[clackers]

I was looking to see if they did they 85 also

Nope, Pentax only!

As likely will be the DFA*35 or whatever it is, the next in that line.

[luftfluss]

How does it focus? The sample pics I saw weren't sharp, were loaded with CA, weird bokeh ... it's like the 500mm f8 mirror lens I've left somewhere under the house. No thanks!

I wish Canon good luck with them.

Canon doesn't need luck with the 800/11, Clackers - folks are deliriously happy with it! It's been sold out here in the US for weeks. Five star ratings at B&H and Adorama, 4.5 at Amazon.

[Pål Jensen]

In November and December I can go to a river near me and easily see a couple hundred 500,600 and 800mm lenses with people shooting eagles, and a lot of those have 1DX or D5 bodies on them and when the eagles are fishing the noise of those shutters and mirror flaps is something to hear.

That may be true in parts of the US (and possibly in parts of Africa; however if wildlife is tolerant of human presence you won't need a 600mm lens in the first place)). However, in my part of the world 600/4 lenses are not very usable and, hence, not very popular. There are no hotspots (that I am aware of) where you can drive close to where you set up your tripod and wait for the action. Wildlife is skittish and wildlife photography is opportunistic (if you are not shooting from a blind, but then you might not need something as long as a 600mm lens). By the time you have managed to get the huge lens out of the bag and set up your tripod all wildlife has disappeared.
Nikon and Canon are pouring out hundreds of long telephotos for sport events and similar. Hence, they are cheap on the used market. A Canon 300/2.8 lens can be had for 1/3 of the price of a Pentax FA* 300/2.8.

BTW The fox in my avatar is shot with the FA* 600/4

[Rondec]

Nope, Pentax only!

As likely will be the DFA*35 or whatever it is, the next in that line.

I've been told the last DFA * prime is 24mm.

(This by people on PF who claim to be knowledgeable).

I flunked arithmetic, but I believe a 400mm lens with a 1.4x TC comes to 560mm. Or a 400mm lens on an APS-c body (assuming what you want is the appearance of magnification you get with the constricted field of view). My personal decision before I got my 560mm back from Precision (it took over a year to get one fixed right so that it really worked) was to go out and buy a Canon 5DS-r with a Tamron 150-600. That lens isn't as sharp as my 560mm (but as I've said, getting it fixed so that it is sharp was like pulling teeth without anaesthetic), but the 50 MPix body provides so much greater resolution that I get better pictures with that combination.

[RGlasel]

There are no hotspots (that I am aware of) where you can drive close to where you set up your tripod and wait for the action. Wildlife is skittish and wildlife photography is opportunistic

In Hyder, Alaska, the USDA Forest Service operates the Fish Creek Bear Viewing Area. Salmon swim up Fish Creek to spawn and black and brown bears come here for an easy meal in return for entertaining human visitors. Unfortunately for me, by the time I got there, the local bears had full stomachs so they went to find a shady (and less crowded) place to relax. My photo of the salmon was taken at 300mm, if there had been any bears, I would have had to zoom out.

[fs999]

The 560 also has a longer close focus point than the 150-450.

That's not a problem with one or two extension tubes you can even do macro

[RobA_Oz]

That's not a problem with one or two extension tubes you can even do macro

Ah, well, I guess I could do even better with my old K400-600 Reflex (minimum focus distance 300mm).

[clackers]

Canon doesn't need luck with the 800/11, Clackers - folks are deliriously happy with it! It's been sold out here in the US for weeks. Five star ratings at B&H and Adorama, 4.5 at Amazon.

Not the customers, Luftluss, Canon!

The bottom end of the market - no pro would use one - means these things are the Rebels of wildlife lenses. f11? You can only use it direct sunlight!

I thought it received wisdom camera companies must jettison the consumer market as liabilities?

So, again, I wish Canon good luck with that strategy!

[zapp]

1/ DA560 is officially FF compatible AFAIK
2/ DA200* optics dates back from FA* so FF compatible it certainly is.

All k-mount lenses are FF compatible, even the DA14 just show heavy vignette they 😂. Read the fine print and you will not buy a 560 for K1, let alone it’s other specs that are not great. DA200/300 may work better, but Pentax missed out on updating the glass for digital use, modern AF, … good enough from 10 years ago should not be good enough today.

---------- Post added 28-05-21 at 08:06 PM ----------

That's not a problem with one or two extension tubes you can even do macro

Pentax does not offer extension tubes 😀 maybe they forgot about it like the FF TCs. Extension tubes make the 560 even longer.
Many things are possible, but especially the 560 was so odd, I am really waiting for a decent replacement.

---------- Post added 28-05-21 at 08:09 PM ----------

Not the customers, Luftluss, Canon!

The bottom end of the market - no pro would use one - means these things are the Rebels of wildlife lenses. f11? You can only use it direct sunlight!

I thought it received wisdom camera companies must jettison the consumer market as liabilities?

So, again, I wish Canon good luck with that strategy!

