Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-21-2012, 06:37 PM   #451
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,487


03-21-2012, 06:50 PM   #452
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Could be, i didn't read every page here.
But at least before posting, you could check if the answer isn't in the thread already, couldn't you?

Esp. the earlier posts contain useful information. E.g., a review of scopes vs. tele lenses in terms of image quality with a dSLR. That's why I don't post answers which are in the thread already. This thread starts to turn cycles.

Wrt price, yes, the Pentax 100SDUF II is more expensive than what I wrote. However, it is a 100 mm diameter 4 element design with SD glass which is only sold from available remaining stock. Production has ceased. I based my price estimate on the newer 100 mm diameter 3 element design with ED glass called Pentax PF-100ED which is a current product. However, despite the overwhelmingly good reviews the PF-100ED received in the spotting community, its optical performance may not be on par with the 100SDUF II. Direct comparisons are missing though. So, an exact price prediction is difficult indeed.
03-21-2012, 06:59 PM   #453
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,981
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
But at least before posting, you could check if the answer isn't in the thread already, couldn't you?

Esp. the earlier posts contain useful information. E.g., a review of scopes vs. tele lenses in terms of image quality with a dSLR. That's why I don't post answers which are in the thread already.OK, I get the drift already! This thread starts to turn cycles.

Wrt price, yes, the Pentax 100SDUF II is more expensive than what I wrote. However, it is a 100 mm diameter 4 element design with SD glass which is only sold from available remaining stock. Production has ceased. I based my price estimate on the newer 100 mm diameter 3 element design with ED glass called Pentax PF-100ED which is a current product. However, despite the overwhelmingly good reviews the PF-100ED received in the spotting community, its optical performance may not be on par with the 100SDUF II. Direct comparisons are missing though. So, an exact price prediction is difficult indeed.
Making sure I have read all of the posts herewith before posting any redundant questions.

JP
03-22-2012, 10:29 AM   #454
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
But at least before posting, you could check if the answer isn't in the thread already, couldn't you?

Esp. the earlier posts contain useful information. E.g., a review of scopes vs. tele lenses in terms of image quality with a dSLR. That's why I don't post answers which are in the thread already. This thread starts to turn cycles.

Wrt price, yes, the Pentax 100SDUF II is more expensive than what I wrote. However, it is a 100 mm diameter 4 element design with SD glass which is only sold from available remaining stock. Production has ceased. I based my price estimate on the newer 100 mm diameter 3 element design with ED glass called Pentax PF-100ED which is a current product. However, despite the overwhelmingly good reviews the PF-100ED received in the spotting community, its optical performance may not be on par with the 100SDUF II. Direct comparisons are missing though. So, an exact price prediction is difficult indeed.
Well i'v followed the first 20 pages of this and i didn't read any news about a new interview or anything like that so it was easy to assume the aperture isn't known.
And could luck using the search engine for this, i don't get it to search this thread alone and the number of times that it has been asked if the aperture was known is a lot in the beginning.

About the telescopes, i thought they stopped making them last year...
ps. nvm. i was talking about telescopes and you about spotting scopes, quite a bit different.

QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Making sure I have read all of the posts herewith before posting any redundant questions.

JP
Thanks for the advice but aren't you double posting now, Falconeye already said preciesly the same thing before you....


Last edited by Anvh; 03-22-2012 at 10:34 AM.
03-22-2012, 11:52 AM   #455
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
ps. nvm. i was talking about telescopes and you about spotting scopes, quite a bit different.
May be. Actually, I talked about scopes which I used as a generic term to encompass telescope and spottingscope.

It would be interesting to debate how different the two species actually are. Hobby astronomers seem to have deeper pockets than birders though
03-22-2012, 12:21 PM   #456
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
Put a x1.4 Tamron on my DA*300 and it's a 420/5.6 with solid if slow AF and excellent IQ.
Put a x1.7 AFA on the DA*300 and I have a 510/6.7 semi-AF with very very good IQ. Stacked TCs give me 714/9.5

Tried out a SMC M400/5.6 today and was very impressed with the sharpness ... for US$225. Add the AFA x1.7 and you have a semi AF 680/9.5.

I have a MF Tokina (EDIT. Not the Tamron) 300/2.8 on the way which will give me MF 420/4 (x1.4 TC) or a semi-AF 510/4.8 (x1.7 TC) or 714/6.7 (stacked TCs). Also ordered an AF Sigma 400/5.6 macro that should be fun ..and sharp.

The more I play around with long lenses/options, the more I'm thinking that this 560/5.6 had better be something really special to make it worth US$2,000 - US$3,000 unless you need an 1,333 / 13 (with stacked x1.7 and x1.4 TCs) which is too long to use for virtually anything I can think of !

