[Arpe]

No, I'm pretty sure it's bayonet!

[Buddha Jones]

No, I'm pretty sure it's bayonet!

Smarty pants...

[hll]

No, I'm pretty sure it's bayonet!

are you kidding??? is canon making a K bayonet lens???

[JMS]

Screw Cannon!

Funny, I thought they used in-lens motors.

[Arpe]

are you kidding??? is canon making a K bayonet lens???

NO - Canon bayonet.

[rvannatta]

I sure would love to see a DA* 400mm f5.6

It's really a 'wrong' lens. not fast enough to take a converter, nor long enough to use without one. A fast 300 (and a converter) provide many more options.

when you get to the super telephoto class they need to be one or the other.....---either really long, for fast and good enough to take a converter....

[jamesk8752]

Me, I want the 200mm macro to come back. Probably the most rare of rare lenses.

Peter, I have this lens and it's great, to be sure, but the chances of your getting one for less that $1500 (if it comes on the market at all) are slim. Maybe you should consider other alternatives, such as the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 180mm f4 SL Close Focus lens (CameraQuest Home). A very positive review of it (on a Nikon body) is available here: Voigtlander SL 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar - Photozone Test Report/Review

I just received my copy and it's a real cracker! No, it doesn't focus down to 1:1, (only 1:4) and it's an A-type manual focus lens rather than AF, but it is superbly sharp and contrasty, and it shows no trace of CA or PF in my initial tests. I plan to do a comparison test vs. the A* 200/4 macro as soon as the weather permits. I'll also take a look at the impact on IQ of using my Pentax F 1.7x AF teleconverter and try using extension tubes to get into the macro range. Should be interesting...

The best part is that this lens sells for just under $400 in KA mount and is still available, although it has been discontinued. Stock is limited so if you are interested you need to act quickly.

---

Last edited by jamesk8752; 12-17-2007 at 10:28 PM.

[thibs]

It's really a 'wrong' lens. not fast enough to take a converter, nor long enough to use without one. A fast 300 (and a converter) provide many more options.

when you get to the super telephoto class they need to be one or the other.....---either really long, for fast and good enough to take a converter....

Of course not, it is a very interesting lens and here is why: the guy needing a 400mm (which means 600mm on APS-C, remember?) and not having $5000 in his pocket will be VERY happy and thankfull to Pentax.

Obviously, a 400/3.4 or /4 should also appear and I'm pretty sure it will, just as a 300/2.8 for example (mmm a 200/2 might be cool too ). A 600/5.6 should be in the pipeline as well. Just wait a little bit.

[Richard Day]

Of course not, it is a very interesting lens and here is why: the guy needing a 400mm (which means 600mm on APS-C, remember?) and not having $5000 in his pocket will be VERY happy and thankfull to Pentax.

Obviously, a 400/3.4 or /4 should also appear and I'm pretty sure it will, just as a 300/2.8 for example (mmm a 200/2 might be cool too ). A 600/5.6 should be in the pipeline as well. Just wait a little bit.

Some while back (on my *istD) I compared my FA*300 plus the cheap but good Tamron 1.4x TC (AF) with a FA*400 f5.6 and the 300 + TC outperformed it, it was sharper and had no CA.

I believe that Pentax would be much smarter to release a 1.4x (or better still a 1.5x) quality TC that has coding so that it reports the FL correctly for the SR plus exif data content to show it's use.

That would give you a 420/450mm f5.6 with the DA*300, or a 280/300mm f4.0 when used with the DA*200.

If they then decided later on to make a 400mm f4.0 DA* lens, which would be very nice but not horribly expensive, and could still have a front filter (105mm, they are available) instead of the expensive to build slot in rear filter, then that would give the option of a 560/600mm f5.6, that combination would still be considerably less expensive than the awesome FA*600mm f4.0.

[thibs]

1/ Judging based a DA*400 based on the FA*400 is misleading, especialy with lenses not meant to be used on digital.

2/ I never said it wasn't better to first introduce a 300/2.8 + TC and then a 400/5.6. Of course the 300+TC would buy time very easily.

3/ Provided they do their job correctly with the new lenses which I beleive, I see no reason for a 400 being less sharp than a 300+TC.

I'll also take a look at the impact on IQ of using my Pentax F 1.7x AF teleconverter

Please do it, I was thinking in that combination but I am worried about the IQ and how well the adapter will autofocus with a f4 lens. Thank you

[Richard Day]

1/ Judging based a DA*400 based on the FA*400 is misleading, especialy with lenses not meant to be used on digital.

2/ I never said it wasn't better to first introduce a 300/2.8 + TC and then a 400/5.6. Of course the 300+TC would buy time very easily.

3/ Provided they do their job correctly with the new lenses which I beleive, I see no reason for a 400 being less sharp than a 300+TC.

Oops! I wasn't trying to be argumentative, honest!

1/ I was comparing the FA*300 with the FA*400, not a DA* to FA*, so it was "apples with apples". Even with film on my MZ-S, the FA*300 + TC was better than the FA*400.

