Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-04-2013, 05:58 AM   #181
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
QuoteOriginally posted by PePe Quote
One would expect a prime lens at this price to outperform a zoom. At least in terms of image quality.
"This lens actually shoots on par with FA*600/4 perhaps sharper from f8 to f16." - User review of the FA* 250-600.

That ain't no ordinary zoom.

03-04-2013, 06:45 AM   #182
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
That ain't no ordinary zoom.
So the only advantage of the 560 is that it's lighter? (And presumably the FA* 250-600 would cost at least $10000 if they were to resume production?)
03-04-2013, 07:08 AM   #183
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
So the only advantage of the 560 is that it's lighter? (And presumably the FA* 250-600 would cost at least $10000 if they were to resume production?)
Well, without Adam's full review, I couldn't really say. If I were to hazard a guess, I would think that the advantages are the WR, the silent focus motor, the possibility that it is optimized for distant objects or celestial objects (as a telescope design?), and the weight.

Disadvantages so far appear to be IQ on a chart, minimum focus distance, prime vs a zoom except this time zoom is kinda useful, etc. The FA*250-600 has been praised by users to be sharper than the Sigma 500 F4.5, so that might give us an idea of how the DA560 fares against that lens.

As for price, I actually don't even know the original price of the FA*250-600. I do know that I sorta lust for it though.
03-04-2013, 07:39 AM   #184
Loyal Site Supporter
RockvilleBob's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Lewes DE USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,698
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
Well, without Adam's full review, I couldn't really say. If I were to hazard a guess, I would think that the advantages are the WR, the silent focus motor, the possibility that it is optimized for distant objects or celestial objects (as a telescope design?), and the weight.

Disadvantages so far appear to be IQ on a chart, minimum focus distance, prime vs a zoom except this time zoom is kinda useful, etc. The FA*250-600 has been praised by users to be sharper than the Sigma 500 F4.5, so that might give us an idea of how the DA560 fares against that lens.

As for price, I actually don't even know the original price of the FA*250-600. I do know that I sorta lust for it though.
Just to satisfy my curiosity - How does one buy a FA*250-600 - They must be both a) very few around and b)those who own one never sell them. So for me it is between the Pentax 560 and Sigma 500 - The 560 would need to blow the Sigma out of the water to warrant a 40% price differential.

03-04-2013, 07:44 AM   #185
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
QuoteOriginally posted by RockvilleBob Quote
Just to satisfy my curiosity - How does one buy a FA*250-600 - They must be both a) very few around and b)those who own one never sell them. So for me it is between the Pentax 560 and Sigma 500 - The 560 would need to blow the Sigma out of the water to warrant a 40% price differential.
We desperately wait for one to pop up on the market. I think there was one recently in the last few months.

I personally think Pentax needs to provide a rebate on this lens to put it in the sub-6k range. At that price, the WR, weight, and brand name should make it equal or better than the Sigma. 6lb vs 3lb is a big deal to a lot of people.
03-04-2013, 09:01 AM   #186
Pentaxian
Greyser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,096
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
At that price, the WR, weight, and brand name should make it equal or better than the Sigma. 6lb vs 3lb is a big deal to a lot of people.
What 6lb vs. 3lb are you talking about?
  • FA*600/4: 6.83kg (15.06lb)
  • FA*250-600/5.6: 5.4kg (11.90lb)
  • Sigma 500/4.5: 3.1kg (6.83lb)
  • DA 560/5.6: 3.04kg (6.7lb)
03-04-2013, 09:05 AM   #187
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Greyser Quote
What 6lb vs. 3lb are you talking about?
  • FA*600/4: 6.83kg (15.06lb)
  • FA*250-600/5.6: 5.4kg (11.90lb)
  • Sigma 500/4.5: 3.1kg (6.83lb)
  • DA 560/5.6: 3.04kg (6.7lb)
I must have misread then, I thought the DA560 is 3lb. If it's 6lb vs 6lb, then it's not something to consider.
03-04-2013, 01:56 PM   #188
Pentaxian
Greyser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,096
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
I must have misread then, I thought the DA560 is 3lb. If it's 6lb vs 6lb, then it's not something to consider.
There is something to consider: not the weight, but length. I shoot 500/4.5 exclusively hand-held. And despite 6.8lb weight I'm OK with it, and IQ is fine to me. Due to much longer length I'm not sure how convenient the 560/5.6 is for hand-held shooting. If not, to me it would be a deal breaker.

03-04-2013, 02:22 PM   #189
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 804
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
"This lens actually shoots on par with FA*600/4 perhaps sharper from f8 to f16." - User review of the FA* 250-600.