Last edited by Frogfish; 03-22-2012 at 01:24 PM.
03-22-2012, 12:31 PM   #457
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Put a x1.4 Tamron on my DA*300 and it's a 420/5.6 with solid if slow AF and excellent IQ.
Put a x1.7 AFA on the DA*300 and I have a 510/6.7 semi-AF with very very good IQ. Stacked TCs give me 714/9.5

Tried out a SMC M400/5.6 today and was very impressed with the sharpness ... for US$225. Add the AFA x1.7 and you have a semi AF 680/9.5.

I have a MF Tamron 300/2.8 on the way which will give me MF 420/4 (x1.4 TC) or a semi-AF 510/4.8 (x1.7 TC) or 714/6.7 (stacked TCs). Also ordered an AF Sigma 400/5.6 macro that should be fun ..and sharp.

The more I play around with long lenses/options, the more I'm thinking that this 560/5.6 had better be something really special to make it worth US$2,000 - US$3,000 unless you need an 1,333 / 13 (with stacked x1.7 and x1.4 TCs) which is too long to use for virtually anything I can think of !
Some of the CA's of those older longer lenses is really bad on newer cameras, especially when you begin cropping. TC's seem to make it worse. I've never used the Tamron/Sigma you're talking about, but you're going to spend about ~$800-1000 (lens + 1.7x TC) for what I would guess is quite reduced sharpness, and can almost guarantee is much worse CA, and AF that sometimes works quite well, and sometimes works poorly.

I wasn't all that impressed with the 1.7x and the 300. My test showed it to be a tossup at best when compared to digital cropping. Personally I'd rather have the increased DOF/lighter weight/heavier wallet that results from the 300 alone.

To me, it would've been worth the $2k last year. Nowadays my subject matter isn't as far off...
03-22-2012, 12:34 PM   #458
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
May be. Actually, I talked about scopes which I used as a generic term to encompass telescope and spottingscope.

It would be interesting to debate how different the two species actually are. Hobby astronomers seem to have deeper pockets than birders though
I looked into these as an alternative to a long lens ..... the telescopes are not that expensive (ca. US$500-800) for a great lens, great IQ and ED100 Schott glass ! It's the 100mm and 120mm glass that gets really expensive. Excellent 80mm telescopes (generally considered by digiscopers to be better than spotting scopes) can be had for well under a US$1,000.

03-22-2012, 12:44 PM - 1 Like   #459
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Some of the CA's of those older longer lenses is really bad on newer cameras, especially when you begin cropping. TC's seem to make it worse. I've never used the Tamron/Sigma you're talking about, but you're going to spend about ~$800-1000 (lens + 1.7x TC) for what I would guess is quite reduced sharpness, and can almost guarantee is much worse CA, and AF that sometimes works quite well, and sometimes works poorly.

I wasn't all that impressed with the 1.7x and the 300. My test showed it to be a tossup at best when compared to digital cropping. Personally I'd rather have the increased DOF/lighter weight/heavier wallet that results from the 300 alone.

To me, it would've been worth the $2k last year. Nowadays my subject matter isn't as far off...
Half that price for the Sigma and just a little more for the Tokina (my typo - not the Tamron, though that's just as good from all reports). I think you should do some Googling for reviews - PF's own lens database is a good start. They are invariably rated at between 8/10 and 10/10 by all testers/owners.

I have run tests of the 300 alone vs. 300+1.7 and 300+1.4, and the crops are not as good as those of the 300 + 1.4 and are still a fair way off those of the 300+ x1.7. You'll find the test by doing a search here on PF. The biggest compromise is AF - but for birding that's not much of a compromise at all if you bird in wooded areas since MF is nearly always required for precise focus and can even be faster than racking a lens in and out.

This is a 50% crop of a shot I took yesterday with the 300+x1.4 ..... the monkeys were around 40 yds (metres) away.

03-22-2012, 01:14 PM   #460
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
@Frogfish: Great shot!
03-22-2012, 01:14 PM   #461
Pentaxian
Greyser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,072
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Put a x1.4 Tamron on my DA*300 and it's a 420/5.6 with solid if slow AF and excellent IQ.
Put a x1.7 AFA on the DA*300 and I have a 510/6.7 semi-AF with very very good IQ. Stacked TCs give me 714/9.5
Actually both are kind of semi-AF. Very often Tamron Pz-AF doesn't AF immediately and requires a few shutter button pushes or similar to 1.7X AFA pre-focusing which is even more uncomfortable due to constant lens switching from AF to MF and back. Very often your target is gone when AF kicks in.

QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Tried out a SMC M400/5.6 today and was very impressed with the sharpness ... for US$225. Add the AFA x1.7 and you have a semi AF 680/9.5.
What about nasty PF for US$225?

QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
I have a MF Tamron 300/2.8 on the way which will give me MF 420/4 (x1.4 TC) or a semi-AF 510/4.8 (x1.7 TC) or 714/6.7 (stacked TCs).
I have MF Tamron 400/4. It has a very short focus adjustment ring movement. It's actually good for pre-focusing with 1.7X AFA or when you rely solely on focus confirmation beep, but doesn't work well while focusing with 140X and 200X TCs. The best solution here is Live View magnified focus, which is slow enough for wild life. I believe the 300/2.8 works very similarly.

QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Also ordered an AF Sigma 400/5.6 macro that should be fun ..and sharp.
It is very sharp, indeed. But for some reason I could not squeeze some decent crops from the output. It looks like the older glass has some limitations when paired with high resolution modern sensors.

QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
The more I play around with long lenses/options, the more I'm thinking that this 560/5.6 had better be something really special to make it worth US$2,000 - US$3,000 unless you need an 1,333 / 13 (with stacked x1.7 and x1.4 TCs) which is too long to use for virtually anything I can think of !
As you see all of your solutions have their own limitations. They are workable, but sometimes not very convenient and fast focusing. I expect the 560/5.6 to be better in every way. My only concern is half a meter length, if the lens is not collapsible. There are speculations about both variants, but *ogl* somewhere made a solid statement that it is not telescopic.
03-22-2012, 01:40 PM   #462
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
I looked into these as an alternative to a long lens ..... the telescopes are not that expensive (ca. US$500-800) for a great lens, great IQ and ED100 Schott glass ! It's the 100mm and 120mm glass that gets really expensive. Excellent 80mm telescopes (generally considered by digiscopers to be better than spotting scopes) can be had for well under a US$1,000.
You gotta put the scopes on something though, and for astronomy purposes where magnifications get into the 200x+ that is where you start spending some good money even with a "not so expensive" telescope.

Should try shooting through my 8" reflector sometime, it's just a giant mirrorlens....
03-22-2012, 01:50 PM   #463
Pentaxian
Greyser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,072
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
This is a 50% crop of a shot I took yesterday with the 300+x1.4 ..... the monkeys were around 40 yds (metres) away.
Great shot! DA*300 rules!
03-23-2012, 02:04 AM   #464
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
@Frogfish: Great shot!
QuoteOriginally posted by Greyser Quote
Great shot! DA*300 rules!
Thank you guys ! The DA*300 really is a very sharp, excellent lens.
03-23-2012, 02:18 AM   #465
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by Greyser Quote
Actually both are kind of semi-AF. Very often Tamron Pz-AF doesn't AF immediately and requires a few shutter button pushes or similar to 1.7X AFA pre-focusing which is even more uncomfortable due to constant lens switching from AF to MF and back. Very often your target is gone when AF kicks in.
This is true. If I don't think the bird is going to wait around for 3-5 secs then I won't use this combo and will use my 2nd K5 with whatever is on it at the time.

QuoteOriginally posted by Greyser Quote
What about nasty PF for US$225?
The Pentax M 400/5.6 is really sharp and from my testing, and more importantly the opinions / shots of those on here that are using it (do a search for Designosophy, Mole and 8540Tomg - the 300+ thread is a great place to start), you just need to be aware of it's weaknesses. More often than not if shooting where the M400 is at it's worst, for small birds into the sun, then you're not going to get a result with any lens unless you enjoy a game of guess the silhouettes ! However for the money, US$200-400, there is nothing to even come close to beating it (cheaper offerings, such as 55-300 or a 500mm mirror, are not in the same ballpark).

QuoteOriginally posted by Greyser Quote
I have MF Tamron 400/4. It has a very short focus adjustment ring movement. It's actually good for pre-focusing with 1.7X AFA or when you rely solely on focus confirmation beep, but doesn't work well while focusing with 140X and 200X TCs. The best solution here is Live View magnified focus, which is slow enough for wild life. I believe the 300/2.8 works very similarly.
The owner of the lens, and also on some of the other reviews, state that the Tokina 300/2.8 works extremely well with the AFA x1.7 so I've got my fingers crossed !

QuoteOriginally posted by Greyser Quote
As you see all of your solutions have their own limitations. They are workable, but sometimes not very convenient and fast focusing. I expect the 560/5.6 to be better in every way. My only concern is half a meter length, if the lens is not collapsible. There are speculations about both variants, but *ogl* somewhere made a solid statement that it is not telescopic.
All lenses will have some limitations, the 560mm will be hand-holding, maybe the length for portability (if not collapsible) and possibly weight. However the possible solutions I've listed above blow the 560mm out of the water in one important regard ... they are all available now and not in one year's time (assuming the 560mm is announced this Autumn and launched next Spring)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
500mm, lens, pentax 560mm, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA 50mm, DA 560mm, D-FA 645 90mm to be revealed at CP+ Adam Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 56 02-10-2012 08:56 AM
Leitz 560mm f/6.8 Telyt-R - first shots and impression Piotr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 05-11-2009 02:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top