2/ I believe a 400 f5.6 would not be as sensible as it was in the film (FF) days, I think a 400 f4.0 (or even f4.5, to keep the front filter size below 100mm, 95mm is available from Hoya & B+W) would be a much better choice as a 400mm lens to introduce later on. In the meantime a quality 1.5x TC to use on the 200 & 300 DA* lenses would be a very popular and sensible step, as with SDM, there wouldn't be any slow down of the AF.

3/ Pentax have always made superb 300mm lenses (both the FA*300's [f4.5 & f2.8] are superb on digital) and "reasonable" 400mm lenses, I agree that, in theory, a quality 400mm is possible, I just think it would be more sensible to design one faster than f5.6, that's all.

Speaking personally, I would rather have the 60-250 f4.0 zoom, plus a cracking 300mm f4.0 and a really good 1.5x TC as a lightweight (relatively!) long lens setup. That is my ideal birding, aircraft and motorsport combination. My estimated cost for such a combination would be around $2 - 2.5k. ($1100 + $1100 + $300), which I consider quite enough! For less money the Bigma is the way to go and hard to beat, especially for convenience.

An alternative if you are a prime only user, is to have a 200 f2.8, a 1.5TC and a 400mm f4.0. That covers everything from 200mm (at f2.8) through 300mm and 400mm (at f4.0), to 600mm (at f5.6) where it is still fast enough and still autofocus okay. (I find my FA*300 f4.5 with the TC [= f6.3] still autofocuses quite well, even in average lighting, it's just slow focussing due to the added friction of the screw drive through the TC slowing the AF down).

The downside of the last combo would be that the cost would be considerably more, my estimate would be nearer $4 - 5k, as I would expect a 400mm f4.0 alone being similar to a 300mm f2.8, i.e. around the $2.5 - 3k mark.

Remember that Pentax are currently targeting the mid band sector, at least for the next 2 or 3 years, probably more, where any lens or body over $1500/2000 would be out of that arena.

[Richard Day]

Peter, I have this lens and it's great, to be sure, but the chances of your getting one for less that $1500 (if it comes on the market at all) are slim. Maybe you should consider other alternatives, such as the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 180mm f4 SL Close Focus lens (CameraQuest Home). A very positive review of it (on a Nikon body) is available here: Voigtlander SL 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar - Photozone Test Report/Review

I just received my copy and it's a real cracker! No, it doesn't focus down to 1:1, (only 1:4) and it's an A-type manual focus lens rather than AF, but it is superbly sharp and contrasty, and it shows no trace of CA or PF in my initial tests. I plan to do a comparison test vs. the A* 200/4 macro as soon as the weather permits. I'll also take a look at the impact on IQ of using my Pentax F 1.7x AF teleconverter and try using extension tubes to get into the macro range. Should be interesting...

The best part is that this lens sells for just under $400 in KA mount and is still available, although it has been discontinued. Stock is limited so if you are interested you need to act quickly.

Hi Jim

The DA* 200 f2.8 should also focus down to 1.2M (same as the 180/f4.0 APO-Lanthar) if it's based upon the FA* which I've been reliably informed it is. However, from memory, the FA*200 does exhibit some PF wide open whereas the FA* 200 macros didn't. The FA*300 f4.5 definitely doesn't exhibit any PF or CA. Hopefully the DA*200 and 300 will be up to the standard set by the FA*300.

I expect that from you massive arsenal of lenses you could confirm that for me!

[Peter Zack]

Peter, I have this lens and it's great, to be sure, but the chances of your getting one for less that $1500 (if it comes on the market at all) are slim. Maybe you should consider other alternatives, such as the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 180mm f4 SL Close Focus lens (CameraQuest Home). A very positive review of it (on a Nikon body) is available here: Voigtlander SL 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar - Photozone Test Report/Review

I just received my copy and it's a real cracker! No, it doesn't focus down to 1:1, (only 1:4) and it's an A-type manual focus lens rather than AF, but it is superbly sharp and contrasty, and it shows no trace of CA or PF in my initial tests. I plan to do a comparison test vs. the A* 200/4 macro as soon as the weather permits. I'll also take a look at the impact on IQ of using my Pentax F 1.7x AF teleconverter and try using extension tubes to get into the macro range. Should be interesting...

The best part is that this lens sells for just under $400 in KA mount and is still available, although it has been discontinued. Stock is limited so if you are interested you need to act quickly.

James, Thanks for the info and it certainly appears to be a nice lens but somewhat of an odd ball too. I have little interest in a 1:4 and would opt for the Sigma 180 for a number of reasons like AF, half stop faster and 1:1 plus the matched 1.4 TC's. With the aforementioned older 200 macro I could also use my AF1.7TC with it. But as you said, that's only a dream. The last one I saw for sale this past year was on for $2000 and for the amount I'd use it, it's way over valued at that price.

I like my Sigma 105 macro and I can get far enough away most of the time to get the bug/critter I want.

Not a bad price though for those in the market for something like this. Thanks for the link.

[lol101]

A quick link to a post I just made in the lens forum...

It is related to DA* lenses...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/16669-3-yes-3-...-d-images.html