[builttospill]

What's so bad about it ? It's a disaster. The lens has been poorly thought out, poorly designed.

150-450mm is not a fiasco, it seems to me that it rather sold well whereas its price remains appreciable and the investment in design and production has cost the brand dearly.

Hang on. Am I missing something here? I'm still curious if you've ever used the 560mm. You state it was a poor, thoughtless design as if you know something we don't.

Carry the A* 1200mm or the FA* 600/4 or the 250-600 on a hike and then tell me how cumbersome the DA 560 is. The latter two can be carried on a hike, but I wouldn't try it with the 1200 (I have used this lens before).

How do you know the financial effects created by designing the 150-400?

technology has evolved. What could be implemented a few decades ago, could give an average result now. New coatings, new materials, best optimized production solutions.... the product could only be better for sure....

Kind of like the 560mm has new coatings, new materials, and new technology making it better?

[beholder3]

The whole thing about the 400/5.6 is mainly my fault as I did omit to mention a realistic price for it. So everyone can click on it and assume "oh it has to be priced at $400". In the next poll I'll do better and mention a realistic price of about 1600 EUR (the 13 year old design of the one comparable lens was introduced at 1200 EUR and we all know about the thing called inflation and the general lens price developments).
Let's see how popular it is at non-fantasy-price and after deleting all answers which at the same have have said they wont pay more than $1000 for the next lens.
It is far too easy to cry for the $300 8-600mm F1.4 lenses with perfect optical performance which weigh nothing and fit into the pocket.

[Gedeon]

oh no, what a bad joke ... explain the good results of the 400mm survey with an "omission" of mention of the price ...

[aurele]

When so many people here are ready to pay 1200 or 1300 euros for a new 50mm or 85mm? It hurts my ribs to laugh... sorry

probably has to do with the perceived value : Many thinks they can use the 50 and 85 a lot, that it's going to be bread and butter lenses. But on the other hand, they used long lenses as hobbyist tool and don't want to spend too much on it. I guess.

[Gedeon]

You're right. The 85mm portrait is not a hobby, like wildlife. Clearly.

[beholder3]

it's really sad to see pentaxians like idiots, to consider them as capable of believing that a 400mm f5.6 can be sold at 400 or 500 euros ...

Of the 19 respondents who voted for the 400mm F5.6 lens only 8 would be willing to shell out 1500 EUR for it.
One was expecting it at 400 EUR, 3 users expected it at 600 EUR, 3 more at 800 EUR and so on.

So you are calling 11 other users "idiots", Gedeon.
Actually you are calling the majority of users who so far voted for the 400/5.6 idiots.

With only 8 realistic votes a 400mm prime is not even part of the top 20. So one can state there is no significant demand for it or any other tele prime at 300+ mm.

[Gedeon]

I can only rely on your affirmations, nobody holds the details of the votes except you ....

[angerdan]

An excellent D FA 400mm 4.0 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€. For an Pentax 400mm 5.6 1500€ could be possible.
https://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?phist=44586
https://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?phist=143873

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

Even a 400/4.5 like the Minolta AF 40mm f/4.5 APO G HS (1920g) would be awesome.

D-FA* 300mm 2.8 ED DC AW (with limiter) and D-FA* AF-Converter 1,4x AW would be great.

Maybe for 4500-5000€ for the 300mm and around 400-550€ for an very good TC.
https://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/eu/?phist=82330

[zzeitg]

I think the issue is that almost no one is prepared to pay the price, Zzeitg, that's what the numbers say.

There are no numbers existing, because since many many years there's no modern 600mm f/4 available.

Well, I'm not brand loyal.
I wouldn't swap brands for some slow 150-600 Sigma or Tamron. I already have the Bigmos 150-500.

I also have one 150-500 Sigma lens. Not bad, but... slow.

In the real world, I enjoy shooting those subjects with a K-1, K-S2, Tamron 70-200, Bigmos and FA*300, with and without 1.4TC. My wife would say I'd put way too much of our money into those as it stands.

Nothing against the mentioned lenses. But frankly, I can imagine many situations in which the amount of OK shots will be close to zero, just because of limited reach or being too slow.
Regarding our wives, I guess most of them are sitting in the same boat when it comes to gear equipment prices....

Hang on. Am I missing something here? I'm still curious if you've ever used the 560mm. You state it was a poor, thoughtless design as if you know something we don't.

Carry the A* 1200mm or the FA* 600/4 or the 250-600 on a hike and then tell me how cumbersome the DA 560 is. The latter two can be carried on a hike, but I wouldn't try it with the 1200 (I have used this lens before).

How do you know the financial effects created by designing the 150-400?

Kind of like the 560mm has new coatings, new materials, and new technology making it better?

