD tc, you could get 560mm F5.6 - and likely in a smaller package than the current 560mm offering.


It just seems like there is not a whole lot of push from Pentax for longer primes.
Are budget-conscious Pentaxian wildlife shooters just a rare breed?

---

Last edited by UserAccessDenied; 12-15-2016 at 11:26 AM.

[Kunzite]

Canon's 400mm f/4 is about 6900$. Yes, it's an advanced design, perhaps Ricoh Imaging could make something cheaper. OTOH, Ricoh Imaging would work with much lower volumes, and this would drive prices back up.

Just to be clear: I'd be happy if Pentax would reach the point where they could launch such lenses, again. But let's be realistic: they would be expensive, very expensive.
(and of course, it would be a D FA - the DA* 200 and 300mm actually cover the FF format, if Pentax had a FF DSLR back then they would've been named D FA as well).

[photoptimist]

Actually, a 400 f/4 would have the same huge front element design as the 500 f/5.6. The 400 f/4 + 1.4X TC might be a little shorter than the 500 f/5.6 but it could not be much lighter. Nor would it be much less expensive without giving up a lot on IQ.

A budget 400 would probably need to an f/5.6 and would still be a fairly large lens with a 77 mm filter.

The basic physics of focal length and aperture makes all long, fast lenses very heavy and very expensive.

[Kunzite]

Well, by definition any telephoto lens of a comparable focal length would be shorter than the 560mm f/5.6 (which is not a telephoto design).

[zapp]

I wouldn't give it much thoughts. A large aperture tele line starts with 2.8/300 and 2 converters. Add a 4/600.
Next year we may see a couple FF primes, but nothing super long, super short or spectacular. If a super tele is interesting start with 300mm.

[cali92rs]

Probably a lot more realistic is a 400mm f5.6
Canon has one and while a fine lens is in dire need of an update:
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens 2526A004 B&H Photo Video

[lithedreamer]

Probably a lot more realistic is a 400mm f5.6
Canon has one and while a fine lens is in dire need of an update:
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens 2526A004 B&H Photo Video

Meh. If I was shooting wildlife, I'd rather tote around the D-FA 150-450.

[cali92rs]

Meh. If I was shooting wildlife, I'd rather tote around the D-FA 150-450.

Me too.
But that lens does have a loyal following. Me personally, the zoom is invaluable.

[UserAccessDenied]

Meh. If I was shooting wildlife, I'd rather tote around the D-FA 150-450.

Right,
I was just thinking a 400mm prime seems to be missing from the modern DA lineup.

[lithedreamer]

Right,
I was just thinking a 400mm prime seems to be missing from the modern DA lineup.

But the DA 200 and 300 are full-frame compatible already. Then there's the DA 300 + HD teleconverter which gets you a 400mm f/5.6, or the D-FA 150-450. This would be a third lens that covers that focal length. Are you implying that you'd want it to be APS-C only, to cut down on size and weight?

[UserAccessDenied]

But the DA 200 and 300 are full-frame compatible already. Then there's the DA 300 + HD teleconverter which gets you a 400mm f/5.6, or the D-FA 150-450. This would be a third lens that covers that focal length. Are you implying that you'd want it to be APS-C only, to cut down on size and weight?

Personally, yes.
As I have no intentions of buying into the FF market.

I currently own the DA*300, looking at buying the HD tc soon.
I'm just thinking it would be cool to have a DA*400 that could also benefit from the HD tc and still hit F5.6 at 500mm+

I'm not saying Pentax would ever make such a lens, but I'd be interested in it.

---------- Post added 12-15-16 at 02:08 PM ----------

Probably a lot more realistic is a 400mm f5.6
Canon has one and while a fine lens is in dire need of an update:
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens 2526A004 B&H Photo Video

Right, but most people would probably just say get a DA*300 with the HDtc for cheaper and more versatility.
If the 400mm was F4, if could benefit from the HDtc as well.

Sure there is the 150-450, but I'm just talking about primes.

[lithedreamer]

Okay. I understand why you'd want it.

How much would you pay Ricoh for one?

[normhead]

My Tamron 300 2.8 with the 1.4 gives me 420 ƒ4. Sigma also make 300 2.8., and I believe they have a 2x for theirs.
The Tammy with the 1.7 gives me 510 4.5... an A*300 2.8 with the F 1.7x AF Adapter also gives you 510 with limited AF. On the K-3 thats almost an 800mm FoV and still not 5.6. There are just to many cheaper ways to get there.

[UserAccessDenied]

Okay. I understand why you'd want it.

How much would you pay Ricoh for one?

eh, $1797.95

[biz-engineer]

Pentax already covers 300 f4 to 560 f5.6 for static shots. The only thing they don't cover is 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 for when freezing motion is a must (fast shutter speed + medium ISO) but they would also need a kick ass AF to go with the 300/400 f2.8.
Shooting along with Canikon 400 f4 to 600 f4, for static shots they don't have much advantage over the f5.6 lenses of Pentax.