[ElJamoquio]

Pentax announces 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 ED SDM and HD 560mm F5.6 ED AW: Digital Photography Review It is full frame lens...

I don't see anything saying it's a full frame lens? The best indication in your linked article is that it says the focus mode is manual on film cameras...

[Pål Jensen]

All else being the same (same number of elements, etc), the Nikon lens uses twice the glass.

Of course the Nikon lens has twice as many elements, too.

That is the IS moving and correcting elements. They don't cost much. Max $100 and then I'm being very generous.
A Nikon or Canon 560/5.6 lens would have costed the same kind of money as the Pentax so I don't understand what the whining is for.

[ElJamoquio]

That is the IS moving and correcting elements. They don't cost much. Max $100 and then I'm being very generous.
A Nikon or Canon 560/5.6 lens would have costed the same kind of money as the Pentax so I don't understand what the whining is for.

The Nikon 500/4 has three lenses of 'full' diameter, the Pentax has two.

Each Nikon lens has twice the amount of glass, all things the same, of course they don't need to be.

The Nikon should easily be twice the price of the Pentax.

[froeschle]

The Nikon should easily be twice the price of the Pentax.

+1

Front lens of the FA* 300/2.8
So, I would roughly estimate the costs for glass in the 560/5.6 at about 1.5k€.

[fredok1]

Yep
Excitement will shift to the 1.4 TC next year

Pete

So where is the 1.4 TC this year? It was announced last February along with the 560mm lens. I'd like to be able to use one with my DA* 60-250mm zoom. Oh well. I'll just keep on using my Nikon VR 200-400mm f4 zoom that autofocuses with my Nikon 1.4 TC.

[LamyTax]

That is the IS moving and correcting elements. They don't cost much. Max $100 and then I'm being very generous.
A Nikon or Canon 560/5.6 lens would have costed the same kind of money as the Pentax so I don't understand what the whining is for.

Those lens designs don't suck at close range, though. The Pentax might be stellar at long distance, but you can get telescopes which do a better job at that for less. Now, try a telescope at close range...

[Kunzite]

How do you know how well the HD DA 560mm is performing? Have you tested one?

[LamyTax]

How do you know how well the HD DA 560mm is performing? Have you tested one?

I know how telescope designs suck at close range. They're designed for long range to infinity, obviously. Now read the design specs closely. Note: the IQ won't get better with extension, so have fun cropping.

[Timothy]

you are quoting only what arrange you, don't you ?

why don't you take in consideration the 3kg of glass that represente at least $3,000 just in raw materials ?

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. And what put my face squarely in my palm. Yes, I quoted only those parts of the post that were pertinent. I don't think that's sneaky or underhanded in any way.

As far as the weight of glass:

The Nikon 500mm weighs about the same, but with twice as many elements. From that, the glass weight seems to be a small portion of the weight of a lens. You are correct that the glass needs to be polished from raw, but so it does for other manufacturers--this does not change the fact that the amount and size of glass in the 560 represent terrible value compared to Nikon or Canon's offerings. But the main reason I cannot believe your theory is that I wonder how Pentax can market a similar optic and call it a telescope, for a fraction of the price. I will allow some room for variation in the name of tighter tolerances, or anything along those lines, but that is egregious.

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.

Or maybe Pentax was thinking "the Nikon and Canon are just 500mm lenses. Since we still don't have a full-frame digital, ours is an 890mm! F5.6 is quite fast and $7000 is very affordable for an 890mm!"

I kid. (Sort of.)

[Pål Jensen]

The Nikon 500mm weighs about the same, but with twice as many elements. From that, the glass weight seems to be a small portion of the weight of a lens. You are correct that the glass needs to be polished from raw, but so it does for other manufacturers--this does not change the fact that the amount and size of glass in the 560 represent terrible value compared to Nikon or Canon's offerings.

No it doesn't. The lens cost what you should expect a 560/5.6 with two ED elements and seven elements in six groups to cost. A similar Nikon or Canon won't cost less. It gives exactly as much value for money as you should expect; no camera manufacturers makes them cheaper. And if you think you can calculate the cost of a lens from the number of elements....well....

[LPA]

Those lens designs don't suck at close range, though. The Pentax might be stellar at long distance, but you can get telescopes which do a better job at that for less. Now, try a telescope at close range...

I have and I do. Here is a link to an animation I created from 15 frames I shot of a hummingbird at 50 ft using my Televue 85 scope, a 0.8x field-flattener/focal reducer, my 1.7AFA and my K5 (= 816mm f/9.52), cropped to 2200x1760 and then reduced to 1024x819 (640x512 as posted) for the animation:
http://remotesensingart.com/Hummers2012/HummerDance.gif
and here is a link to an animation of the moon's libration I shot over 18 nights using the same gear, cropped to 2000x2000 and then reduced to 900x900 for the animation:
http://remotesensingart.com/Pentax10/Moon05_22b.gif

I'll make a different comparison here. I love my TV85, but Televue's NP101is is a better scope to compare with the 560. It is a 540mm f/5.4 Petzval design with a doublet objective and a doublet corrector lens, 4 elements in 2 groups. It has a little better resolution and IQ than my TV85 which already is outstanding. 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.

One other note: all 14 elements in that 500 f/4 absorb some light and all those surfaces scatter a little even with the best coatings.

LPA

[Kunzite]

I know how telescope designs suck at close range. They're designed for long range to infinity, obviously. Now read the design specs closely. Note: the IQ won't get better with extension, so have fun cropping.

So you don't know. Yet you were talking about lenses that "suck at close range" and how "you can get telescopes which do a better job at that (long distances) for less". In the last part, you seems to be blaming the lens for not having at least double the focal length...

[LamyTax]

So you don't know. Yet you were talking about lenses that "suck at close range" and how "you can get telescopes which do a better job at that (long distances) for less". In the last part, you seems to be blaming the lens for not having at least double the focal length...

Did you come across a figure of 5.6m resulting in (1:0.1)?

[Kunzite]

And your point is...?

[Timothy]

...If you think you can calculate the cost of a lens from the number of elements....well....

No, in fact I don't. I was responding to someone who said I should.

I can't speak to what this lens needs to cost in order for Pentax to break even. I can speak to features I feel this lens needs in order to be priced so close to the Nikon 500mm--the topic of value, or, if you prefer, perceived value. If I friend or family member ever told me they were considering the 560 I would seriously sit them down and try to convince them otherwise. It's possible that reviews come out and say it's the absolute best lens in the world for something* but that's not going to compete with the Canon or Nikon's specifications, despite the fact that it's priced in the competitive range. Not to mention the fact that, priced in the thousands, it's a system switcher of a lens--you wont get many people thinking that they'd prefer the Nikon 500mm, but they'll get the 560 instead so they can stick with Pentax for the Limiteds. Maybe you're right that this lens costs just what a 560mm f5.6 should cost, but that just means that it would have made more sense to market a 500mm f4.0 instead.

*Astro-photography? Unlikely--to use a telescope would be quite a bit cheaper and one would have more selection. Sports? Small maximum aperture means it's probably too slow to focus, even if light gathering isn't a factor, which it is. Wildlife? Same general problems as sports. Maybe it's the sharpest super-tele in its focal length range? Possible, but if that was really much of a factor you'd be more likely to see people with macro 50s as their walk-around lenses as opposed to fast 50s.