[stevebrot]

He could adjust aperture on the K-7 and, the 55-300 PLM can also AF on the K-7.

We were both surprised, as had the idea that likely could not control aperture using the K-7.

Adjusting and controlling are two different things. The 55-300 lacks an aperture lever and stays wide open by default. The coupler on the camera does its movements, but to no avail.


Steve

[normhead]

We are going to check this out tomorrow. Tess is quite convinced the Aperture works. She has some shots of a far away cabin where the change of DoF is pretty obvious between ƒ8 and ƒ-11. I'll try for some images tomorrow under more controlled circumstances.

[RICHARD L.]

@ f/16

This one won't fall to pieces.

[termy]

alright. we tried it.
300 PLM on K-7.

While camera dial can dial in aperture value, but when take a shot, no, not registered and lens doesn't go to that which screen shows.

[boblivious]

If/when they do come out with a new or refreshed super telephoto lens, it would be nice if the tripod foot was shaped with the Arca Swiss dovetail.

[Lowell Goudge]

If/when they do come out with a new or refreshed super telephoto lens, it would be nice if the tripod foot was shaped with the Arca Swiss dovetail.

That is a nice to have, but on most lenses produced so far would be totally useless unless at the same time the foot actually is under the centre of mass

On the DA 560 mm, for example you need a lens plate, not to attach the lens, but to enable you to move the mounting point back about 50mm so it is, in fact under the center of mass. I use a 168mm lens plate set as far back as possible to be able to balance the 560 plus my K1 on my gimbal mount.

[boblivious]

That is a nice to have, but on most lenses produced so far would be totally useless unless at the same time the foot actually is under the centre of mass

On the DA 560 mm, for example you need a lens plate, not to attach the lens, but to enable you to move the mounting point back about 50mm so it is, in fact under the center of mass.

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

[Wheatfield]

I'm now wondering how many of these lenses they made, total, because 400 and that's it sounds either wrong or sad.

My understanding is that the FA* 200/4 macro was made in very small numbers of just a few hundred.
My A15/3.5 was hand built just for me. From what I gathered, the last production run had been sometime in the 1980s, and after that they were built to order.

---------- Post added Dec 13th, 2020 at 10:45 AM ----------

That is a nice to have, but on most lenses produced so far would be totally useless unless at the same time the foot actually is under the centre of mass

On the DA 560 mm, for example you need a lens plate, not to attach the lens, but to enable you to move the mounting point back about 50mm so it is, in fact under the center of mass. I use a 168mm lens plate set as far back as possible to be able to balance the 560 plus my K1 on my gimbal mount.

The A 600/5.6 is similar in that regard.

[Lowell Goudge]

That is a nice to have, but on most lenses produced so far would be totally useless unless at the same time the foot actually is under the centre of mass

On the DA 560 mm, for example you need a lens plate, not to attach the lens, but to enable you to move the mounting point back about 50mm so it is, in fact under the center of mass. I use a 168mm lens plate set as far back as possible to be able to balance the 560 plus my K1 on my gimbal mount.

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

My understanding is that the FA* 200/4 macro was made in very small numbers of just a few hundred.
My A15/3.5 was hand built just for me. From what I gathered, the last production run had been sometime in the 1980s, and after that they were built to order.

---------- Post added Dec 13th, 2020 at 10:45 AM ----------



The A 600/5.6 is similar in that regard.

Actually a really nice to have would be a reversible foot. On my sigma 70-200/2.8 the foot is removable and reversible which allows you to adjust for the case of with and without TC for example.

The DA 560 could have been made like that if the screw pattern on the foot was symmetrical, but sadly, it’s not

[angerdan]

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

To know more about the DA 560mm, check this:
DA 560mm 5.6 AW - thread collection - everything about the DA560 - PentaxForums.com

[stevebrot]

That is a nice to have, but on most lenses produced so far would be totally useless unless at the same time the foot actually is under the centre of mass

This ^ ^ ^

It is easier to mate a plate to the lens than to mess with an over-under clamp.


Steve

(...one of the reasons why I have an old-school large-platform non-QR tripod head in the closet...)

[boblivious]

To know more about the DA 560mm, check this:
DA 560mm 5.6 AW - thread collection - everything about the DA560 - PentaxForums.com

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[SunnyG.]

unless it goes the way of what others have done with their 600mm f4 (ie, reduced size and weight until it is about 3.1kg to 3.3kg range and is handholdable), else, don't think so.

The 560 with updated coatings and a new motor, will be fantastic. Optically, the 560 is already a superb performer, if they decide to update it, it can only become an even better performer.

Reduce 300 gm for what? If you are not okay with 3.5 kg super tele, then it's not for you. We don't want a lens made of plastic.

It's no where near the level of 600mm f4! It's a good lens. But not to level of 600mm.

[termy]

some users are hoping for a new 600mm f4.0.

When i mentioned the 3kg to 3.3kg range, i meant, if they are going to produce a new 600mm f4.0, then it likely will have to be somewhat like the current range of 600mm f4.0 lenses, which are in that weight range of 3kg to 3.3kg thereabouts.

If Pentax comes up with new 600mm f4.0 that is in the 6.x kg range (like the FA*600), then i am guessing it isnt likely to be popular.

(that is just my view of current situation on such big lenses, some may view it in same way, some may not, up to individuals).

3.3kg, i can handle (as at now, i don't know whether i can still handhold 3.3kg lenses perhaps 10-15 years down the road).

I never did go into talking about whether anyone (myself included), could handhold 3kg to 3.3kg lenses.
Some people can. Some cannot.
That's up to individuals.

Nope, am not saying the DA560 f5.6 is equivalent to a 600mm f4.
It isnt.

But while it isnt a 600mm f4, it still is optically excellent (and optical excellence at being able to nail distant subjects crystal clear etc is independent of whether it is a 600mm f4 or a 500mm f5.6 or even if it is any other 5xx mm fx.x).

some users do think it is more than excellent.

Some users slam it for its purple fringing at f5.6 or even f6.3.

Again, is up to individuals.
Some think so, some may not.

Some will want 600mm f4 regardless (560mm or etc just ain't good enough), and some may prefer a 600mm f4.0 that's gotta be full metal jacket weighing in at 6kg plus minus 500g perhaps.
good for them.

Some prefer a 600mm f4.0 at 3.3kg / 3.5kg.

To each their own preferences.

[Pål Jensen]

Reduce 300 gm for what? If you are not okay with 3.5 kg super tele, then it's not for you. We don't want a lens made of plastic.

It's no where near the level of 600mm f4! It's a good lens. But not to level of 600mm.

Have you used the FA* 600/4? I owned one for 20 years. I rather have the 560mm at half the price and weight. I suspect that the 560 is sharper too. The 600/ weights close to 7kg + a tripod able to support it.
These are shot with the 600/4: