[Pål Jensen]

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.

The Pentax A* 600/5.6 is an excellent lens. It weighted half of the F* 600/4. I believe the price was about half too.....

[Chris Mak]

The Pentax A* 600/5.6 is an excellent lens. It weighted half of the F* 600/4. I believe the price was about half too.....

Imagine an up-to-date current 600mm f5.6 prime lens made with use of the technology that produced lenses like the Sony 600mm f4GM, the Canon 600mm f4III or the Nikon 500mm f5.6PF....

[clackers]

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

Impossible, Luftluss, the light is so narrow it can't spread reliably enough across the paired sensors. Reference? I mean, I'm sure we've *all* focused and taken pictures at f16, and some even at f22 if they've got a such a lens, but all bets are off. Have fun with wildlife, which is what these things are for!

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.

Extraordinary! Again, what makes you say that?

[luftfluss]

The camera’s Dual Pixel CMOS II AF system is so sensitive it can focus in as little as 0.05 seconds3 and operate in light levels as dark as -6.5EV1 which is roughly the same as the light from a quarter moon. The EOS R6 is the first EOS to have this level of sensitivity, which lets it focus with maximum apertures as small as f/22, allowing teleconverters to be used with relatively narrow-aperture lenses, including our ultra-portable super-telephoto lenses, such as the RF 800MM F11 IS STM and RF 600MM F11 IS STM.

EOS R6 - Outstanding Autofocus Performance - Canon Europe

[clackers]

EOS R6 - Outstanding Autofocus Performance - Canon Europe

C'mon, Luftluss - the advertising?

Here's a real world review, done on the R6, by the way. You can't even use most of the AF points because the aperture is so poor - f11!

"Simply put, you’ll be limited to focus points that are all grouped in the center. The fact that Canon even got this to work is quite an achievement. This lens would not have been possible on older DSLR bodies. While it works okay, the autofocus performance has been a source of frustration. At least the autofocus motors are smooth and quiet.

In excellent lighting conditions with the right subjects, the Canon RF 800mm f11 IS STM performs well. The lens also plays well with the animal eye AF in the EOS R6 and EOS R5 bodies. I have found that with static or nearly still subjects, the lens performs well. When it comes to tracking and low contrast situations, things take a turn for the worse. Getting the lens to focus on flying birds against a grey sky is frustrating. You’ll be greeted with prolonged periods of hunting, and you’ll ultimately miss shots. The focusing limiter switch helps a little, but AF performance is disappointing. This is a shame. The Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM could have been perfect for enthusiast birders. Those who buy the lens will be somewhat limited to birds perched in a tree or on a feeder, or larger, slow-moving wildlife."

I Can See Russia From Here: The Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Review

It's consumer crap, not even weather sealed for a lens that can only be used outdoors.

I have a 500mm f8 mirror lens somewhere, same principle. Cost me next to nothing, made the company I bought it from little money, seems a good idea but in practice, it's a dud. It's somewhere under the house, I've used other (shorter, more expensive but better) lenses to get far better pictures, it was a regrettable purchase.

[fs999]

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.

- 40mm the HD 560mm F5.6 is was attractive.

[bspn]

I can believe that.

I love seeing pictures taken with it though, so owners - keep posting 'em!

I have had my DA 560 less than a year now, and find it perfect for photographing birds (mostly migrating raptors). I took this one this morning, after dad dropped off his half eaten meal for mom and the kids. Posted these same Osprey in 'K3-iii Post your Pictures', first taken with the DA 50-300, and then the DA 150-450. I love this lens for this purpose. Handheld OOC crop.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[ncallender]

I certainly would love an upgraded version of the 560. Maybe a 600 f5.6 like Chris wants. I think that really is the only missing lens in pentax lineup. Well a 300mm f2.8 and ff tc.

I would like the faster stepper motor of the 150-450 and be very light and compact. I don't want a PF or DO lens. I just want it shorter and lighter. And around $4k new.

[bspn]

I certainly would love an upgraded version of the 560. Maybe a 600 f5.6 like Chris wants. I think that really is the only missing lens in pentax lineup. Well a 300mm f2.8 and ff tc.

I would like the faster stepper motor of the 150-450 and be very light and compact. I don't want a PF or DO lens. I just want it shorter and lighter. And around $4k new.

An upgraded 600 f5.6 might have me rethinking how much better is it than the present 560. After recently getting the K3-iii, I don't need yet another lens to consider!

[bilybianca]

I have the A*600mm 5.6, and certainly support the idea of an upgraded D-FA* version. WR, AF and as far as possible made of lightweight components. Don't drop the retractable lens hood! But replace the silly tripod mount with a better balanced one!

Kjell

[angerdan]

Good to hear your efforts eventually paid off. In the time I owned it, I always appreciated the lens greatly.
I had some plans in the back of my mind to re-purchase the DA560 at the arrival of the K3III, but Ricoh beat me to it with a discontinuation.

