[loyalt]

Now that I think about it, does anybody really need a 400/2.8 in this day and age? Modern sensors produce good images at ISO 1600, so you should be OK with f/5.6.

The f/2.8 gives more contrast for the AF sensor to work with, especially in low light. On the other hand, that wafer thin depth of field makes AF decisions trickier. You win some, you lose some.

That is only if you are shooting in broad daylight and not for action sports. Many people shoot at night, under stadium lights or in an indoor track arena and use the 400mm, f2.8, where the f5.6 is way too small an opening. You still get too much noise, even with the very good sensors of the K-3 III. Many stadium lights and indoor lights are terrible, so there is a REAL need for an f2.8 in a good 400mm. Again, think outside of the small scope of wildlife shooting or things you can photograph at your own time schedule, during the light you wish. Scheduled games/meets don't care that sports photographers need good lighting, so they schedule when they want and athletes love to play/run under the lights.

[Serkevan]

That is only if you are shooting in broad daylight and not for action sports. Many people shoot at night, under stadium lights or in an indoor track arena and use the 400mm, f2.8, where the f5.6 is way too small an opening. You still get too much noise, even with the very good sensors of the K-3 III. Many stadium lights and indoor lights are terrible, so there is a REAL need for an f2.8 in a good 400mm. Again, think outside of the small scope of wildlife shooting or things you can photograph at your own time schedule, during the light you wish. Scheduled games/meets don't care that sports photographers need good lighting, so they schedule when they want and athletes love to play/run under the lights.

I was shooting a concert the other day and, at f/4.5 with a sorta reasonable shutter speed of ~1/200 (which is slower than I'd like for music), I was getting ISOs of 5000-6400. Sure, you still get decent results on the K-1, but I'd much have preferred f/2.8.

Indoor concert hall lighting is good for looking at it but, since the audience is not illuminated, the actual light level on the musicians is not very bright to reduce contrast... That said, I'd have been perfectly okay with a 70-200/2.8 - no need for a super tele there, at all.

[zapp]

Totally theoretical discussion for Pentax in 2022 or even a couple years earlier. Be happy with the 150-450, hold on for some news in tele land. Do not expect a 2.8/400 here.
Go rent a 2.8/400 and get a feeling for it. You gain 30+min of shooting time before sunrise/-set, you pay for it with weight and cash for the lens as well as for all accessories required. This is totally different from a 150-450 or even a 560. Pentax does not even offer a 2.8/300 or 4/500, the entry level into big tele land. Why should they offer 2.8/400 or 4/600.

[red5isalive]

Totally theoretical discussion for Pentax in 2022 or even a couple years earlier. Be happy with the 150-450, hold on for some news in tele land. Do not expect a 2.8/400 here.
Go rent a 2.8/400 and get a feeling for it. You gain 30+min of shooting time before sunrise/-set, you pay for it with weight and cash for the lens as well as for all accessories required. This is totally different from a 150-450 or even a 560. Pentax does not even offer a 2.8/300 or 4/500, the entry level into big tele land. Why should they offer 2.8/400 or 4/600.

It is easy to understand why they should create a 400mm f2.8: Because there is a nieche and a demand.
As what they did with the 150-450mm lens.

Why do they create a 70-200mm lens? For the same reason.

Got borrowed a 400mm f2.8 for Canon (latest version) for one day to work at the racetrack. It brings a totally new vision of the action. Yes, it counts, yes it's worthy. Yes it's desirable and yes would sell, or at least as much as they sold of the 560mm or the 600mm previously.

So, why wouldn't they? That is a better question maybe.

---------- Post added 01-08-22 at 03:44 AM ----------

Now, in 2022 you can't blame some of us for shooting sports with Pentax.

Yes there is a big gap with the Sonys, yes there is a gap with Canikon. Yes. So what? We do like our bodies, we do what we can and put effort on using the best gear we believe exists and or can/want to use, so bring us tools.

One good step was the K3-III, now we need lenses. Because no, not all of us do street photo or landscapes. Nope.

[Pål Jensen]

It is easy to understand why they should create a 400mm f2.8: Because there is a nieche and a demand.
.

There is no demand. How many of the A* 400/2.8 did they make? 50? it is as rare as hens teeth. And it is from a time when Pentax was the second largest SLR manufacturer in the world. A new Pentax 400/2.8 would cost at least $12 000 (possibly a lot more), must have optical image stabilization to be competitive and would be virtually unsaleable.
The 400/2.8 is Nikon and Canon least popular super telephoto lenses. They owe their existence on the fact that both sponsor large events where they rent out lots of lenses. No other manufacturers are into this game...

[angerdan]

There is no demand. How many of the A* 400/2.8 did they make? 50? it is as rare as hens teeth.
And it is from a time when Pentax was the second largest SLR manufacturer in the world.
A new Pentax 400/2.8 would cost at least $12 000 (possibly a lot more), must have optical image stabilization to be competitive and would be virtually unsaleable.

