Pentax 560mm ?

GordonZA · 02-07-2012, 10:25 PM

LBA just kicked in... The wife is not going to be happy...

)))

---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-26.030856,28.057327

Class A · 02-07-2012, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

That is a smashing looking piece.

+1

One can tell Marc Newson had nothing to do with.

OK, OK, I won't mention him anymore. At least I'll try to.

**Fontan** · 02-07-2012, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Amateur astronomers rank photo tele lenses highest, refractive scopes second and reflective scopes (mirrors) last. So, Pentax making refrence to astronomical telescopes is not a good sign. Astronomical telescopes have too few lens elements to really compete with photo tele lenses.

Sure, the difference is minimized by small nominal apertures (around f/8 refractive, f/11 reflective) where scopes are almost diffraction limited only. But photo tele lenses can be sharper at wider nominal apertures, at f/5.6 and below; requiring more lens elements, 10 or more.

I would be very disappointed to learn the DA 560 f/5.6 is crippled, with only 4-8 lens elements and no or only one ED element. Such a lens can be replaced by a DA* 300 with a sensor with small enough pixel pitch.

Is it better off to have a DA*300 on Q?

SteveM · 02-07-2012, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Amateur astronomers rank photo tele lenses highest, refractive scopes second and reflective scopes (mirrors) last. So, Pentax making refrence to astronomical telescopes is not a good sign. Astronomical telescopes have too few lens elements to really compete with photo tele lenses.

Sure, the difference is minimized by small nominal apertures (around f/8 refractive, f/11 reflective) where scopes are almost diffraction limited only. But photo tele lenses can be sharper at wider nominal apertures, at f/5.6 and below; requiring more lens elements, 10 or more.

I would be very disappointed to learn the DA 560 f/5.6 is crippled, with only 4-8 lens elements and no or only one ED element. Such a lens can be replaced by a DA* 300 with a sensor with small enough pixel pitch.

Hmmm...I'll be interested in hearing more about the makeup of the 560. I have the 100 SDUF-II, which is a 4 element design. I haven't used it yet for photography as I need the adapter, but it's specifically designed for medium format photography. The sales blurb from pentax....

"Image quality is very good over the entire, huge corrected photographical field. The real Strehl ratio is still above 90% which is astonishing for an instrument of this extreme focal ratio. As a result the 100 SDUF-II is not only an ultimate telelens for photography, but also a wonderful, ultra-compact travel scope."

I'm sure someone will test the new lens wide open when it's available. I'll be interested in hearing the result.

Asahiflex · 02-08-2012, 12:21 AM

Anyway, based on the photo it clearly is an IF lens. So the name on the lens itself is not complete yet. I guess it will officially become the SMC Pentax-DA* 560mm f/5.6 ED [IF].

And because of the f/45 on the distance scale it seems to have a lot in common with for instance the FA* 400mm f/5.6 and the A* 600/5.6 (both of which also went down to f/45).

eurostar · 02-08-2012, 02:24 AM

I guess they are keeping secret the full specs from the other companies. If it a 560/5,6 full DA* lens, with all the bells and whistles of super tele but at a fraction of the cost of a Canikony 600mm, it could have a huge sales potential. I think many would come to Pentax just for that tele.

Kunzite · 02-08-2012, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Amateur astronomers rank photo tele lenses highest, refractive scopes second and reflective scopes (mirrors) last. So, Pentax making refrence to astronomical telescopes is not a good sign. Astronomical telescopes have too few lens elements to really compete with photo tele lenses.

I would be very disappointed to learn the DA 560 f/5.6 is crippled, with only 4-8 lens elements and no or only one ED element. Such a lens can be replaced by a DA* 300 with a sensor with small enough pixel pitch.

Why are people so eager to think to the worst (im)possible scenario?

First assuming it's a mirror lens, now when we know it's not, this.
Let's find out the details first, and then complain about it possibly being crippled. If it will be the case, and I'm sure it wouldn't.

Ishpuini · 02-08-2012, 03:00 AM

I like it! Looks too big for travel though (in my current bags that is), but depending the price I'll certainly consider this one for my local birding. Perhaps I might have to do sth about its colour though. I could live with the silver, but this white is too bright for my liking. Tape or paint?

Strange thing is the filter insert? I wouldn't think filters are much use on this kind of lens? Not in the digital age anyway? Ok, polarizers, ND filters and IR filters still have their purpose, but on a 560mm lens? Or perhaps the knob near the mount isn't for a filter, but for sth else?

The hood on the picture looks as if it's not extended as there is some glass visible. So it could be even longer in practice? Or are we looking at a picture with the hood extended?

Wim

Ishpuini · 02-08-2012, 03:37 AM

Another suggestion I read elsewhere (don't know whether on this forum or anywhere else), but the ribbed ring(s) between the mount and the distance scale might indicate that this lens could be disassembled into two parts for easier transport? Would that be possible while keeping good quality?

