[kypfer]

A 500mm mirror lens might be considered. I'd suggest the Tamron Adaptall-2 500mm f/8, from experience. It should come with detachable tripod-mount and hood, both of which really help to improve the results!

[aslyfox]

Hi there, ever think about renting a great lens? You can mail-order one cheep that way your photos will be topnotch. I am now 71 yea old fart. I have lots of photos of the old days that are not that great. Places you go to now will be GREAT memories later. So use the best lens you can get. You never know when one of those once-in-a-lifetime shots will come along. Have fun and be ready at any time to get that super photo. ENJOY!!!

I also think the OP should consider the possibility of renting a lens and/or teleconverter: [ and a DSLR ?? ]

Information on Businesses that offer cameras and lenses for rent

Read more at: Information on Businesses that offer cameras and lenses for rent - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

I have had good luck with LensRentals myself they are located in Tennessee

call them they seem to be nice folks

Good On Gear All Year!

Get $25 off orders of $100+

Use code SRYZXUVND6FW

RENT NOW


Expires 12.31.20 | Single-Use

_______________________________

regarding mirror lenses

check out the third party lens reviews

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

and the mirror lens club:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/71775-mirror-lens-club.html

[DWS1]

Depending upon which national park you are visiting, 600-800mm is still not long enough. I went to Yellowstone/Grand Teton National Parks with a DA 300mm, a 1.4x teleconverter, on a crop camera, and it wasn't nearly long enough. I'm not sure a 400mm would have been much different. My suggestion would be to get the longest, best quality lens you can find (min, 300mm), and even on a lesser camera, it will allow you to do some major cropping. Lens quality may be more important than focal length. IMO, renting a long, top notch lens is the way to go here. Rental companies will normally ship it to arrive at a FedEx/UPS location at your destination when you want it to, and you can return it from any FedEx/UPS location, saving you some rental time and having to transport it.

[normhead]

Depending upon which national park you are visiting, 600-800mm is still not long enough.

Also not long enough for anyone who wants to photograph the beach from their hotel balcony.

I wouldn't recommend over 600 to anyone planning to take the lens more than 50 meters from their car.

For a lot of us , really long lenses seriously crimp our style.

[mbukal]

read a review of FA 80-320 / 4.5-5.6, for less than $ 100 or a little more you can find (catch) a silver version of this lens on ebay, for that money a telephoto lens with better optical characteristics that can still working on TC x1.7 you can buy, my recommendation for a cheap telephoto lens:

SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 Reviews - FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[MossyRocks]

If still considering the old S-M-C Takumar 400/5.6 you can get one for a fairly reasonable price from a shop near me. They will ship it to you and if I didn't already own a much better 400 I would probably be considering that one.

If you want to go cheap there are always the super light super cheap Tele-Astranar 400/6.3 presets. I found one of those at a pawn shop several years ago and paid $25 or $30 for it so it was in the impulse buy category. For the price they are surprisingly good, as in not complete garbage, but when compared to better glass they do leave a lot to be desired.

[Wasp]

I can wholeheartedly recommend the SMC Pentax A 400mm f/5.6. I bought it new back in the eighties and I love it. Autofocus even works with the SMC Pentax F 1.7x AF Adapter i got recently.

I also have a Tokina RMC 400mm f/5.6. Not bad, but the Pentax is better. AF doesn't happen with the 1.7x AF Adapter - not enough contrast, I suppose.

[Apet-Sure]

Do you want it to be hand holdable? Look for a Vivitar 400/5.6 multi coated

I have the Tokina 8 element version of this lens (picture #1 in the review below):

Vivitar TX / fixed / t-mount 400mm F5.6 Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

At 1.4kg (3 lbs.) I have used it handheld but it was quite a challenge. I had to use a shutter speed faster than 1/400s (probably selected 1/800s or 1/1000s). Results were not that great. I've used it on a tripod too; again, images not that great (soft, fringing, etc.). To be fair, a few months ago I noticed that the rear, recessed element by the mount was rather dirty. I have not used it since cleaning this element. I now own a KP and could try focusing it with LV/Focus Peaking which may help IQ some. If you look at the ratings for this lens though they are rather lackluster. They are available cheaply if you can find one. (The latest reviewer paid $20.) I have a PK adapter for the lens's TX mount. It only allows the aperture to be stopped down manually which is usable but kinda a pain.

The Pentax-A 400/5.6 is more expensive and rated higher. I'd get one of these if I could justify the cost.
SMC Pentax-A 400mm F5.6 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Lowell Goudge]

I have the Tokina 8 element version of this lens (picture #1 in the review below):

Vivitar TX / fixed / t-mount 400mm F5.6 Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

At 1.4kg (3 lbs.) I have used it handheld but it was quite a challenge. I had to use a shutter speed faster than 1/400s (probably selected 1/800s or 1/1000s). Results were not that great. I've used it on a tripod too; again, images not that great (soft, fringing, etc.). To be fair, a few months ago I noticed that the rear, recessed element by the mount was rather dirty. I have not used it since cleaning this element. I now own a KP and could try focusing it with LV/Focus Peaking which may help IQ some. If you look at the ratings for this lens though they are rather lackluster. They are available cheaply if you can find one. (The latest reviewer paid $20.) I have a PK adapter for the lens's TX mount. It only allows the aperture to be stopped down manually which is usable but kinda a pain.

