Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-11-2012, 12:47 PM   #166
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,075
May i stress that i find it very pretentious to state on lens' quality or performance, with only the number of glass they are made of ?

09-11-2012, 12:48 PM   #167
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by LPA Quote
By the time I got all the adaptors and other accessories I would need to use this as a terrestrial lens, the total street cost would approach $5,000. So what would another $2,000 get me if I bought the 560? I would get the ability to AF, meter, change aperture, and not have to add extension tubes for closer focus, plus have AW sealing for the lens. Are those worth another $2k? If the 560's IQ is comparable to my TV85, then it would make that lens much more usable to me for wildlife shooting and I would work at saving the money to buy one.
I appreciate your insights into pricing of telescopes here, but shouldn't it be less expensive for a manufacturer to redesign a telescope as a "terrestrial lens" (this is the first I've heard this term) than for one to buy a telescope and adapt it into such? Can they not leave out and save on superfluous components? Or are telescopes marketed in a modular way, so there no real superfluous components to speak of?
09-11-2012, 12:59 PM   #168
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 43
LPA,
Additionally, the Televue NP101 appears to be an apochromatic lens, which has every right to be costlier than one with two ED elements. Or am I merely confusing myself by trying to translate telescopic terms to my photographic vocabulary?
09-11-2012, 12:59 PM   #169
LPA
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7
QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
I appreciate your insights into pricing of telescopes here, but shouldn't it be less expensive for a manufacturer to redesign a telescope as a "terrestrial lens" (this is the first I've heard this term) than for one to buy a telescope and adapt it into such? Can they not leave out and save on superfluous components? Or are telescopes marketed in a modular way, so there no real superfluous components to speak of?
What would need to be added to an astronomical scope to make it a camera lens are the things I listed: AF, metering, change of aperture and wider focal range. The only thing on the scope that is more elaborate than needed for terrestrial use is the focuser. Nevertheless, the 10:1 fine focus knob on my TV85 is invaluable for focusing, so I wouldn't want that to go.

LPA

09-11-2012, 01:07 PM   #170
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
until we see some real world tests and reviews it's hard to say how out o lunch they are on price. certainly the 500 mm canon and nikon (and sony) are more expensive and shorter, but also faster. in relation to those and even the sigma i think they may be off buy at least a grand to 1500 on what the market will value it at.
the really dumb one though is the rebranded tamron at $800. that's just a silly damn price.though i guess if you compare with the nikon 18-300 at 999 it seems ok. Nikon adds VR but then again they have to

EDIT: and why is this not at least the most basic level of WR which is the best selling point for the lineup
09-11-2012, 01:15 PM   #171
Veteran Member
froeschle's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 552
QuoteQuote:
The lens cost what you should expect a 560/5.6 with two ED elements and seven elements in six groups to cost.
It is 6 elements in 5 groups - only if you add the inserted rear filter you will result in 7 elements in 6 groups.
QuoteQuote:
A similar Nikon or Canon won't cost less. It gives exactly as much value for money as you should expect
Nikon or Canon maybe could sell such an overpriced lens due to reputation. Value is below 3k€ imho. The number of elements certainly should be reflected in the final price. There is a lot of free space in this (cheapo) design.
09-11-2012, 01:58 PM   #172
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area)
Posts: 1,491
QuoteOriginally posted by froeschle Quote
There is a lot of free space in this (cheapo) design.
It's not free space. It's full of pixie dust, which is very expensive -- there's enough in there for eight or ten Limiteds.
09-11-2012, 03:25 PM   #173
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,298
QuoteOriginally posted by LamyTax Quote
Now, try a telescope at close range...
"Fat Max at 17 feet".
Hardest part is focusing with very thin DOF. This was taken with 900mm f7.5 APO, 2 elements (one FPL-53 ED glass) in 1 group. Used to retail for $2k couple years ago. Now you can pick it up for around 1600 dollars.
The Pentax $7k is beyond my budget but most likely in the ball-park. Pentax never made cheap telescopes, they were top notch and running with Takahashi and rest of the best, to best of my knowledge.


Last edited by Ex Finn.; 11-11-2014 at 05:47 PM.
09-11-2012, 03:54 PM   #174
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,968
QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
First, I stated that simpler lens designs (meaning those with fewer element or less exotic materials) should be less expensive. You then disagreed with me, and stated that designs with many elements are more expensive. That's what I quoted.
You are not telling the truth ! in fact i don't even know if you read what you wrote !

You said simpler lens design should cost less,

I said, that is not necessarly the case.

By the way let me do this remark : if i had said what you say i said which is "complex lens design cost more", it would have mean i had agree with you when you said "simpler cost less" wich is the reciprocity of what you say i would supposedly had said (Cheaper / simpler = expensive / complex).

(ffs, it's hard to make a conditional sentence in english !)


QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
I was hoping that Pentax had imagined that a telescope conversion would allow them to price themselves under the rest of the super-tele market with a lens that has a few compromises that distinguish it from the so-called pro-grade, but also a sizable market in place who is willing to put up with some idiosyncracies in the name of saving thousands of dollars. Instead, the compromises are all in place, yet they want to compete with the tools that --on paper-- beat the Pentax in every category save reach? Even if this lens is optically remarkable, finding its niche will be a major struggle.
For that point, i agree. it's a strange choice.
09-11-2012, 03:59 PM   #175
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Zygonyx Quote
May i stress that i find it very pretentious to state on lens' quality or performance, with only the number of glass they are made of ?
Actually, it's a pretty good indication, not pretentious at all.
09-11-2012, 04:03 PM   #176
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,298
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
it's a strange choice.
Indeed. I personally would have found a xx*100-400 f4 very interesting.
09-11-2012, 04:10 PM   #177
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by Ex Finn. Quote
Indeed. I personally would have found a xx*100-400 f4 very interesting.
There is a DA 120-380 on the roadmap for 2013. Probably not F:4 though....
09-11-2012, 04:15 PM   #178
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,968
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
There is a DA 120-380 on the roadmap for 2013. Probably not F:4 though....
which roadmap ? i haven't heard of anything like this lens ?!
09-11-2012, 04:18 PM   #179
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,298
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
There is a DA 120-380 on the roadmap for 2013. Probably not F:4 though....
Fantastic, now the only problem is, how to tell my youngest daughter she will have to wait for her braces.
09-11-2012, 04:26 PM   #180
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
which roadmap ? i haven't heard of anything like this lens ?!
The roadmap for 2013. "DA Tele zoom" it says ~120-380. A DA 1.4X converter will also come. I'm very interested in this lens...
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!
da, lens, pentax, pentax da, pentax news, pentax rumors, photokina
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Pentax DA 560/5.6 will indeed be collapsible...I think... Pål Jensen Pentax News and Rumors 28 09-06-2012 11:48 AM
Pentax K-5 + YN 560 II X-Sync striker_ Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 2 08-03-2012 11:47 AM
Pentax 540 and Yongnuo 560 - if they flash together? pich Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 3 10-29-2011 04:49 AM
yn-560 flash +pentax k-5 Purusam Pentax K-5 2 03-12-2011 05:02 PM
Pentax Expected at Las Vegas CES January 6-9 2011 bobell69 Pentax News and Rumors 26 01-12-2011 02:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:53 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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