The A* 400mm f2.8 supertele isn't that rare. You'll find a copy at any time.
Really rare lenses are ultrateles like F* 250-600mm and 600mm f4 as well as the FA* 200mm Macro.

The Sigma 500mm f4.5 did sell well with K-mount.
So that's why there still is demand for an 400mm f4.x also in 2022.
Pentax - Thoughts on making a DA*/DFA 400mm F4? - PentaxForums.com
DA* 400mm F4 coming! - PentaxForums.com

[Pål Jensen]

The A* 400mm f2.8 supertele isn't that rare. You'll find a copy at any time.

I've been told that it is the second rarest Pentax lens after the A* 1200/8......

[red5isalive]

There is no demand. How many of the A* 400/2.8 did they make? 50? it is as rare as hens teeth. And it is from a time when Pentax was the second largest SLR manufacturer in the world. A new Pentax 400/2.8 would cost at least $12 000 (possibly a lot more), must have optical image stabilization to be competitive and would be virtually unsaleable.
The 400/2.8 is Nikon and Canon least popular super telephoto lenses. They owe their existence on the fact that both sponsor large events where they rent out lots of lenses. No other manufacturers are into this game...

The answer to this is easy, Ricoh needs to invest.
Canon and Nikon did previously, and so this is why so many professionals use them.

A part from that, 400, 500, or 600mm lenses I don't have an idea which one is the most used or what ever, but I tell you, they are used for sports. Everywhere. Sony is also in this game (they have the 400mm f2.8).

Unusable why? Of course it does not work for landscapes, i get it

[Serkevan]

The A* 400mm f2.8 supertele isn't that rare. You'll find a copy at any time.
Really rare lenses are ultrateles like F* 250-600mm and 600mm f4 as well as the FA* 200mm Macro.

The Sigma 500mm f4.5 did sell well with K-mount.
So that's why there still is demand for an 400mm f4.x also in 2022.
Pentax - Thoughts on making a DA*/DFA 400mm F4? - PentaxForums.com
DA* 400mm F4 coming! - PentaxForums.com

I can't quite find any right now, actually.

[KiloHotelphoto]

The 400/2.8 is Nikon and Canon least popular super telephoto lenses. They owe their existence on the fact that both sponsor large events where they rent out lots of lenses. No other manufacturers are into this game...

Not sure where you got your info from but from personal experience I see Canon and Nikon 400 2.8's often and even seen one Sony. I mostly see 600 F4's that is by far the most common lens I see being used out in the wild and would say the 800mm 5.6 is Canon and Nikon lowest sold telephoto lens.

[ehrwien]

I've been told that it is the second rarest Pentax lens after the A* 1200/8......

rarer than this? SMC Pentax-M 35mm F1.4 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[normhead]

Talking to some Canon guys, apparently Canon is coming out with a 400 2.8 at a very small size (relatively).

[Pål Jensen]

rarer than this? SMC Pentax-M 35mm F1.4 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

That lens was never released. Along with A 35/1.4 and the A 20/1.4.

---------- Post added 01-08-22 at 11:15 PM ----------

The answer to this is easy, Ricoh needs to invest.
Canon and Nikon did previously, and so this is why so many professionals use them.

A part from that, 400, 500, or 600mm lenses I don't have an idea which one is the most used or what ever, but I tell you, they are used for sports. Everywhere. Sony is also in this game (they have the 400mm f2.8).

Unusable why? Of course it does not work for landscapes, i get it

Pentax needs to invest in long telephotos but a 400/2.8 is low down on that list....

[wadge22]

I can't quite find any right now, actually.

There are two 400/2.8s on ebay as we speak, one in Japan and one in US. I doubt very much the guesses of 50 ever sold, although I'm sure it's not a super high number either.
There are also two 600/4s listed on ebay (F*), and two Sigma 500/4.5s. There is a 250-600 in the marketplace here.
It seems to me that one can find and buy these lenses, they just need to be ready to shell out US$5000 or more for a used lens they probably cannot return.

[red5isalive]

Talking to some Canon guys, apparently Canon is coming out with a 400 2.8 at a very small size (relatively).

Yes, the latest is quite compact and not very heavy.

That lens was never released. Along with A 35/1.4 and the A 20/1.4.

---------- Post added 01-08-22 at 11:15 PM ----------



Pentax needs to invest in long telephotos but a 400/2.8 is low down on that list....

Okay so tell us what would you like them to create instead.

There are two 400/2.8s on ebay as we speak, one in Japan and one in US. I doubt very much the guesses of 50 ever sold, although I'm sure it's not a super high number either.
There are also two 600/4s listed on ebay (F*), and two Sigma 500/4.5s. There is a 250-600 in the marketplace here.
It seems to me that one can find and buy these lenses, they just need to be ready to shell out US$5000 or more for a used lens they probably cannot return.

I also saw quite a few but he says is super rare. There are always some for sale from Japan in Ebay.