The Pentax-A 400/5.6 is more expensive and rated higher. I'd get one of these if I could justify the cost.
SMC Pentax-A 400mm F5.6 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

The sad reality is that for hand held, yes you need to shoot at about 1/640 or higher on a crop sensor, at 1.4 kilos it is lighter than my sigma 70-200/2.8 plus 2x. TC, that weigh in at about 1.8 kilos. The Tammy 200-500/5.6 weighs 3 kilos. Weight is relative, i shoot all day long hand holding the sigma plus TC. I doubt anywhere you look you will find a sub 1 kilo 400/5.6

If you want light and long, but likely over your budget, get a 300/4 and the 1.7x AF converter

[redrockcoulee]

When I visited Yellowstone Grand Teton a decade ago I borrowedca D200 and a Nikkor 400 mm 2.8. Not a hiking combo but came in handy the one time shooting a Grizzly . I stood in a group of photographers who compared to me had large lenses. Renting might be the best option. In my case I took the 400 2.8 because it was a less expensive lens then the other offered , in the event of loss or damage.

[normhead]

When I visited Yellowstone Grand Teton a decade ago I borrowedca D200 and a Nikkor 400 mm 2.8. Not a hiking combo but came in handy the one time shooting a Grizzly . I stood in a group of photographers who compared to me had large lenses. Renting might be the best option. In my case I took the 400 2.8 because it was a less expensive lens then the other offered , in the event of loss or damage.

But what were the images like?

I got a Grizzly image where I had a Tamron 18-300 and it was fine. It all depends on circumstances. I use to go through Yellowstone about every 5 years, for a total of 3 trips and never had a chance to use a longer lens, even if I'd had one.

[TwoUptons]

I had a Tokina 400 f5.6 that was good until it got something fungusy in it... so I could recommend one of those...

I currently have the SMC-A 400 f5.6, and it is very good for its age.

But I haven't had good luck with the inexpensive telephotos...

I might also suggest a teleconverter on something like a fixed 300 mm f4...

-Eric

[tonyzoc]

I've got a Vivitar TX 400mm but haven't been too impressed with sharpness even on a tripod. It was $35 so I'll try it with film and see how that goes. I recently picked up the Sigma 135-400mm (original, not DG) which you can find just in the $200 range. While not super sharp, it's decent and I've hand held it at 1/250th with some success with stationary objects. Probably sharper on a tripod at 1/800 though (which I'll have to try). I was shooting a Common Tern diving into a lake for fish this week, and it's tough on a tripod to follow fast moving birds. Also I was using a K10D at iso 400... Higher resolution and higher iso would be better.

[normhead]

If you can get an A-400 5.6.......

It's good enough you may still use it from time to time even after you get better glass.
When talking about cheaper glass, I'd ask about how the images look reduced in size,. My FA 35-80 is universally panned by pixel peepers, but very good percentage of poll respondents liked it's image reduced in size. SO the choice was between excellent images reduced to half size, which is how I view most of my images, and a lens that was sharper pixel peeping but not as good once the image was reduced to a size at which you are likely to view the images.

The A-400 is good for both. Full size and reduced. I wouldn't consider a lens of the type unless it rendered well in reduced size images. Seriously, what good is a lens the doesn't look full size, and doesn't render well if you reduce the size. It has to tick one box for the other. After all, my Sigma 70-300, many of the images are now throw aways, when they are part of a collection, all but one have been replaced over the years. My A 400 images still hold up and are still some of my favourite images. A lens can be so bad, it's not worth buying. You'd be better with a shorter lens that's sharper.

I'd love to see some comparison images where someone wades through all the old cheap glass and does some real world comparisons. But who wants a collection of old lenses that aren't as good as other glass out there. My suggestion for cheap glass these days would be second hand DA 55-300 PLM just so you have AF, but my A-400 was designed to be used MF and compared to any other AF lens I've used was a joy to use. It has a nice long throw that makes it easy to nail your focus point. I have images of birds in flight taken with it.

I understand the need for cheap, but there's a point at which you aren't getting much, and a sharper shorter lens might do better. I tried out a Sigma 120-400 and ended up with a DA" 60-250 and 1.4 TC. Sometimes if you want good quality, you just have to bite the bullet. If you can't afford good quality, you should really define how low you can go, IMHO it's not worth it to just buy what you can afford at the moment in telephotos. I took a couple shots with the Sigma similar to the type of thing Bertwert posted, and the cliff looked like a water colour. Some of those old lenses are that bad. My A-400 (than the Sigma 120-400) was better despite being 1/3 the price.

IMHO opinion, you have to find something you'll be happy with in the future, and good enough to use on occasion, even after you get better, (because after you get a better telephoto, that lens will be you bak up.) or you're just wasting your time and energy on images that will eventually be trashed. It's hard to find a modern lens that's not good enough, it's easy to find older third party glass that's not up to scratch by any measure. I have an old Vivitar M135 2.8 that would be a good paper weight. Third party MF lenses from 30 years ago are way more of a gamble than lenses made today. These days the remaining 3rd party lenses produce some quality lenses and few duds. In the past there was higher percentage of duds.

[boriscleto]

Cosina (Phoenix, Vivitar, Promaster, Voightlander 100-400mm, f:4.5-6.7, AF Lens Reviews - Cosina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

It gets to 400, it's available for less than $100, and it's autofocus. At least as good as the FA 80-320.