My Crazy Prediction for Pentax DA 135-380mm F4-5.6 ED (IF) WR

**GlassJunkie** · 03-26-2014, 02:52 PM

Ok here it goes.... Size: 80x175mm long, Weight: 1050g, Filter size 67mm... (really 5.7apt)... The 380mm was to avoid 77mm.... or even 72.

Why: 60-250 with 2-3 fewer elements from short end and constant aperture change to variable aperture....

Sounds odd, but envision a 60-250 DA* with a 1.4tc on it, subtract redundant mount length, simplify zoom for variable aperture and focal length redux...

If the engineers do it right, it could be 1cm shorter than the 60-250 and lighter. Look at the Siggy 120-400, 1/3 thinner and 1/3 shorter... (APS-c) benefits

and "Red Ring" not DA* Gold....

Last edited by GlassJunkie; 03-26-2014 at 03:13 PM.

asahi man · 03-26-2014, 03:12 PM

nomadkng · 03-26-2014, 03:22 PM

I see no reason for what would be basically redundant to the 55-300.

it would have to be closer to a 120-400 f5.6 to serve any purpose.

I can't see anyone with a DA*300 or a 55-300 clamoring to buy a lens for an extra 80mm of reach.

but whatever it is, let's hope optically it's better than the sigma 120-400, that was hardly impressive.

**GlassJunkie** · 03-26-2014, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by nomadkng

I see no reason for what would be basically redundant to the 55-300.

it would have to be closer to a 120-400 f5.6 to serve any purpose.

I can't see anyone with a DA*300 or a 55-300 clamoring to buy a lens for an extra 80mm of reach.

but whatever it is, let's hope optically it's better than the sigma 120-400, that was hardly impressive.

I am just assuming the lens "road map" prediction, I would be happier with 72mm objective and 400mm personally, just "reverse guessing" based on Pentax history and strengths...

Sandy Hancock · 03-26-2014, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by asahi man

This response makes me think you might be onto something....

Heie · 03-26-2014, 04:46 PM

Not what I was hoping for ~~or expecting~~.

I wanted constant f/4 lens. f/3.5 would have been even better.

I know the size and the cost would have been large, but it's time Pentax makes some truly pro-grade glass that brings Canikon shooters over to the K-3.

Variable aperture and f/5.6 at the long end? There goes perceived value, professional-orientation, and ability to use it with the new (seemingly stellar albeit a wee bit on the pricey side) HD 1.4x TC AW.

Not that I would personally buy it or have a need for it, but Pentax as a brand surely has a need for such a lens. I'm sorry, but a 135-380 f/4-5.6 will be viewed as yet another let down from outsiders "wishing Pentax could make pro-level glass worthy of their K-3."

Akin to the Canikon 200-400's, perhaps a bit bigger because of the larger zoom range. Something like this:

PENTAX HD D FA (* ?) 135-380mm F4 ED DC [IF] AW. MSRP $6499, with free bundled HD 1.4x TC WR.

That's what it should be imo.

-Heie

Na Horuk · 03-26-2014, 04:56 PM - **1 Like**

Yeah, I also struggle to see how this lens competes with the much liked 55-300mm.
I think the extra range between 55mm and 135mm is more useful than the extra range between 300mm and 380mm. Will the 135-380mm really be significantly better in terms of IQ?

**GlassJunkie** · 03-26-2014, 05:50 PM

Have the 55-300 HD WR. Great lens. Issue is reach... Need 400 Cropped and hand held. Could get a hernia with the FA*300 F2.8 and a TC. Tripod only. Too old here... I use the 55-300 HD WR as my walk-around. My wife needs the 135-380 (400 better) so she can dump the Siggy, OK IQ but bigger than she is. Pentax "should" as history would suggest, get her a smaller/better for APS-C. She wants a 2 lens solution (with overlap to drop the number of lens changes. 18-270 SDM and 135-380+ for a 2 lens kit. We have the "WR" kit for walk arounds (18-135WR and 55-300 WR) as we live in wet Florida, but limited for birding, so I use a FA*300 F2.8 and a Tammy PZ 1.4x 0r 2.0x (until the HD comes). We'll check IQ and dump the lesser IQ 1.4.

On IQ with the Tamrons: lose 5-10% on contrast, else is ok, so PS can correct in 10 secs. NO sharpness issue with 300 or 60-250. We have studied the 1.4 in depth...

Uluru · 03-26-2014, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Heie

Not what I was hoping for ~~or expecting~~.

I wanted constant f/4 lens. f/3.5 would have been even better.
...
Akin to the Canikon 200-400's, perhaps a bit bigger because of the larger zoom range. Something like this:

PENTAX HD D FA (* ?) 135-380mm F4 ED DC [IF] AW. MSRP $6499, with free bundled HD 1.4x TC WR.

That's what it should be imo.

