Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-10-2012, 03:17 AM   #61
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,581
QuoteOriginally posted by french_mike Quote
the pics on the Facebook page are gone !
The pics are still on FB's servers, only the gallery page has been pulled.

09-10-2012, 03:31 AM   #62
Veteran Member
TenZ.NL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Below sealevel
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,100
QuoteOriginally posted by siva.ss.kumar Quote
If this is collapsible, it would make adding camouflage lens covers/coats tricky
You don't want to be seen pointing this shiny long white stuff on a herd of elephants. There is a legend in Indian forests that elephants don't like whites
Oh well, I guess some sort of camouflaged cloth/sack will also work. I think I have some usefull ideas
09-10-2012, 03:32 AM   #63
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,248
I think only the hood is collapsible... which I imagine is acceptable.
09-10-2012, 04:45 AM   #64
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
I think the red ring on this lens is a poor attempt to mimick the red ring on Canon's L-series lenses. Like we care

09-10-2012, 09:39 AM   #65
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,906
QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
has a less advanced optical design, and is significantly slower than a comparably priced third party option
So far you are making the assumption that

- because it's a telescope lens design it will be not as good as complexe optical design
- it will be more expensive than competitor
- it will be slower than competitor.

And all this are merely false assumption

Good telescope lens are very good opticaly, if not better than "usual" lens design sometimes.

The main difference is that telescope don't need to be very "transportable" : you deploy it on a place, and you don't move it again until you decide to go home.
The opposite is that telephoto lens are suppose to be easily movable.

QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
-lacking or limiting exotic elements...
Those exotics elements are usualy made to keep the lens quite mobile and good opticaly. Telescopes don't need those as much as telephoto because they don't need to be light.


Pentax here, decided to build a lens that will be collapsible to reduce the space it takes during transportation.
Thus, making it f5.6 to keep it light, and somehow cheap.

Fact is when the sky is bright but with cloud, there is usualy enought light to use a a f5.6 or f8 lens with 1/500.

Pentax already produce a telescope that is a 560mm f5.6 so i guess they adapted the formula with some tweaks to fit it to DSLR.

Annoncement is not far so time will tell.
09-10-2012, 10:14 AM   #66
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
So far you are making the assumption that

- because it's a telescope lens design it will be not as good as complexe optical design
No, I am assuming that simpler optical designs should be sold for less.
QuoteQuote:
- it will be more expensive than competitor
It was suggested earlier in the thread that this lens will cost more than the Sigma 500mm f4.5. The thesis of my entire post was that it must be less expensive than that lens.
QuoteQuote:
- it will be slower than competitor.
Perhaps you took 'lens speed' to refer to autofocus speed. In this case I was using speed to refer to lens aperture, which is on the record for the Pentax as a super leasurely f5.6. Sorry for the confusion.
09-10-2012, 10:16 AM   #67
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,420
And the (edited) Award of the Year (section Lenses) goes to...
QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
I have very little interest in long lenses, let alone exotically long lenses so I've been following the rumours surrounding the 560 in the name of lazy curiosity, largely since it's nice to see a camera or lens maker do something new. But I was under the impression that the 560 is:

-very awkwardly shaped, and one would imagine balanced...
-lacking or limiting exotic elements...
-as fast as a garbage truck...

...all in the name of being cheap.

Though I acknowledge that there has been some frankly insane pricing decisions committed by Pentax in the last little while, it benefits them to have the cheapest extra-long option for novice birders, astrophotographers, and sports-shooters (or merely those on a budget). It does not benefit Pentax at all to have a single extreme telephoto option which is harder to transport, has a less advanced optical design, and is significantly slower than a comparably priced third party option (which is incidentally available in the other mounts as well). As I mentioned above, I don't follow the prices of long glass very closely, but I really do feel that for this lens to make any impact it needs to be under US $2000. In other words, at $4000 I yawn and read some reviews, at $1600 I start telling myself that I should really be taking more bird pictures. That's one market. The other is people who already knew they wanted to take bird pictures, and at $1600 they have some incentive to switch systems.

