[baro-nite]

I would really like to see how the Sigma 100-300/4 does on the Q, and compare it to the DA*60-250/4. I'm thinking that one of those two lenses could be the ultimate extreme tele zoom for the Q (unless you can afford to spend several times more for the new Sigma 120-300/2.8).

As to macro lenses there are plenty I'd like to see. A*200/4, anyone?

I got to handle a Pentax 110 70/2.8 the other day. Such a beautifully-built little lens, I wonder how it would do on the Q.

What other lenses are you thinking about putting on your Q, or would you like to see tested?

[i_trax]

can you still buy Sigma 100-300/4 EX DG HSM APO for Pentax?
and Sigma 50-150/2.8 EX DC HSM APO?
I would love to have them both and be able to test them on my Q.
I have Pentax Q2K adapter coming my way , I hope soon.

[panoguy]

I would really like to see how the Sigma 100-300/4 does on the Q, and compare it to the DA*60-250/4.

Only recently got a Q, but sold my 100-300/4 a few months ago. However, I did compare the Sigma to the DA*60-250/4 (on a K-5) and found them to be roughly equal in terms of sharpness in the center (where the Q would be), with the DA* pulling ahead in terms of contrast and color. The Sigma is also much bigger/ heavier (full frame lens), so between the two I'd use the 60-250 anyhow.

What other lenses are you thinking about putting on your Q, or would you like to see tested?

Whenever my Q-K adapter arrives (grrr!), I'll be plopping a Sigma 150-500 on it just for giggles (diffraction should render it pointless for IQ), and then staying with the 60-250 and 100 macro for long-lens work. I do have a couple of Canon FD lenses (85/1.8 and 135/2) that wouldn't be diffraction limited, but the FD-Q adapter I bought needs some "repairs from new" (bad design) to be able to use them.

I'd love to see someone put a Tamron 300/2.8 (is there a raw Adaptall to Q adapter?) or Pentax 400/2.8 on the front of this tiny sensored beastie!

[Clinton]

I'd love to see someone put a Tamron 300/2.8 (is there a raw Adaptall to Q adapter?) or Pentax 400/2.8 on the front of this tiny sensored beastie!

Not as excited about the 250-600 5.6 or the 1200/8? I think my 2000/13.5 is well past the limit of diffraction on this sensor though.

[baro-nite]

I'd love to see someone put a Tamron 300/2.8 (is there a raw Adaptall to Q adapter?) or Pentax 400/2.8 on the front of this tiny sensored beastie!

I mentioned in another thread I'd like to see the FA*600/4 with a Q along for the ride.

[snostorm]

I still have a pretty impressive list of lenses to try with the Q. Health and mobility issues have prevented this so far, but these have been improving, and with Focus Peaking, there is a renewed interest to get this done -- unfortunately, weather is also a factor, and cold temps will limit this significantly for me in the coming months.

Here's a list of lenses that I have, and will eventually try with the Q. . .Focus Peaking, in some cases SR, and having acquired some good LW support gear gives me more motivation to try these -- too bad the FW update came so late in the year. . .

Pentax DA 10-17 FE
Pentax FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5
Tamron SP 28-75 f2.8
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5

. . . and in the super tele range on Q . .. I've played with some, but not shot them seriously "in the field"

DA* 50-135 f2.8
Pentax A 70-210 f4
Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 Adaptall 2 MF
Tokina 80-200 f2.8 AT-X Pro AF2
Tokina 80-400 f4.5-5.6 AT-X AF2
Tokina 100-300 f4 AT-X SD MF
Sigma EX 100-300 f4 APO -- this lens is a bit limited in functionality -- only focuses closer than @ 50 ft. I bought it as a bargain thinking to get it fixed, but have put it off because I have better alternatives -- it could be stellar with the Q though as is . . .
Tokina 150-500 f5.6 AT-X SD MF
Sigma EX 180 f3.5 APO DG Macro
Tamron SP 180 f2.5 Adaptall 2 MF-- the problem with this lens is that there is no room to mount a tripod ring -- working on that, and think I have a solution
Pentax A* 200 f2.8 ED MF-- also no room for tripod ring, same as above
Tamron SP 300 f2.8 Mdl 60 B Adaptall 2 MF
Sigma EX 300 f2.8 APO
Pentax FA* 300 f2.8 ED [IF]
Tamron SP 500 f8 Cat Adaptall 2 MF
Some of the above with TCs -- Tamron F 1.4x PZ MC4 AF, Sigma EX 1.4x APO, and Pentax F 1.7x AFA

Of course, all of them will be MF on the Q, I just specified MF to distinguish some from possible AF variations.