-Heie

Expect variable aperture, but quality lens.
Even DA 20-40 is seen as "let-down" because of variable aperture, despite being a wonderful lens.
It seem Ricoh Imaging is very clear they shall not compete with anything where Nikon and Canon rule by default: they avoid the FF, and they avoid making bigger and faster lenses.

derekkite · 03-26-2014, 06:10 PM

400 5.6 is a reasonable size and price. If the IQ is good, if it is sharp wide open at long zoom, it will be desired.

Heie · 03-26-2014, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Uluru

Even DA 20-40 is seen as "let-down" because of variable aperture, despite being a wonderful lens.

No one said a 135-380 variable aperture wouldn't be desireable or high IQ. But it isn't "pro." And I'm sure the 20-40 is a great lens (haven't handled it) despite some negative reviews - the user experience seems to be very positive. But the 20-40 isn't anything that would cause people to leave their system for professional work.

The K-3 already is. It's been proven. But without the proper glass.

K-3 + 135-380 f/4 (3.5!) DC AW + bundled HD 1.4x AW? As I see it, that would be an industry changer since there's no 7DII or D400 in sight.

Besides, if someone needs it, we already have a 60-350 f/4-5.6 (DA* 60-250 + HD 1.4x AW).

-Heie

Cannikin · 03-26-2014, 06:58 PM

Canon has their popular 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L, which has good optical quality, and Nikon has their 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. Both are clearly in a very different price bracket from their consumer 70-300s as well as their monster telephotos.

If this lens has WR, a DC motor and better optical quality than the 55-300, I don't see why this would be redundant with anything in Pentax's current lineup. Bonus if it is FF capable as the rumors suggest.

Paul the Sunman · 03-26-2014, 07:00 PM - **1 Like**

A $6500 lens isn't going to do many of US any good, apart from giving us a warm fuzzy feeling that we're tied into a PROFESSIONAL system. I want better IQ and reach than the 55-300, but a fast constant aperture is probably too much to realistically hope for, especially at any sort of sensible size.

GordonZA · 03-26-2014, 09:11 PM - **1 Like**

I hope it's at least 400mm at the long end...

In fact I would love to see Pentax produce a 50-500 equivalent or why not redo their 250-600?

**StigVidar** · 03-26-2014, 11:41 PM

The 250-600/5.6 is a beast. It's weight is 5.5Kg with tripod mount and with the tripod and camera you have to lug around 10Kg :-)

03-26-2014, 02:52 PM	#1
GlassJunkie Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: St Petersburg Photos: Albums Posts: 402	My Crazy Prediction for Pentax DA 135-380mm F4-5.6 ED (IF) WR Ok here it goes.... Size: 80x175mm long, Weight: 1050g, Filter size 67mm... (really 5.7apt)... The 380mm was to avoid 77mm.... or even 72. Why: 60-250 with 2-3 fewer elements from short end and constant aperture change to variable aperture.... Sounds odd, but envision a 60-250 DA* with a 1.4tc on it, subtract redundant mount length, simplify zoom for variable aperture and focal length redux... If the engineers do it right, it could be 1cm shorter than the 60-250 and lighter. Look at the Siggy 120-400, 1/3 thinner and 1/3 shorter... (APS-c) benefits and "Red Ring" not DA* Gold.... Last edited by GlassJunkie; 03-26-2014 at 03:13 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 ED AL (IF) DC WR	sholtzma	Sold Items	2	02-05-2014 01:11 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR - reduced price	tjwaung	Sold Items	8	12-21-2013 05:56 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 ED AL (IF) DC WR	tele_pathic	Sold Items	2	08-12-2013 04:44 PM

03-26-2014, 03:12 PM	#2
asahi man Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 324

03-26-2014, 03:22 PM	#3
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	I see no reason for what would be basically redundant to the 55-300. it would have to be closer to a 120-400 f5.6 to serve any purpose. I can't see anyone with a DA*300 or a 55-300 clamoring to buy a lens for an extra 80mm of reach. but whatever it is, let's hope optically it's better than the sigma 120-400, that was hardly impressive.

03-26-2014, 03:26 PM	#4
GlassJunkie Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: St Petersburg Photos: Albums Posts: 402 Original Poster	Originally posted by nomadkng I see no reason for what would be basically redundant to the 55-300. it would have to be closer to a 120-400 f5.6 to serve any purpose. I can't see anyone with a DA*300 or a 55-300 clamoring to buy a lens for an extra 80mm of reach. but whatever it is, let's hope optically it's better than the sigma 120-400, that was hardly impressive. I am just assuming the lens "road map" prediction, I would be happier with 72mm objective and 400mm personally, just "reverse guessing" based on Pentax history and strengths...

03-26-2014, 03:37 PM	#5
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by asahi man This response makes me think you might be onto something....