Wim

thibs · 02-08-2012, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Ishpuini

Another suggestion I read elsewhere (don't know whether on this forum or anywhere else), but the ribbed ring(s) between the mount and the distance scale might indicate that this lens could be disassembled into two parts for easier transport? Would that be possible while keeping good quality?

Wim

Yep, that was indeed talked about including here.

Vylen · 02-08-2012, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Just saw it on the other thread. Looks like there's two switches, if you look closely? I'm gusesing that rear 'black knurling' is for a polarizer?

Get the K-mount to Q-mount adapter and stick the Q on the back of this thing.. It'll look like you're just walking around with a lens

falconeye · 02-08-2012, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Why are people so eager to think to the worst (im)possible scenario?

First assuming it's a mirror lens, now when we know it's not, this.
Let's find out the details first, and then complain about it possibly being crippled. If it will be the case, and I'm sure it wouldn't.

I hope you don't mean me

E.g., I never thought it's a mirror. But people may be curious to hear what I think when I see the announcement. And so I said it. In summary, I am thinking it may not be as exciting as "560/5.6" suggests. It is a good thing to dampen expectations a bit if they become (IMHO) unrealistically high. Of course, I hope like everybody else that the lens will be great.

But my analytical brain always tries to fnd the most probable scenario, if I may use your term.

Gimbal · 02-08-2012, 05:05 AM

I believe it extends into the mirrorbox and thus only fits on the new K-01.

Kunzite · 02-08-2012, 05:14 AM

falconeye:
Indeed, you haven't said anything about a mirror lens - others did. Sorry for not being clear.
IMO the most probable scenario is: this lens will be good, and relatively affordable. I don't expect it to be the best, though; probably that 13.000 euro 500mm f/4 Sony will beat it

The most probable scenario is not: we don't know anything about the optics (besides focal length and maximum aperture) but it should be bad, just because Pentax said something about telescopes. Again, I'm not talking specifically about you.
I agree, having reasonable expectations is the best.

Gimbal, you're joking, right?

rawr · 02-08-2012, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Gimbal

I believe it extends into the mirrorbox and thus only fits on the new K-01.

That doesn't make sense. There would be no value in restricting it's (native) use to the K-01 family, which is new and even by the end of 2012 may only have a limited presence in the marketplace. Meanwhile they have a substantial population of K-mount camera users who could buy and use this lens straight away.

02-08-2012, 12:21 AM	#95
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Anyway, based on the photo it clearly is an IF lens. So the name on the lens itself is not complete yet. I guess it will officially become the *SMC Pentax-DA 560mm f/5.6 ED [IF]*. And because of the f/45 on the distance scale it seems to have a lot in common with for instance the FA 400mm f/5.6 and the A* 600/5.6 (both of which also went down to f/45). Last edited by Asahiflex; 02-08-2012 at 12:29 AM.

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

02-07-2012, 10:25 PM	#91
GordonZA Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Planet Earth Photos: Albums Posts: 351	LBA just kicked in... The wife is not going to be happy... ))) --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-26.030856,28.057327

02-07-2012, 10:42 PM	#92
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by audiobomber That is a smashing looking piece. +1 One can tell Marc Newson had nothing to do with. OK, OK, I won't mention him anymore. At least I'll try to.

02-07-2012, 10:54 PM	#93
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Originally posted by falconeye Amateur astronomers rank photo tele lenses highest, refractive scopes second and reflective scopes (mirrors) last. So, Pentax making refrence to astronomical telescopes is not a good sign. Astronomical telescopes have too few lens elements to really compete with photo tele lenses. Sure, the difference is minimized by small nominal apertures (around f/8 refractive, f/11 reflective) where scopes are almost diffraction limited only. But photo tele lenses can be sharper at wider nominal apertures, at f/5.6 and below; requiring more lens elements, 10 or more. I would be very disappointed to learn the DA 560 f/5.6 is crippled, with only 4-8 lens elements and no or only one ED element. Such a lens can be replaced by a DA* 300 with a sensor with small enough pixel pitch. Is it better off to have a DA*300 on Q?

02-07-2012, 11:07 PM	#94
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Originally posted by falconeye Amateur astronomers rank photo tele lenses highest, refractive scopes second and reflective scopes (mirrors) last. So, Pentax making refrence to astronomical telescopes is not a good sign. Astronomical telescopes have too few lens elements to really compete with photo tele lenses. Sure, the difference is minimized by small nominal apertures (around f/8 refractive, f/11 reflective) where scopes are almost diffraction limited only. But photo tele lenses can be sharper at wider nominal apertures, at f/5.6 and below; requiring more lens elements, 10 or more. I would be very disappointed to learn the DA 560 f/5.6 is crippled, with only 4-8 lens elements and no or only one ED element. Such a lens can be replaced by a DA* 300 with a sensor with small enough pixel pitch. Hmmm...I'll be interested in hearing more about the makeup of the 560. I have the 100 SDUF-II, which is a 4 element design. I haven't used it yet for photography as I need the adapter, but it's specifically designed for medium format photography. The sales blurb from pentax.... "Image quality is very good over the entire, huge corrected photographical field. The real Strehl ratio is still above 90% which is astonishing for an instrument of this extreme focal ratio. As a result the 100 SDUF-II is not only an ultimate telelens for photography, but also a wonderful, ultra-compact travel scope." I'm sure someone will test the new lens wide open when it's available. I'll be interested in hearing the result.