I've used an FA 50 f1.4, an F 50 f1.7, an A50 f2.8 Macro, a D FA 100 f2.8 Macro, an FA* 300 f4.5 and a Canon FD 300 f4 L converted to K mount with good success "in the field" early on, but that was before FW v1.1 -- I expect that my results will be better with Peaking and SR. . .

Most of the longer lenses would be only used with a tripod, but early experiments have shown that my very lightweight Fotopro MGC 584N (physically and functionally almost identical to a Benro CF Travel Angel) with a very small and lightweight Vanguard ABH 120K ballhead and a Wimberley Sidekick (4 lbs 6oz total for all three) supports most of these more than adequately, with some height and positional restrictions for the heavier lenses. This tripod also works surprisingly well with these lenses and my K-5 when I don't push it too hard.

Actually, to date, the most useful lens I've tried so far for my purposes has been the DA 55-300 despite it's f5.8 max aperture at the long end. For me, it's pretty easily handholdable, even at 300mm. I use a Hoodman Hood Loupe, a Red Dot sight and the Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 tripod ring as a palm rest. With Peaking and SR, I could shoot this setup pretty well right off the bat, and this will get better with practice. It's too bad this is not a parfocal lens -- I could probably use it without the Red Dot if I could focus at 55 then zoom to 300 and retain focus. I've never felt any "need" for a lens like the Tamron SP 60-300 f3.8-5.4 Mdl 23A Adaptall 2, but this might be a good super tele zoom with the Q, as might the SP 70-210 mdl 19AH. I don't know why push-pull (one touch) zooms went out of favor -- perhaps they'll find new life with Q super tele shooters. . .

So I really don't have a wishlist -- I've been working on whittling that down for quite a few years. . . just need some time and some favorable weather, now that we have Peaking -- to get it done. . .and then there's the macro stuff. ..the Q offers so many possibilities. . .

Scott

[baro-nite]

Wow, what a list! Looking forward to any and all results, but at the moment am most interested in the A*200/2.8, Sigma 300/2.8, and FA* 300/2.8. And in combination with TCs.

One thing I observed in some testing with the DA*60-250 side by side with the DA*200 is that 250 on the former isn't really, more like 235 by my calculations.

I've been thinking about the reach advantage of the Q, not crop factor per se which is a known, but in terms of usable result, including additional cropping on the Q vs., say, the K-5. That is, I expect you can crop the K-5 result more aggressively in most situations; the question is how much? I'm guessing in practical terms the Q still gives us at least a 2x advantage in reach, at least in the lower ISO range, as compared to the 3.7x crop factor advantage. Other thoughts on this?

[panoguy]

Not as excited about the 250-600 5.6 or the 1200/8?

Well, that's like reading "test drives" of a Bugatti Veyron or Pagani Zonda; way outside anything I'll personally ever get to try.
But hey, if we get to see someone try it (hint, hint)... bonus!

Oddly enough, the only lens I'm actively searching for images from is the Rokinon/Bower/etc. 85mm/1.4. That's a combo I can conceivably acquire (like a Mustang GT, to continue the previous analogy).

[Shawn67]

"Oddly enough, the only lens I'm actively searching for images from is the Rokinon/Bower/etc. 85mm/1.4."

Can't help you with that lens on the Q but I had one for my Nikon and it is a *fantastic* lens and is an insane deal. In some ways it betters the $1200 Nikon 85mm f1.4d.

Shawn

[hnikesch]

That's a combo I can conceivably acquire (like a Mustang GT, to continue the previous analogy).

Well I have the Mustang GT (85 conv.) Now if I can find a few tack sharp and fast great primes in the 100 to 200mm range. I have a couple of good ones (135 & 200), but just shy of great.

Hans

[Sandy Hancock]

No wish list here. When I finally get my adaptor, I am particularly keen to try the following:

DA*55 = 300/1.4
FA77 = 430/1.8
DFA100WR = 560/2.8 ultra-macro
DA*300 = 1680/4 super-tele
DA*16-50 = 90-280/2.8: it will be interesting to compare this to the Q06
DA*50-135 = 280-760/2.8

I'd be pretty disappointed if I can't get something to work out of that lot