Pentax 560mm ?

Transit · 08-23-2012, 04:25 PM

Time we got a break down here

LamyTax · 08-24-2012, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

Are you saying that it's now possible to build superb telephoto lenses without very high quality and ED glass (which even all the good telescopes use) - I wonder if Nikon/Canon know this instead of charging many thousands for their monsters

Certainly not "superb" lenses. It depends on the price you're aiming for. You get what you pay for, so to say.
Remember those 500/8 lenses (not with mirrors) from the 70ies? They still go for <100$ on eBay and aren't too bad.

And a 600/4 or 500/4 does have a larger front element and a lot of internal glass, too, due to IS. You surely can save some money by making a lens f/5.6, non-IS and with simpler design. All that doesn't have to lessen the quality.

Sandy Hancock · 08-24-2012, 04:03 AM - **1 Like**

I'm waiting to put this lens on a Q.
Note to self: buy a Q.

Frogfish · 08-24-2012, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by LamyTax

Certainly not "superb" lenses. It depends on the price you're aiming for. You get what you pay for, so to say.
Remember those 500/8 lenses (not with mirrors) from the 70ies? They still go for <100$ on eBay and aren't too bad.

And a 600/4 or 500/4 does have a larger front element and a lot of internal glass, too, due to IS. You surely can save some money by making a lens f/5.6, non-IS and with simpler design. All that doesn't have to lessen the quality.

The Sigma 500/4.5 doesn't have IS and is still rather large

I assume the Pentax will be lighter than the Sigma and to make it a best seller I think it will have to be in the US$2,000 - 2,500 range. Not the quality of the Sigma, no IS of course, must have ED glass - but WR is something the Sigma lacks and would be a feather in the Pentax cap for very little outlay.

Last edited by Frogfish; 08-24-2012 at 07:31 AM.

LamyTax · 08-24-2012, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

The Sigma 500/4.5 doesn't have IS and is still rather large

I assume the Pentax will be lighter than the Sigma because to make it a best seller I think it will have to be in the US$2,000 - 2,500 range. Not the quality of the Sigma, no IS of course, must have ED glass - but WR is something the Sigma lacks and would be a feather in the Pentax cap for very little outlay.

The Sigma has a front element ~10% larger in diameter than a proposed Pentax 560/5.6. Also, there were rumours that it has 540mm instead of 560, making the front element even smaller. That's a huge deal both for weight and price. From what I've heard, they want it around 2500$, maybe a little more. I assume a high demand initially, so I wouldn't expect the street price to be much lower.

What matters even more to me is this: such a lens is lightweight, compared to other solutions. It might be useable handheld. Forget that with a 600/4

.
Lightweight outdoor photo gear is great for nature photographers (Pentax certainly isn't aiming for sport professionals

).

ED glass would be neat, of course. Less than a month until the world finds out

.

pingflood · 08-26-2012, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by coreyhkh

I have given up on this lens and I have my eyes set on a canon 500 f4. Still keeping my Pentax though its weather sealing is hard to ignore.

As a 500L owner, I can say you would not regret purchasing one. The weight is the only real issue, but I have no problems handholding it for a shooting session though I can certainly feel it afterwards!

LamyTax · 08-27-2012, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

As a 500L owner, I can say you would not regret purchasing one. The weight is the only real issue, but I have no problems handholding it for a shooting session though I can certainly feel it afterwards!

Now if Pentax had a 560/5.6 that's lightweight and good, would you consider it?

Sandy Hancock · 08-27-2012, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by LamyTax

Now if Pentax had a 560/5.6 that's lightweight and good, would you consider it?

Hell yeah.

mille19 · 08-27-2012, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by LamyTax

Now if Pentax had a 560/5.6 that's lightweight and good, would you consider it?

Top of my shopping list

**Pål Jensen** · 08-31-2012, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by RXrenesis8

As predicted by Falk Lumo nearly a year ago, I'm gonna go with ~$2000 MSRP

My guess is $4000+

**Pål Jensen** · 08-31-2012, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Why does it end up longer than an FA*600mm f/4 with a shorter FL and smaller aperture?
.

...because it is a true telephoto lens. Ie it is 560mm long...

ElJamoquio · 08-31-2012, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

...because it is a true telephoto lens. Ie it is 560mm long...

No, a true telephoto lens is less long than the focal length.

Telephoto lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

eddie1960 · 08-31-2012, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

No, a true telephoto lens is less long than the focal length.

Telephoto lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly which is why the estimates for this have been significantly less than $4000. I'll guess 2500-2700 with instant rebate pricing in the 22-2300 range maybe

**Pål Jensen** · 08-31-2012, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

No, a true telephoto lens is less long than the focal length.