02-08-2012, 02:24 AM	#96
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	I guess they are keeping secret the full specs from the other companies. If it a 560/5,6 full DA* lens, with all the bells and whistles of super tele but at a fraction of the cost of a Canikony 600mm, it could have a huge sales potential. I think many would come to Pentax just for that tele.

02-08-2012, 02:59 AM	#97
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by falconeye Amateur astronomers rank photo tele lenses highest, refractive scopes second and reflective scopes (mirrors) last. So, Pentax making refrence to astronomical telescopes is not a good sign. Astronomical telescopes have too few lens elements to really compete with photo tele lenses. I would be very disappointed to learn the DA 560 f/5.6 is crippled, with only 4-8 lens elements and no or only one ED element. Such a lens can be replaced by a DA* 300 with a sensor with small enough pixel pitch. Why are people so eager to think to the worst (im)possible scenario? First assuming it's a mirror lens, now when we know it's not, this. Let's find out the details first, and then complain about it possibly being crippled. If it will be the case, and I'm sure it wouldn't.

02-08-2012, 03:00 AM	#98
Ishpuini Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Antwerp, Belgium Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,727	I like it! Looks too big for travel though (in my current bags that is), but depending the price I'll certainly consider this one for my local birding. Perhaps I might have to do sth about its colour though. I could live with the silver, but this white is too bright for my liking. Tape or paint? Strange thing is the filter insert? I wouldn't think filters are much use on this kind of lens? Not in the digital age anyway? Ok, polarizers, ND filters and IR filters still have their purpose, but on a 560mm lens? Or perhaps the knob near the mount isn't for a filter, but for sth else? The hood on the picture looks as if it's not extended as there is some glass visible. So it could be even longer in practice? Or are we looking at a picture with the hood extended? Wim

02-08-2012, 03:37 AM	#99
Ishpuini Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Antwerp, Belgium Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,727	Another suggestion I read elsewhere (don't know whether on this forum or anywhere else), but the ribbed ring(s) between the mount and the distance scale might indicate that this lens could be disassembled into two parts for easier transport? Would that be possible while keeping good quality? Wim

02-08-2012, 03:49 AM	#100
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Ishpuini Another suggestion I read elsewhere (don't know whether on this forum or anywhere else), but the ribbed ring(s) between the mount and the distance scale might indicate that this lens could be disassembled into two parts for easier transport? Would that be possible while keeping good quality? Wim Yep, that was indeed talked about including here.

02-08-2012, 03:51 AM	#101
Vylen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,262	Originally posted by ElJamoquio Just saw it on the other thread. Looks like there's two switches, if you look closely? I'm gusesing that rear 'black knurling' is for a polarizer? Get the K-mount to Q-mount adapter and stick the Q on the back of this thing.. It'll look like you're just walking around with a lens

02-08-2012, 04:33 AM	#102
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Kunzite Why are people so eager to think to the worst (im)possible scenario? First assuming it's a mirror lens, now when we know it's not, this. Let's find out the details first, and then complain about it possibly being crippled. If it will be the case, and I'm sure it wouldn't. I hope you don't mean me E.g., I never thought it's a mirror. But people may be curious to hear what I think when I see the announcement. And so I said it. In summary, I am thinking it may not be as exciting as "560/5.6" suggests. It is a good thing to dampen expectations a bit if they become (IMHO) unrealistically high. Of course, I hope like everybody else that the lens will be great. But my analytical brain always tries to fnd the most probable scenario, if I may use your term.

02-08-2012, 05:05 AM	#103
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	I believe it extends into the mirrorbox and thus only fits on the new K-01.

02-08-2012, 05:14 AM	#104
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	falconeye: Indeed, you haven't said anything about a mirror lens - others did. Sorry for not being clear. IMO the most probable scenario is: this lens will be good, and relatively affordable. I don't expect it to be the best, though; probably that 13.000 euro 500mm f/4 Sony will beat it The most probable scenario is not: we don't know anything about the optics (besides focal length and maximum aperture) but it should be bad, just because Pentax said something about telescopes. Again, I'm not talking specifically about you. I agree, having reasonable expectations is the best. Gimbal, you're joking, right?

02-08-2012, 05:15 AM	#105
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Gimbal I believe it extends into the mirrorbox and thus only fits on the new K-01. That doesn't make sense. There would be no value in restricting it's (native) use to the K-01 family, which is new and even by the end of 2012 may only have a limited presence in the marketplace. Meanwhile they have a substantial population of K-mount camera users who could buy and use this lens straight away.