Also, with regard to the trade off between the focal length and aperture, I cannot imagine a possible world where 60mm of reach would cost as much in dollars as two thirds of a stop of light gathering. But if it were, Sigma has a 500mm f6.3 for around $1000 (and it comes with your choice of a free 150mm f5.0 or, for a few hundred more a 50mm f4.5).

Now I never said anything about mediocre, but it has to be cheap because, if not, well what the the hell is it? And who the hell is it for?
No, really, you managed a quite impressive amount of wrong assumptions. Including the comparison with some lowly Sigma zooms

Last edited by Blue; 09-10-2012 at 02:05 PM.
09-10-2012, 10:33 AM   #68
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
It was suggested earlier in the thread that this lens will cost more than the Sigma 500mm f4.5. The thesis of my entire post was that it must be less expensive than that lens.
Mm? Since when a Pentax lens need to be cheaper than a comparable 3rd party maker lens ?

09-10-2012, 10:39 AM   #69
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,779
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
(...)

Good telescope lens are very good opticaly, if not better than "usual" lens design sometimes.

The main difference is that telescope don't need to be very "transportable" : you deploy it on a place, and you don't move it again until you decide to go home.
The opposite is that telephoto lens are suppose to be easily movable.

(...)
Indeed. Another difference is that telescopes are not supposed to be focussed on 10-20m distance and aren't optimized for such distances. Camera lenses, on the other hand, shall deliver high quality pictures through a very large range of distance, from closest focus to infinity. Hence more complex formulae.
09-10-2012, 10:39 AM   #70
Senior Member
french_mike's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ireland and France
Posts: 167
its a f5.6 not f4.5, if it is more expensif, well ... forget about !


and what about its motor ? DC, SDM , or something new ?
09-10-2012, 10:41 AM   #71
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,779
QuoteOriginally posted by french_mike Quote
(...)


and what about its motor ? DC, SDM , or something new ?
No motor but the one in the body?
09-10-2012, 10:48 AM   #72
Veteran Member
TenZ.NL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Below sealevel
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,100
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Mm? Since when a Pentax lens need to be cheaper than a comparable 3rd party maker lens ?
Since they need to sell it? What good is it to design and release a lens only 60mm longer but 0.7 EV slower than the only (and very good) rival in it`s class?

In this case Pentax is the competitor, not Sigma. The sigma has proven itself, the pentax is stil a great mystery.
Personnally I take the sigma over the Pentax if they are in the same pricerange (at this stage).
09-10-2012, 10:55 AM   #73
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by TenZ.NL Quote
The sigma has proven itself, the pentax is stil a great mystery.
Personnally I take the sigma over the Pentax if they are in the same pricerange (at this stage).
I absolutely agree. I may indeed make the same choice. But it doesn't mean the Pentax has to be cheaper.
BTW, the Pentax is a longer FL. What's the usual difference between a 400/5.6 and a 500/5.6 ?
There's 2/3 of that difference between the Sigma and the Pentax.

3rd party makers ARE cheaper, that's THE reason why they live (of course not the only one, but the primary one).

Note that I don't think Pentax should price it at 5000 either. That's not what I mean, at all.
09-10-2012, 11:06 AM   #74
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Still expecting 1.999 euro's! Or at least down to that with an upcoming cashback.
09-10-2012, 11:16 AM   #75
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
And the Troll Award of the Year (section Lenses) goes to...

No, really, you managed a quite impressive amount of wrong assumptions. Including the comparison with some lowly Sigma zooms.
Cute. And thanks for that.

Understand that I was not trying to compare the Sigma 150-500mm optically, but based on price. If looking at price only I stand by that as a valid comparison. Otherwise, illustrate my impressive list of wrong assumptions or hold your piece.

QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Mm? Since when a Pentax lens need to be cheaper than a comparable 3rd party maker lens ?
You could reread my initial post. Indeed that very question was what my initial post was about. I'll even link to it: here (though I take no responsibility for how it goes down; your puke-moticon has me worried for your well-being). But, to again answer your question: since Pentax developed a lens with a laundry list of compromises--and here is my one assumption, folks--so that the lens could be cheaper.
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 12:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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