I took another turn, and purchased the Sigma 500mm f4S for use with the Nikon D500, and I don't really expect another long Pentax prime to replace the DA560.

There is demand for 400mm f4 - we can just hope there will be a new ultratele lens in the future.
Pentax - Thoughts on making a DA*/DFA 400mm F4? - PentaxForums.com
Will we ever get a 400mm f2.8 lens for sports photographers? - PentaxForums.com

[Ski Jumper]

I bought my da560 used and have used it almost everyday for 6 months now. It's a love hate relationship for sure. It can produce some very fine images under the right conditions. But often the ca control is on par with a 1970s or 80s era lens. I find it basically unusable wider than f8. The green and purple fringing can be horrible, especially around the water. I'm glad I bought it used. If I had forked out the kind of money they were asking for a new copy, I would of been one po'd customer.

[Lowell Goudge]

I bought a DA560 new in 2021, probably one of the last ones ever made, and would probably still be using it if it were not for an unfortunate sequence of events.

I now shoot with the DFA150-450 with a TC, and couldn’t be happier. In fact for me, it is a better option.

It is true that the DA560 is a good lens, and it can resolve a lot. I went as far as to post a shot of Jupiter with 3 of its moons, using the DA560 and a K1MKII. I shot almost exclusively hand held, in Tav at between F8 and F11 and 1/1000 shutter.


While it did vignette a little it was usually not an issue because when shooting wildlife (mostly birds) it is rare you are not cropping a little.

Did it purple fringe, a little, but my test was pretty tough, a turkey vulture perched on a steel roof against a bright sky

The absolute biggest drawback against this lens, and it would have been the same for the Sigma 500, is the minimum focus distance, many times I missed shots because I could get too close to focus. That seems like a small thing, but it is not.

On the K1 I noticed very little if no degradation on images between the 560 and the 150-450 plus TC.

The one regret I had was never getting to try the DA 560 with the K3-3 or with a TC, but it just didn’t work that way for me.

If Pentax/Ricoh were ever to do another big fast lens, a 300/2.8 would be a better option, paired with a 2x TC specifically optimized for that lens.

The TC has benefits beyond double the image size, it does not alter the close focus performance of the lens it is attached to , so a 300/2.8 plus TC is more useable than a 600/5.6.

Aside from close focus the other downside of the DA560 was its size. Although people refer to the DA560 as a telephoto lens, it isn’t. By definition a telephoto lens IS NOT a long focal length lens, but a lens whose physical length is shorter than its optical focal length. It was impossible to carry the DA560 in any commercial bag, with or without a camera attached. This made it impossible to travel with except by car. Even my tamron 200-500/5.6 could fit in a lowepro phototrekker 100 bag with a body attached, and I thought it was long and unwieldy

A 300/2.8 plus TC is a nice compact option to 600mm. And I think there is a lot more market for a 300/2.8 than a 600/5.6 or faster.

Until then I will happily shoot my DFA150-450 with and without TC.


The other question of course, is is an ultra fast super tele lens even relevant today? These lenses were born out of a time where ISO400 film was questionable for grain, and AF performance was something that demanded good light. Although people are still in a mindset like this, I shoot an awful lot on dark cloudy rainy miserable days, I let the ISO on my K3-3 go where ever it wants/needs


I recently happened upon an elderly gentleman who used a baby carriage to transport his 800mm. Canon lens, and tripod around while birding. I have seen many like him, maybe I some day will be joining him, who can say. But that is not the interesting point of the meet. He was walking away from where I was headed, having never taken a shot because the “light was not good enough”. Maybe he already had enough shots of what ever he was looking for, I can’t say. But isn’t poor light why fast lenses came about in the first place?

[KiloHotelphoto]

Fast super telephotos are definitely relevant today. I'm using the Canon RF 600 F4 now along with the 100-500 and I would say 85-90% of my shots are with the 600.

With being able to shoot at higher ISO these days I can start shooting earlier or stay out later than I could with a slower zoom.

As far as traveling I've been all over the US and to South Africa and Botswana with my 600 and 100-500 and two bodies and it has never been a issue. I have a couple different bags I use as a carry on with all my camera gear and computer. I use my Lenscoat 4Xpandable as one of my checked bags usually with my tripod and coats in it and then when I get to my destination I'll have the 600 with body mounted on it in there.

[angerdan]

It was impossible to carry the DA560 in any commercial bag, with or without a camera attached. This made it impossible to travel with except by car.

The DA560 with mounted K-1 fits fine into Lowepro Lens Trekker 600 AW II and III.
Backpack for the Pentax DA-560mm lens - PentaxForums.com
DA 560mm 5.6 AW - useful accessoires - PentaxForums.com

He was walking away from where I was headed, having never taken a shot because the “light was not good enough”.
Maybe he already had enough shots of what ever he was looking for, I can’t say. But isn’t poor light why fast lenses came about in the first place?

Probably he meant the quality of the light, not the quantity
Quality of Light - What is Beautiful Light?

You Tube

You Tube