[KiloHotelphoto]

6 months after it came out I could have bought one for $5000 CAD ($4000 USD) from a legitimate dealer.
If we're just going to throw numbers around, that's mine.

---------- Post added 10-09-19 at 01:21 PM ----------



That is usually a sign of mis-aligned lens elements. You should have sent it back.

Well even on the review of the lens on here says it has more CA than what is expected on a modern prime lens.

And I moved on to Canon for the 600 F4 IS II and don’t have those problems anymore.

[fsge]

I dont own this FA* 600 so wont comment this duel with newer DA560.
What I can tell you is that I bought last year a FA*200 macro which is an expensive lens as well. I had the opportunity to go other routes such as 180mm from sigma, 120mm 645 with adapter but finally picked the most pricy one, believing I will take advantage to shoot more macros than I previously did.
I am super happy with the lens, mint condition, great pics, but after 18 months of usage I can now assert I didnt hugely increase my number of macro sessions and use it circa once per month on average. Is it enough as a rate to pay several kilos usd for a lens, I dont think so but there is a pleasuring dimension that you can not really quantify...
Next Q probably is would you redo it, and I am not sure. Picking a cheaper option would have enabled to free money to buy upcoming APSC for instance, with no additional cash out, though I am very happy with my KP. Allocation is also something we have to keep in mind depending on our gear and goals.

[normhead]

Well even on the review of the lens on here says it has more CA than what is expected on a modern prime lens.

And I moved on to Canon for the 600 F4 IS II and don’t have those problems anymore.

And what did you pay for that?

Doesn't matter.

I paid $1200 USD for a Tamron 300 2.8 which I use with my F 1.7 x Af adapter, which gives me 510 ƒ4.5 or with the Tamron 2x, 600 5.6, and I think you're nuts for buying either of them. What's your return on investment? At least I know Dugitaz is making money with his 600 ƒ4.

[KiloHotelphoto]

And what did you pay for that?

Doesn't matter.

I paid $1200 USD for a Tamron 300 2.8 which I use with my F 1.7 x Af adapter, which gives me 510 ƒ4.5 or with the Tamron 2x, 600 5.6, and I think you're nuts for buying either of them. What's your return on investment? At least I know Dugitaz is making money with his 600 ƒ4.

Return on investment, lots of enjoyment. I’ve done two trips to The Grand Teton and Yellowstone the past two years a trip to the Everglades this past February and several other trips closer to home where I got to get out and find wildlife. I’m in the beginning stages of planning a trip to Alaska, or Africa next year, I think Alaska will be where I end up.

Photography is just a hobby I don’t need to make money from it and I know I’m not good enough to make enough money from it. Why do you have to make money from it if you have a 600 F4 ?

You may think I’m nuts for spending the money I have on equipment and that’s fine, we all have are own opinions.

[Jome]

There is an action on the 560/5.6 at amazon for $2811.11...

[Kerrowdown]

There is ONE think that can stop me: my Wife Acceptance Factor!!!!

You could try this line like they do to us... question "is that a new frock?", answer "what this old thing"

At least you'd be honest about the old bit of the statement.

Me, I can't see past older glass, but in answer to your question... if you've got the cash and the need, IMHO you only pass this way once, I'd go for it.

Does that help?

[Jome]

You could try this line like they do to us... question "is that a new frock?", answer "what this old thing"

At least you'd be honest about the old bit of the statement.

Me, I can't see past older glass, but in answer to your question... if you've got the cash and the need, IMHO you only pass this way once, I'd go for it.

Does that help?

Already done for about a dozen of lenses (but the little ones).

For the size of that kind of long lens, I doubt I will be able to use that trick again .

[Kerrowdown]

For the size of that kind of long lens

I know I know... been there, seen it and done it.

[Jome]

I know I know... been there, seen it and done it.

How long was the conflict ?

I said to my wife: 'OK I need a long lens'

My wife said:'I will be angry against you if you buy another lens!'

Me: 'How long will you be angry?'

...No answer...

[Kerrowdown]

How long was the conflict ?

I said to my wife: 'OK I need a long lens'

My wife said:'I will be angry against you if you buy another lens!'

Me: 'How long will you be angry?'

...No answer...

I thought I’d got away with it until the question... “what’s in that long leather tube standing in corner, which looks awfully like a lens case”

[angerdan]

There is an action on the 560/5.6 at amazon for $2811.11...

But if you import in into the EU, you have to add 600€ customs duty.

[MossyRocks]

For the size of that kind of long lens, I doubt I will be able to use that trick again .

Easy solution, get it and if she doesn't notice for a couple of weeks you can state that you've had that thing forever. I actually sort of managed to do that with a car. The wife didn't want me to get a 2 door car, she came with me when I bought the car and said that I should get the car I bought. A few weeks later she realized that I had a 2 door car and wasn't happy but my response was that she told me I should get that car.

[Jome]

But if you import in into the EU, you have to add 600€ customs duty.

Yes. it is about. $325 in extra for import/custom in Switzerland.

[bkpix]

I use a Canon 600/4 my son and I have had for years. He's the prime user, being a birder; I like it for larger wildlife. Yes, it's heavy, and often wants a heavy tripod. But it also works quite well on a beanbag draped over the car door or a similar support. I've even used it handheld by sitting on the ground, legs stretched out in front, and propping it on my knees.

However you handle it, the lens is dead sharp and produces beautiful images. But unless you shoot wildlife full time, it isn't going to get used all that often.

[MossyRocks]

But unless you shoot wildlife full time, it isn't going to get used all that often.

All of the lenses are ones where they are really special purpose which is both a curse and a blessing. If you actually need one there really isn't a good substitute, but then finding one is difficult and expensive. The ones you do find used usually aren't beat to hell as they were used mostly by pros or very serious amateurs who know how to take care of their stuff which is good. A 200 f/4 can be had for a song a 400 f/6.3 are easy enough to find even an old 500 f/4.5 isn't all that difficult to get and aren't all that expensive. I'm actually kind of glad I never did get around to getting the 500mm f/4.5 I wanted for years as for most of the time I didn't actually have a need for something like that but mostly wanted one for the sake of owning one. When I finally found a need for something near that length I realized that the 500/4.5 would have been a very poor choice but I still kind of want one but mostly because I just want to own one. I use my 400/2.8 as much as I can but have been mostly limited by weather other wise I would use it a lot more.