That ain't no ordinary zoom.
Honestly from f11 to F16 every high-end lens are comparable cause diffraction is the limiting factor
03-04-2013, 04:17 PM   #190
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,147
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
For tracking, the number of AF points is crucial. It allows the algorithm to predict a switch of AF point and to keep focussing the same feature. Which means, the measured distance doesn't jump as much and allows to predict distance too. Combined, it allows to focus on moving subjects. .
This only apply if you let the subject move through the frame. Unfortunately, hardly anyone shoot this way as most pan action in order to keep the composition constant. This is why most pros that shoot action choose one point that fit the prefered composition.
03-04-2013, 04:21 PM   #191
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,147

I hope you have used manual focus for this test; if not you only test the AF accuracy for the lenses at that test setting with a particular camera body.
Also you have to shoot at the same focal lenght as possible vibrations might affect the lens wth longest focal lenght most severely. This kind of lenses are very prone to image degradation due to vibrations.
03-05-2013, 12:10 AM   #192
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Corfu, Greece
Photos: Albums
Posts: 92
Thanks Adam!
It looks better than i thought (feared) actually: chromatic aberration seems quite well controlled, even at f/5.6, but maybe at the expense of detail. f/8 looks optimal, the nicest of the 4 pics. More experienced birders, please correct me if i'm wrong, but there is little need to use this lens wide open unless the ISOs start to climb up past 800ish. This saturday was a little hazy, but I was still shooting my Siggy 5.6/400mm at f/7.1, 1/1000 and iso 200. With less than perfect light conditions, fine detail is lost to high isos anyway, so there is little cost if any opening up to 5.6. Of course on an f/4 lens which is tack sharp at f/5.6, you gain a stop of light, and it's easier on the AF system...
I'm looking forward to your review Adam!
03-05-2013, 01:36 AM   #193
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by miles Quote
Thanks Adam!
It looks better than i thought (feared) actually: chromatic aberration seems quite well controlled, even at f/5.6, but maybe at the expense of detail. f/8 looks optimal, the nicest of the 4 pics. More experienced birders, please correct me if i'm wrong, but there is little need to use this lens wide open unless the ISOs start to climb up past 800ish. This saturday was a little hazy, but I was still shooting my Siggy 5.6/400mm at f/7.1, 1/1000 and iso 200. With less than perfect light conditions, fine detail is lost to high isos anyway, so there is little cost if any opening up to 5.6. Of course on an f/4 lens which is tack sharp at f/5.6, you gain a stop of light, and it's easier on the AF system...
I'm looking forward to your review Adam!
You can never have too much aperture. I shoot with a 500/4 and I would hate to have to stop down just to gain sharpness; a lot of them time I find myself at ISO 800-1600 to maintain a passable shutter speed for birds in flight (unless I have a lot of light, which is often not the case). If I was forced to stop down to 5.6 I would be at 1600-3200 which would make a significant impact on the final output...

IMO a supertele should be tack sharp wide open; if stopping down gains you significant improvement in sharpness something is wrong.
03-05-2013, 02:33 AM   #194
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 816
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
We desperately wait for one to pop up on the market.
If you want it desperately, there is one on sale in Italy. 6000 euros like new. Pentaxiani • Leggi argomento - (VA+sp) Pentax F* 250-600 + tutti gli A* e FA*
03-05-2013, 02:36 AM   #195
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 816
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
You can never have too much aperture. I shoot with a 500/4 and I would hate to have to stop down just to gain sharpness; a lot of them time I find myself at ISO 800-1600 to maintain a passable shutter speed for birds in flight (unless I have a lot of light, which is often not the case). If I was forced to stop down to 5.6 I would be at 1600-3200 which would make a significant impact on the final output...

IMO a supertele should be tack sharp wide open; if stopping down gains you significant improvement in sharpness something is wrong.
If you shoot large birds like cranes and herons OK, but if you shoot lilttle passerines you need to stop down at least to F/8 to have eyes and shoulders included in the dof. Sometimes shallow depth of field is worse on the output than high ISO. IMO.
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!
560mm, lens, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-30 Manual Available now baka654 Pentax K-30 & K-50 28 01-12-2013 05:25 AM
News World Pentax Day Book Now Available! Adam Site Suggestions and Help 7 07-04-2012 07:39 AM
Nikon D800 images now available einstrigger Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 33 02-07-2012 12:52 AM
The new Topaz Lens Effects now available. Joyen Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 12 12-16-2011 07:37 PM
Samyang 35mm f1.4 now Available Damian Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 228 12-09-2011 03:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 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