[jpzk]

One reason why I like my Sigma 500mm F/4.5 is it has a depth of field a lot thicker than the DA*300mm especially at the minimum focus distance. I am comfortable with shooting single subjects at F/4.5 all day.

Just saw your post:

What "model" Sigma is this? The latest version with the OS or something else?

Just curious and if you do have the non-OS version, what's your take on the new version vs. the "old" one?

JP

[monochrome]

Then they should quickly get their act together, because Sony is aiming for that market now as well (see the super expensive Sony 500mm f/4 they just released - built to order).

If they do it, there's so much more to do than just lenses.

• B&M support
• Loaner/Rental support
• Service
• Priority Service
• Branding

Ricoh probably know this.

[chhayanat]

chhayanat: I didn't know that about the Kowa. I wondered. So it is equivalent to an M42 manual lens then. Too bad. I would consider it if it had A functionality.Of interest, I was reading recently a review of scopes. They compared the Kowa, expensive and perfect, with a couple other very capable ones. The difference was about $1k and very very small, undetectable to most decrease in image quality.
If Pentax can find that spot, very good image quality at a price that doesn't remind you of a good used vehicle, they will be successful. We would always have the opportunity to spend another few thousands of dollars on some superb piece, but for most of the market those are dream toys.

Let alone the Pentax-A functionality, Kowa's Prominar lens/scope does not even respond like an Pentax-M or Pentax-K lens where the diaphragm can be stopped down by the green button.

As to price, the reason why I chose the Pentax-M 400 f5.6 in 1981 was precisely that the competition, Minolta, Canon, Nikon and Olympus (not even mentioning Leitz and Zeiss), made lenses of comparable focal length which were much more expensive than the Pentax. Your analogy of the price of a second hand car was what I habitually used myself. Price and backward compatibility do matter to Pentax owners. This would apply to the 560mm f.5.6 as well.
Chhayanat

[pz1fan]

If that is the case, could we see a fairly inexpensive ($799) price tag for a lens that delivers so so optical performance?

Am I nuts for thinking this could be a sub-$1,000 consumer grade lens?

Agree 100%. If it's a consumer grade lens with few optical elements (given the huge size), it should be priced lower than that. With a 1.4TC on the roadmap, I'll take the DA*300 plus TC instead.

I'd prefer a re-release of the FA400f5.6 (20cm long), which is hand holdable.

[Bob from Aus]

I'd prefer a re-release of the FA400f5.6 (20cm long), which is hand holdable.

I'm 60+ and have no problem hand holding my 500 Sigma in half reasonable light. Sure it is less challenging with a 300 and TC. And that setup makes more sense for large mammals rather than small birds. Yes I might get the perfect shot with a tripod or monopod if I could set it up adjust it and the animal in question is patient enough for me to get in a photo. A great shot instead of the perfect shot is better than no shot in my book. I think people need to see if you can handhold and run around with a large lens.

[traderdrew]

According to this DOF calculator, 300mm @ f/4 has almost double the DOF compared to 400mm @f/4.5. Online Depth of Field Calculator

What can I say? You can check my exif info on flickr.com or you can go shooting with me here in Florida.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewdalerichardson/

I just tried to use the link you provided. All I see are cameras.

Edit: (My reply below)

[traderdrew]

Just saw your post:

What "model" Sigma is this? The latest version with the OS or something else?

Just curious and if you do have the non-OS version, what's your take on the new version vs. the "old" one?

JP

Sigma 500mm F/4.5 It has no form of optical stabilization and I am glad we have SR in our cameras. Sigma might have tweaked this version vs another older one. I don't know.

This photo was taken at F/4.5




This one was taken using F/5.6

[traderdrew]

What can I say? You can check my exif info on flickr.com or you can go shooting with me here in Florida.

Flickr: Andrew's Wildlife's Photostream

I just tried to use the link you provided. All I see are cameras.

Wait,.. I see what is going on with the link. I see it is quite simple.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

The minium focus distance of the DA*300mm is about 3 to 4 feet. The minimum focus distance of the Sigma 500mm is about 13 feet. Using these numbers will clear things up.

[derekkite]

That lens seems to be outstanding. Not to minimize your skill in handling it.

[ElJamoquio]

The Sigma 500mm is pretty nice. I would be purchasing one now if it wasn't for the 560 coming.

[PePe]

What "model" Sigma is this? The latest version with the OS or something else?

JP

I don´t think even the latest version of Sigma has OS. Actually I don´t think it really matters as in-body SR works fine.
What is advertised as the latest version of the Sigma 500/4,5 has a new paint finish but I am not aware of any other changes.
It do hope the new Pentax 560mm is a a success, but as I already have the Sigma I don´t think it has anything for me.

[ElJamoquio]

Wait - could the second switch be for 'extended' (500/5.6) vs. 'retracted' (400/4.0) operation?!?

[Fly]

I doubt it. I wouldn't think that they would design an extending lens. If they did such a thing why would you need a switch to tell the camera a different focal length? Zooms do this through an entire range without the need of a switch.

All that I hope from this lens is: That it is reasonably priced. 2k to 2.5k. That it has no glaring optical faults, and that its minimum focus distance is within a couple feet of the DA 300.

[ElJamoquio]

Yeah, on second thought that doesn't make too much sense.

[Fly]

It does appear to extend according to the pictures Adam put up. So Who Knows?