Price sells, size is OK, but it would be pretty dark on SLR. And it is sloooooow.

---------- Post added 28-05-21 at 08:16 PM ----------

The Canon 600/4 L III weighs the same as the Pentax 560/5.6.

F4 makes teleconverters more feasible.

Seen that as well, the price tag combined with the specs will not sell in Pentax land. One f-stop slower and the lens sells. Alternatively an f/4 400 or even 500 to go with TCs.
I would call for the Leica R modular tele concept, mix and match from different front and rear lens groups, better than smile TCs, but not a modern approach.
Nikon‘s fresnel concept s just great and would all in Pentax land. I am just not sure Pentax can do it - technology and price/number -wise.

---------- Post added 28-05-21 at 08:16 PM ----------

The Canon 600/4 L III weighs the same as the Pentax 560/5.6.

F4 makes teleconverters more feasible.

Seen that as well, the price tag combined with the specs will not sell in Pentax land. One f-stop slower and the lens sells. Alternatively an f/4 400 or even 500 to go with TCs.
I would call for the Leica R modular tele concept, mix and match from different front and rear lens groups, better than smile TCs, but not a modern approach.
Nikon‘s fresnel concept s just great and would all in Pentax land. I am just not sure Pentax can do it - technology and price/number -wise.

---------- Post added 28-05-21 at 08:16 PM ----------

The Canon 600/4 L III weighs the same as the Pentax 560/5.6.

F4 makes teleconverters more feasible.

Seen that as well, the price tag combined with the specs will not sell in Pentax land. One f-stop slower and the lens sells. Alternatively an f/4 400 or even 500 to go with TCs.
I would call for the Leica R modular tele concept, mix and match from different front and rear lens groups, better than smile TCs, but not a modern approach.
Nikon‘s fresnel concept s just great and would all in Pentax land. I am just not sure Pentax can do it - technology and price/number -wise.

[fs999]

Pentax does not offer extension tubes 😀 maybe they forgot about it like the FF TCs. Extension tubes make the 560 even longer.
Many things are possible, but especially the 560 was so odd, I am really waiting for a decent replacement.

It is a very decent lens. Kenko made an extension tube for Pentax K with zoom contacts, so AF is working well. It elongates the lens only for 2.5 cm.

[thibs]

All k-mount lenses are FF compatible, even the DA14 just show heavy vignette they 😂. Read the fine print and you will not buy a 560 for K1, let alone it’s other specs that are not great. DA200/300 may work better, but Pentax missed out on updating the glass for digital use, modern AF, … good enough from 10 years ago should not be good enough today.[COLOR="Silver"]

DA560 is reported officilaly compatible. Like it or not.
Pentax K-1 II and HD Pentax-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW - Compatibility | PentaxForums.com

[luftfluss]

Not the customers, Luftluss, Canon!

The bottom end of the market - no pro would use one - means these things are the Rebels of wildlife lenses. f11? You can only use it direct sunlight!

I thought it received wisdom camera companies must jettison the consumer market as liabilities?

So, again, I wish Canon good luck with that strategy!

F/11 is OK with the Canon R5/6, Clackers. Just ask K-3 shooters using their D FA 150-450 @ f/5.6 on cloudy days - their images will have similar noise profiles to the Canon R6 + 800/11.

Canon AF is rated to f/22, so the AF should be fine.

The 800/11 appeals to folks who either can't afford better, or those you simply seldom shoot long tele, but want the ability to have the occasional longer reach without spending too much $$ or having to lug around a large, heavy lens - even pros have uses for this!

These lenses aren't Rebels, because they include features like OIS and Fresnel optics, a definite step-up from the bottom-feeder Rebel philosophy.

The 600/11 seems like a waste to me, but the 800/11 is a smart move. It might even whet the appetite for some users to save up for more expensive gear, which Canon will love.

[KiloHotelphoto]

The Canon F11's do lose the 100% autofocus frame coverage like you get with all other lenses, you only get about the frame coverage of a dslr.

[Chris Mak]

Seen that as well, the price tag combined with the specs will not sell in Pentax land. One f-stop slower and the lens sells. Alternatively an f/4 400 or even 500 to go with TCs.
I would call for the Leica R modular tele concept, mix and match from different front and rear lens groups, better than smile TCs, but not a modern approach.
Nikon‘s fresnel concept s just great and would all in Pentax land. I am just not sure Pentax can do it - technology and price/number -wise.

Sadly, none of the camera makers have made serious work of a f5.6 600mm lens. It is beyond me why anyone would want f4 at 600mm and pay the size, weight and price premium, when a 600mm f5.6 lens has very fine subject isolation, while still having good clarity and contrast, both of which tend to go fairly steeply downhill beyond f5.6.
Size and weight would seem much more attractive than those of a 600mm f4 lens (all else equal), not to mention price.

Simply because 600mm f5.6 prime lenses were never taken seriously, we cannot know how good they could have made them, and at what cost and weight. A real pity.