I like DA560, spite the fact that the ergonomy (and telescopic design) makes it difficult to shoot handheld. Which is a little bit like a paradox, because it's weight (much reduced compared to FA*600 or 250-600) wouldn't be such a big problem.

[normhead]

Ordinary consumers like the soccer moms that powered the camera market in 2010-2012 are price sensitive.

One of the guys I was involved shooting beside in the park the other day (I should write book "Causal conversations of long lens wildlife shooters, while waiting for the subject to come into view." ) He was talking about being in Henry's when a soccer mom came in, and asked what point and shoot would give her the best images of her son's soccer matches. She left with a $10,000 Canon system and an appointment to participate in a course on how to use it all. There's soccer moms, and then there are soccer moms.

On another tack, one of the big regrets of my life was not buying the 560 a net dealer with a store front relatively close to my house was selling off for $3000. I seriously don't know what I was thinking when I passed on it.

That being said, carrying around long lenses can reduce the quality of your life. And where I live there are very few places you can effectively use them. The hilly forested terrain make them virtually useless in most of the 7000 square kilometres of the park. MY buddy Jerry, a Canon shooter with a business in the park where he can sell hs prints, never carries a lens longer than 200mm. Many of the best wildlife images have been taken with 70-200mm zoom lenses. A 600mm ƒ4 lens not only depends on me having a huge amount of disposable income, I also would have to have the mindset that that huge investment would be sitting in my closet doing nothing for all but maybe 7 or 8 days a year.

The only real advantage to a 600 ƒ4, that I would actually pay for, would be you can put a 1.4 TC on it and get 850 ƒ5.6. The 510 ƒ4.5 I get with my Tamron 300 2.8 and 1.7x makes 600 ƒ4 unappealing at the price you'd have to pay and the weight you'd have to carry.

If you're standing beside me shooting 600 ƒ4 24 MP FF and I'm shooting the 300 2.8 with the 1.4 APS_c we are shooting virtually the same image, but my set up is a fraction the cost and weight. But it's all matter of personal values. For some reason, I would have bought that 560 for 3k and been happy even using out 7-8 times a year. For 10k,(or even the 6k of a 560) I'd rather have something else.

[pres589]

$10k CAD for shots of a kid playing soccer? What's a good 100-300mm f4 zoom going for these days up there? Wouldn't that, on a consumer level crop body, more than get that job done?

People are crazy.

[BrianR]

One of the guys I was involved shooting beside in the park the other day (I should write book "Causal conversations of long lens wildlife shooters, while waiting for the subject to come into view." ) I was talking about being in Henry's when a soccer mom came in, and asked what point and shoot would give her the best images of her son's soccer matches. She left with a $10,000 Canon system in an appointment to participate in a course on how to use it all. There's soccer moms, and then there are soccer moms.

There will always be outliers. I remember seeing a photo of Mick Jagger on a beach (I wish I could unsee that) casually holding a very large and expensive looking dslr with a very large and expensive looking lens. You could feel the dollar signs flashing in the camera store clerks eyes when that kind of disposable income rolls in.

At the soccer matches I've been to recently (players in the 7-9 year old range), the sidelines were dominated by cellphones and small dslr's with what looked to be typical 'kit' zooms, 50-250mm, etc. the kind you'd pick up casually at Costco along with a giant bale of 144 toilet paper rolls and 4 gallons of olives.

[normhead]

$10k CAD for shots of a kid playing soccer? What's a good 100-300mm f4 zoom going for these days up there? Wouldn't that, on a consumer level crop body, more than get that job done?

People are crazy.

My brother's band when I was in high school used to get hired for birthday parties in the wealthier neighbourhoods in Toronto, Rosedale and Bridal Path at that time. I helped him set up in houses that were twice the size of our lot, A good salesman can smell it when the residents of such places walk in the door.

One of their first requirements is to have gear better than all the other soccer moms.

[Wheatfield]

Has for decades, Wheatfield.

Pros have their equipment only because of us consumers providing the cashflow to the companies to develop the equipment they use. Take away the low end and Canon/Nikon would look very different ... and it's perhaps getting that way.

An example of the loss leader in the car industry is the Bugatti Veyron. A prestige project, apparently VW loses hundreds of thousands on each one they sell. Like car racing, its publicity value to the brands VW own is questionable.

I'm not sure what you are replying to. Your response doesn't seem to have much to do with the post you quoted.

[monochrome]

And very few of them taken with professional lenses, Gedeon.

That's cost, not desire.

I want a 600mm f4, nobody will give me one!

Ron Boggs is presently offering to part with a FA*600/4 and all the trimmings


* Oops. Missed it. SOLD.