Telephoto lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I probably meant a long-focus lens...

eddie1960 · 08-31-2012, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

I probably meant a long-focus lens...

essentially this looks to be a telescope type design, 2-2500 would be in the right zone for that given a telescope of this type would be about half that price but simpler to build with no af or electronics to concern you

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

08-23-2012, 04:25 PM	#766
Transit Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Whanganui NZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,624	Time we got a break down here

08-24-2012, 03:57 AM	#767
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by Frogfish Are you saying that it's now possible to build superb telephoto lenses without very high quality and ED glass (which even all the good telescopes use) - I wonder if Nikon/Canon know this instead of charging many thousands for their monsters Certainly not "superb" lenses. It depends on the price you're aiming for. You get what you pay for, so to say. Remember those 500/8 lenses (not with mirrors) from the 70ies? They still go for <100$ on eBay and aren't too bad. And a 600/4 or 500/4 does have a larger front element and a lot of internal glass, too, due to IS. You surely can save some money by making a lens f/5.6, non-IS and with simpler design. All that doesn't have to lessen the quality.

08-24-2012, 04:03 AM - 1 Like	#768
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I'm waiting to put this lens on a Q. Note to self: buy a Q.

08-24-2012, 06:37 AM	#769
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by LamyTax Certainly not "superb" lenses. It depends on the price you're aiming for. You get what you pay for, so to say. Remember those 500/8 lenses (not with mirrors) from the 70ies? They still go for <100$ on eBay and aren't too bad. And a 600/4 or 500/4 does have a larger front element and a lot of internal glass, too, due to IS. You surely can save some money by making a lens f/5.6, non-IS and with simpler design. All that doesn't have to lessen the quality. The Sigma 500/4.5 doesn't have IS and is still rather large I assume the Pentax will be lighter than the Sigma and to make it a best seller I think it will have to be in the US$2,000 - 2,500 range. Not the quality of the Sigma, no IS of course, must have ED glass - but WR is something the Sigma lacks and would be a feather in the Pentax cap for very little outlay. Last edited by Frogfish; 08-24-2012 at 07:31 AM.

08-24-2012, 06:51 AM	#770
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by Frogfish The Sigma 500/4.5 doesn't have IS and is still rather large I assume the Pentax will be lighter than the Sigma because to make it a best seller I think it will have to be in the US$2,000 - 2,500 range. Not the quality of the Sigma, no IS of course, must have ED glass - but WR is something the Sigma lacks and would be a feather in the Pentax cap for very little outlay. The Sigma has a front element ~10% larger in diameter than a proposed Pentax 560/5.6. Also, there were rumours that it has 540mm instead of 560, making the front element even smaller. That's a huge deal both for weight and price. From what I've heard, they want it around 2500$, maybe a little more. I assume a high demand initially, so I wouldn't expect the street price to be much lower. What matters even more to me is this: such a lens is lightweight, compared to other solutions. It might be useable handheld. Forget that with a 600/4 . Lightweight outdoor photo gear is great for nature photographers (Pentax certainly isn't aiming for sport professionals ). ED glass would be neat, of course. Less than a month until the world finds out .

08-26-2012, 12:27 PM	#771
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by coreyhkh I have given up on this lens and I have my eyes set on a canon 500 f4. Still keeping my Pentax though its weather sealing is hard to ignore. As a 500L owner, I can say you would not regret purchasing one. The weight is the only real issue, but I have no problems handholding it for a shooting session though I can certainly feel it afterwards!

08-27-2012, 08:05 AM	#772
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by pingflood As a 500L owner, I can say you would not regret purchasing one. The weight is the only real issue, but I have no problems handholding it for a shooting session though I can certainly feel it afterwards! Now if Pentax had a 560/5.6 that's lightweight and good, would you consider it?

08-27-2012, 08:49 AM	#773
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by LamyTax Now if Pentax had a 560/5.6 that's lightweight and good, would you consider it? Hell yeah.

08-27-2012, 09:04 AM	#774
mille19 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 101	Originally posted by LamyTax Now if Pentax had a 560/5.6 that's lightweight and good, would you consider it? Top of my shopping list

08-31-2012, 09:17 AM	#775
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by RXrenesis8 As predicted by Falk Lumo nearly a year ago, I'm gonna go with ~$2000 MSRP My guess is $4000+

08-31-2012, 09:19 AM	#776
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by audiobomber Why does it end up longer than an FA*600mm f/4 with a shorter FL and smaller aperture? . ...because it is a true telephoto lens. Ie it is 560mm long...

08-31-2012, 09:42 AM	#777
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873 Original Poster	Originally posted by Pål Jensen ...because it is a true telephoto lens. Ie it is 560mm long... No, a true telephoto lens is less long than the focal length. Telephoto lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

08-31-2012, 09:44 AM	#778
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by ElJamoquio No, a true telephoto lens is less long than the focal length. Telephoto lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Exactly which is why the estimates for this have been significantly less than $4000. I'll guess 2500-2700 with instant rebate pricing in the 22-2300 range maybe

08-31-2012, 10:07 AM	#779
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by ElJamoquio No, a true telephoto lens is less long than the focal length. Telephoto lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I probably meant a long-focus lens...

08-31-2012, 10:21 AM	#780
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Pål Jensen I probably meant a long-focus lens... essentially this looks to be a telescope type design, 2-2500 would be in the right zone for that given a telescope of this type would be about half that price but simpler to build with no af or electronics to concern you