[Kunzite]

You could cover your whole body, if it's for a 1800mm lens (oops, I was misled by the word "jacket" - most likely used right)

[zapp]

It's not a 600, and it's not an f/4. Sigma does have an 800/5.6. And that one is still cheaper than the 560. Just not available for Pentax.

I can tell you without needing any test, with that design, it'll suck at close focus distance.

The street price of the Sigma is less than the suggested retail price for the Pentax and yes there exists an 800 mm Sigma lens. Nikon and Canon on the other hand will sell 4/500 mm and 4/600 mm lenses in this area - but a Canon 5.6/400 is rumored, so we will see some change in the near future. A 5.6/560 mm could be an (expensive) bargain here. Let's not talk the lens dead before we see some performance data.

Pentax forgot an extension tube for close focus - part of my previous bitching - I would have been much happier with a 2.8/300 mm and a 2x TC. Much more useful than a 560 mm lens with exotic specs to show off.
A 560 mm lens requires a tripod not thought of by the current Pentax user community.

Sony announced their new full frame cameras, so if Pentax uses the same sensor it makes sense that they announce their camera after Sony within the next 6 months.

[garyk]

But isn't it better if they don't have to, and they can cover themselves with the rain jackets?

I have never seen a weather sealed super telephoto lens without a rain coat on in the rain. I have the sigma 500 in Pentax mount. It wears a rain coat all the time as do my Canon lenses that are weather sealed.

[Kunzite]

Well, double protection is better.

[garyk]

It is then sad of course (for Sony) that a recent magazine test (Colorfoto?) tested the Sony 500 far behind the Sigma 500 (in IQ). I have some reservations with their testing methodology (e.g., cross system comparisons), but the results have been too clear to be ignored. It would be sad if the Sony 500 would at the same time be the most expensive AND the worst performing 500 offer. Anyway, it made me curious enough to watch the topic ...

Do you have a link to that article?
Thnk's Gary

[froeschle]

Do you have a link to that article?

I have not found it online (ColorFoto), but here is the result:

Sony SAL 4/500 mm G SSM
Color Foto 05/2012 (05.04.2012): 66/100

For comparison:

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f4.0 G ED VR
Color Foto 10/2011: 57/100
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 4/500 mm I
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 4/500 mm II
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 4/500 mm III

FOTOTEST Objektiv-Test aus 03/2012

However, I do not know how reliable the tests of FOTOTEST are.



EDIT:
Here you can download the article of FOTOTEST (2,50 €).
Here are the corresponding diagrams (free).

[falconeye]

6 elements in 5 groups (+ rear filter, not 7+)
Let me remind you:
price

A very accurate estimation... right? I guess even Falk can be wrong, very wrong at times.

That's certainly true.

However, my formula describes the market at the time I originally published it. There is another notable exception now: the new Sony 500/4 lens.

It means that two recent additions (Sony 500/4 and now Pentax 560/5.6) ask for more than twice as much money as was normal at the time I originally published my formula.

And you are right and I was very wrong. I didn't anticipate this. But maybe, there is a new trend and buying reasonably-priced 500mm lenses would be a good investment?

Unfortunately, the Pentax 560/5.6 is no such lens.

At that price, weight, length, focussing distance, crop designation, a 100mm diameter and possibly only one ED element (the Sigma has two, the Pentax press prelease doesn't mention them, the name says ED and Pentax scopes typically have one ED element), the price cannot be called reasonable. It is as unreasonable as the one of the Sony 500/4.

I can only assume that both companies made the lenses for the sake of reputation and special projects only where price plays no role. So, there actually isn't a new trend.

In other words:

Pentax still has no lens longer than 300mm.

Do you have a link to that article?
Thnk's Gary

FOTOTEST Objektiv-Test aus 03/2012

However, I do not know how reliable the tests of FOTOTEST are.

EDIT:
Here you can download the article of FOTOTEST (2,50 €).
Here are the corresponding diagrams (free).

Thanks for looking it up and yes, it was on Fototest 3/12.

They do the tests using DxO software which should be ok. Assuming they cared about a proper focus which I am always in doubt about. Absolute resolution numbers across different bodies and sensor resolutions can't be compared of course (which they do anyway, shame on them). But some detail measurements (CA, decentering, difference of resolution between f/4 and f/8, between center and edges etc.) tell me that the Sony lens more likely performed worse, not better, than Sigma or Nikon. There may have been a lack of focus. But then, the Sony wouldn't have had an edge resolution which was better than at the center.

So, for the time being, my impression is this:

An unreasonable high price for a 500mm lens is likely an indication that the lens is an exotic project for the vendor with possibly poor performance, rather than an exceptional lens worth the extra money.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 09-12-2012 at 05:37 AM.

[froeschle]

[...] possibly only one ED element (the Sigma has two, the Pentax press prelease doesn't mention them, the name says ED and Pentax scopes typically have one ED element), the price cannot be called reasonable [...]

HD PENTAX-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW

[...] Also by incorporating two ED (extra-low dispersion) optical elements, it delivers bright, high-resolution images even at the edges, while effectively minimizing chromatic aberration. [...]

However, it is not mentioned/indicated where these ED elements are located:

[garyk]

Thanks, appreciated
Also I will be checking your site for the testing of the K-5 ll.
Enjoy your site by the way.
Gary

[Kunzite]

@falconeye:
Let's not say I was right, because I haven't done any calculations regarding the price as you did. Not long ago I would've guessed the price some $2000 under the actual price, by the way.

The HD DA 560mm has 2 ED elements; it's in the press release:
HD PENTAX-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW A super-telephoto lens assuring sharp, well-balanced rendition of distant subjects, designed for exclusive use with K-mount lens-interchangeable digital cameras | PENTAX RICOH IMAGING

IMO you're at least partially right, in saying this is a prestige product. How could it not be? An expensive long lens, the last one was launched decades ago. A clear signal Pentax mean business, with the K-mount system.
But, sorry, the "possibly poor performance" is entirely made up.

[SteveM]

The press release indicates

Since its unique telescope-type optics requires fewer optical elements than conventional lens optics, it assures sharp, well-defined images, particularly with distant subjects.

I suppose we'll have to wait for testing, but perhaps it will be OK. I am a little worried that this statement implies non-stellar performance for subjects that are not "distant subjects", meaning it's not a good lens to use for birding. (?)

[Na Horuk]

I wonder how many places will rent this lens out. Over where I live I'm not sure anyone rents out recent Pentax gear.

[falconeye]

HD PENTAX-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW

Thanks, strange they say it in their press releas but not the version given to DPR ...

IMO you're at least partially right, in saying this is a prestige product. How could it not be?

A 100mm scope design like the 560/5.6, esp. as it already existed within the Pentax arsenal (albeit discontinued) and sold for much less than a typical 500mm normally does, was a big chance for Pentax to offer the first (relatively) affordable top class 500 for under $3000.

This could have pulled quite some photographers like birders etc. back into the Pentax system.

So, it is an opportunity missed. Yes, it could have not been a prestige product.

[Kunzite]

What was the MSRP for the PF-100ED? Around that $3000 figure? Would it be OK, for a $3000 lens, to leave the 3 elements optical design basically untouched?
We agree, though, that a long "budget" solution is needed.

I suppose we'll have to wait for testing, but perhaps it will be OK. I am a little worried that this statement implies non-stellar performance for subjects that are not "distant subjects", meaning it's not a good lens to use for birding. (?)

Isn't long distance performance the most difficult to achieve? Maybe they're just saying the competition falls short there

[froeschle]

I suppose we'll have to wait for testing, but perhaps it will be OK. I am a little worried that this statement implies non-stellar performance for subjects that are not "distant subjects", meaning it's not a good lens to use for birding. (?)

The German press release is even worse:

[...] Aufgrund seiner einzigartigen Fernrohr-Bauweise erfordert es weniger optische Elemente als ein übliches Teleobjektiv. Es liefert dennoch extrem scharfe Aufnahmen, besonders von weit entfernten Motiven. [...]

-> In spite of its design it delivers extremely sharp images, especially of distant objects.