03-26-2014, 04:46 PM	#6
Heie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 968	Not what I was hoping for ~~or expecting~~. I wanted constant f/4 lens. f/3.5 would have been even better. I know the size and the cost would have been large, but it's time Pentax makes some truly pro-grade glass that brings Canikon shooters over to the K-3. Variable aperture and f/5.6 at the long end? There goes perceived value, professional-orientation, and ability to use it with the new (seemingly stellar albeit a wee bit on the pricey side) HD 1.4x TC AW. Not that I would personally buy it or have a need for it, but Pentax as a brand surely has a need for such a lens. I'm sorry, but a 135-380 f/4-5.6 will be viewed as yet another let down from outsiders "wishing Pentax could make pro-level glass worthy of their K-3." Akin to the Canikon 200-400's, perhaps a bit bigger because of the larger zoom range. Something like this: *PENTAX HD D FA ( ?) 135-380mm F4 ED DC [IF] AW. MSRP $6499, with free bundled HD 1.4x TC WR.** That's what it should be imo. -Heie

03-26-2014, 04:56 PM - 1 Like	#7
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Yeah, I also struggle to see how this lens competes with the much liked 55-300mm. I think the extra range between 55mm and 135mm is more useful than the extra range between 300mm and 380mm. Will the 135-380mm really be significantly better in terms of IQ?

03-26-2014, 05:50 PM	#8
GlassJunkie Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: St Petersburg Photos: Albums Posts: 402 Original Poster	Have the 55-300 HD WR. Great lens. Issue is reach... Need 400 Cropped and hand held. Could get a hernia with the FA300 F2.8 and a TC. Tripod only. Too old here... I use the 55-300 HD WR as my walk-around. My wife needs the 135-380 (400 better) so she can dump the Siggy, OK IQ but bigger than she is. Pentax "should" as history would suggest, get her a smaller/better for APS-C. She wants a 2 lens solution (with overlap to drop the number of lens changes. 18-270 SDM and 135-380+ for a 2 lens kit. We have the "WR" kit for walk arounds (18-135WR and 55-300 WR) as we live in wet Florida, but limited for birding, so I use a FA300 F2.8 and a Tammy PZ 1.4x 0r 2.0x (until the HD comes). We'll check IQ and dump the lesser IQ 1.4. On IQ with the Tamrons: lose 5-10% on contrast, else is ok, so PS can correct in 10 secs. NO sharpness issue with 300 or 60-250. We have studied the 1.4 in depth...

03-26-2014, 06:08 PM	#9
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by Heie Not what I was hoping for ~~or expecting~~. I wanted constant f/4 lens. f/3.5 would have been even better. ... Akin to the Canikon 200-400's, perhaps a bit bigger because of the larger zoom range. Something like this: *PENTAX HD D FA ( ?) 135-380mm F4 ED DC [IF] AW. MSRP $6499, with free bundled HD 1.4x TC WR.** That's what it should be imo. -Heie Expect variable aperture, but quality lens. Even DA 20-40 is seen as "let-down" because of variable aperture, despite being a wonderful lens. It seem Ricoh Imaging is very clear they shall not compete with anything where Nikon and Canon rule by default: they avoid the FF, and they avoid making bigger and faster lenses.

03-26-2014, 06:10 PM	#10
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	400 5.6 is a reasonable size and price. If the IQ is good, if it is sharp wide open at long zoom, it will be desired.

03-26-2014, 06:29 PM	#11
Heie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 968	Originally posted by Uluru Even DA 20-40 is seen as "let-down" because of variable aperture, despite being a wonderful lens. No one said a 135-380 variable aperture wouldn't be desireable or high IQ. But it isn't "pro." And I'm sure the 20-40 is a great lens (haven't handled it) despite some negative reviews - the user experience seems to be very positive. But the 20-40 isn't anything that would cause people to leave their system for professional work. The K-3 already is. It's been proven. But without the proper glass. K-3 + 135-380 f/4 (3.5!) DC AW + bundled HD 1.4x AW? As I see it, that would be an industry changer since there's no 7DII or D400 in sight. Besides, if someone needs it, we already have a 60-350 f/4-5.6 (DA* 60-250 + HD 1.4x AW). -Heie

03-26-2014, 06:58 PM	#12
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Canon has their popular 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L, which has good optical quality, and Nikon has their 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. Both are clearly in a very different price bracket from their consumer 70-300s as well as their monster telephotos. If this lens has WR, a DC motor and better optical quality than the 55-300, I don't see why this would be redundant with anything in Pentax's current lineup. Bonus if it is FF capable as the rumors suggest.

03-26-2014, 07:00 PM - 1 Like	#13
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,843	A $6500 lens isn't going to do many of US any good, apart from giving us a warm fuzzy feeling that we're tied into a PROFESSIONAL system. I want better IQ and reach than the 55-300, but a fast constant aperture is probably too much to realistically hope for, especially at any sort of sensible size.

03-26-2014, 09:11 PM - 1 Like	#14
GordonZA Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Planet Earth Photos: Albums Posts: 351	I hope it's at least 400mm at the long end... In fact I would love to see Pentax produce a 50-500 equivalent or why not redo their 250-600?

03-26-2014, 11:41 PM	#15
StigVidar Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 705	The 250-600/5.6 is a beast. It's weight is 5.5Kg with tripod mount and with the tripod and camera you have to lug around 10Kg :-)