[TenZ.NL]

No cashbacks please, Ron...that will only double the price!

[RonHendriks1966]

Just thinking about this lens. Could there be more different lenses, all in one design?

- Just a normal K-mount telelens
- same lens, but with build in astro tracking device.
- Same lens, but with 645-mount for 645D (1.3 crop)

Just to make it good for more buyers. Or is this all to expensive?

[thibs]

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.

That's where you don't get it... Until announced/tested, what compromise are you talking about ?

[Timothy]

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

I totally agree with this statement.

(Though, as a side note: when I first bought into Pentax, part of the reason was that they were so much cheaper than the majors. Sort of a OEM for third-party prices. Sigh. Those were the days.)

But.

The Pentax 560mm is not the same lens as the Sigma 500mm.

[Timothy]

That's where you don't get it... Until announced/tested, what compromise are you talking about ?

It seems to be long and skinny--in other words, poorly balanced, due in part to:

It seems to be lacking in many expensive optical technologies

It is slow

These statements are not saying it should be a bad lens, these statements are saying it should be a less expensive lens than the Sigma 500mm.

[Kunzite]

Mm? Since when a Pentax lens need to be cheaper than a comparable 3rd party maker lens ?

Since they need to sell it?

If Pentax can't sell lenses to their customers, unless they're launched below the street price for an old 3rd-party Sigma lens, they can stop their business and go home.
Or, better, find other customers.

Timothy, I don't buy into that "based on old telescope designs, so it's optically average and cheap" thing. But let's wait and see the actual press release and price; maybe you'll have a surprise (I can't imagine what will happen on this forum if the lens will actually be very good, and pricey ).

Which "expensive optical technologies" are lacking, and how on Earth could you find out, from that one picture? And what extraterrestrial technologies is that Sigma using, because I'm only seeing 2 ED elements and a more complex design, due to it being a telephoto...

L.E. On the other thread it appears the 560mm will also employ 2 ED glass elements (and somehow I believe it's true ) - so it's all down to extraterrestrial technologies. Maybe a flux capacitor?

[TenZ.NL]

If Pentax can't sell lenses to their customers, unless they're launched below the street price for an old 3rd-party Sigma lens, they can stop their business and go home.
Or, better, find other customers.

You`re not getting my point: the sigma is the only rival in this class for pentax, actually there is nothing else until the release of the 560. So if you release a lens that is slower and more simpler in design and has to compete with a very good and lonely at the top rival you have to be competitive in your pricing. Why would anyone buy the 560 when it`s slower, less complicated (telescopic design, remember?) and more expensive than the sigma? Just because it is a Pentax? Why are people then raving about the MADpricing?

But I guess that`s just my pov...

[Timothy]

...I don't buy into that "based on old telescope designs, so it's optically average and cheap" thing...

For the last time, I never said it was not going to be a good lens. Stop imagining me writing what you want me to write.

As for technology, I believe it was the official statement from when the mockup was shown at CP+ that said the telescope-style design lends itself to less demanding optical technology.

[thibs]

Not enough time to dig more but as an example: Tele | Objectieven | Foto Konijnenberg

The Canon 800/5.6 is same price as 600/4.
Let's extrapolate based on this 'not representative but interesting' sample:
500/4 and 600/5.6 should be about the same price. Well the Pentax is not a 600 though but a 560. Alright.
But the Sigma is a 3rd party lens and hence, cheaper.

As for design, frankly, who cares? What should have an influence is practical use:
If the lens is long and cubersome to use, it should be cheaper than a not cumbersome to use lens (not cheaper than any 3rd party maker lens). That, is clear.
AF speed should be taken into account as well IMO.
The rest is BS. (unless I forgot something LOL)

[Kunzite]

Timothy:
OK, you haven't said it but others did long before our discussion (deciding it will have poor corner performance but it will be good on the center, or something like that). The official statement was talking about high optical performance due to their experience in astronomy optics, and IMHO "high" doesn't bode well with "inexpensive" (not even with "third-party like prices")
Your point is that's a "less demanding optical technology" - but you failed to explain what that means. Less elements for the same or even higher quality than a telephoto is achievable for a long lens; it's 7 elements in 6 groups vs. 11 elements in 8 groups. Is that "less demanding"? Or maybe you're talking about special glass, in which case it seems you're dead wrong: 2 ED elements each.
By the way, can you name a cheap Pentax (non-reflex) long lens?

TenZ.NL, yes, just because it's Pentax and just because it will be THAT good

thibs, you forgot the launch price vs. street price after N years issue

P.S. I'm not trying to be nasty, just to prepare you for the moment the price will be known.

[Timothy]

Timothy:
...The official statement was talking about high optical performance due to their experience in astronomy optics, and IMHO "high" doesn't bode well with "inexpensive"

I took the official statement to mean 'our experience with astronomy optics leads to a high quality if awkwardly bulky lens, despite the price'. I, of course, realize that something else could or possibly should be gleaned from the statement, but that's what I took.

By the way, can you name a cheap Pentax (non-reflex) long lens?

If you go back to my initial post you'll notice that the only reason I'm interested in this development is the possibility that this lens is actually something new.

P.S. I'm not trying to be nasty, just to prepare you for the moment the price will be known.

I appreciate your concern, but my heart will not be broken if the two ED elements, amongst other things, lead to a price of $6000. I will read the reviews and proceed to never care about it again. But I will still feel that it was a missed opportunity for Pentax to market a simplified, budget optic in the form of an AF modified telescope for well under the price of competing extra-long teles.

[Kunzite]

I took the official statement to mean 'our experience with astronomy optics leads to a high quality if awkwardly bulky lens, despite the price'. I, of course, realize that something else could or possibly should be gleaned from the statement, but that's what I took.

Which is perfectly reasonable, supported by the prototype shown at CP+ and (almost) confirmed now. Except the price, IMHO, but we'll see it in few hours (?).

In your initial post you're talking about the possibility of it being cheap and made lots of assumptions starting from that. But won't the image quality have to suffer, in order to reduce the price for such a low volume item? Then, wouldn't that market be better served by the Sigma zooms?
This lens could (should?) also be a message, a prestige product; their first truly exotic lens in decades. For this, it better be good.

[Medium FormatPro]

The Pentax 560mm is not the same lens as the Sigma 500mm

I'll take the aperature of the Sigma 300 f2.8 any day of the week. Even after cropping it is a difficult lens to match

[TenZ.NL]

TenZ.NL, yes, just because it's Pentax and just because it will be THAT good

Well, if it`s that`s good I might consider it...but then again, it`s not designated as a DA*
Time will tell...

[Timothy]

Which is perfectly reasonable, supported by the prototype shown at CP+ and (almost) confirmed now. Except the price, IMHO, but we'll see it in few hours (?).

In your initial post you're talking about the possibility of it being cheap and made lots of assumptions starting from that. But won't the image quality have to suffer, in order to reduce the price for such a low volume item? Then, wouldn't that market be better served by the Sigma zooms?
This lens could (should?) also be a message, a prestige product; their first truly exotic lens in decades. For this, it better be good.

My hypothesis is that the most revolutionary thing about this lens will be the price. As far as quality suffering because of that, I don't know enough about astro optics to speak to it, but the murmurs are maybe starting to suggest that there have been some concessions on the close-focusing side (if it's quality, or just an unremarkable close-focusing distance...well, we're near enough to the announcement that I don't care to speculate). At least that's how I read 'particularly good at long focusing distances', or however it was worded.

Though generally simpler lenses, if you can get away with them, are better lenses (look at enlarging optics).