560mm now available.

JinDesu · 03-04-2013, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by PePe

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.

gazonk · 03-04-2013, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

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?)

JinDesu · 03-04-2013, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

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.

RockvilleBob · 03-04-2013, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

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.

JinDesu · 03-04-2013, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by RockvilleBob

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.

Greyser · 03-04-2013, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

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)

JinDesu · 03-04-2013, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Greyser

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.

Greyser · 03-04-2013, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

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.

goubejp · 03-04-2013, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

"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

**Pål Jensen** · 03-04-2013, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

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.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-04-2013, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Adam

No birds for you yet, but feel free to pixel peep these test charts (center):

F5.6 / 8 / 11 (center)
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F056_130226_22s_w.tif
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F080_130226_23s_w.tif
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F110_130226_24s_w.tif

F* 250-600mm at F5.6, for comparison, center:
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/F520-A-ctr-F056_130226_80s_w.tif

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.

miles · 03-05-2013, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Adam

No birds for you yet, but feel free to pixel peep these test charts (center):

F5.6 / 8 / 11 (center)
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F056_130226_22s_w.tif
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F080_130226_23s_w.tif
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F110_130226_24s_w.tif

F* 250-600mm at F5.6, for comparison, center:
https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/F520-A-ctr-F056_130226_80s_w.tif

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!

pingflood · 03-05-2013, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by miles

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.

eurostar · 03-05-2013, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

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*

eurostar · 03-05-2013, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

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.

03-04-2013, 09:01 AM	#186
Greyser Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Los Angeles, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,150	Originally posted by JinDesu 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? *FA600/4: 6.83kg (15.06lb) FA250-600/5.6:* 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
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by Greyser What 6lb vs. 3lb are you talking about? *FA600/4: 6.83kg (15.06lb) FA250-600/5.6:* 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.

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	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	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

03-04-2013, 05:58 AM	#181
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by PePe 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 FA600/4 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
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by JinDesu 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
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by gazonk 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 FA250-600 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 FA250-600. I do know that I sorta lust for it though.

03-04-2013, 07:39 AM	#184
RockvilleBob Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Lewes DE USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,780	Originally posted by JinDesu 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 FA250-600 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 FA250-600. 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
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by RockvilleBob 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, 01:56 PM	#188
Greyser Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Los Angeles, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,150	Originally posted by JinDesu 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
goubejp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: France Photos: Albums Posts: 804	Originally posted by JinDesu "This lens actually shoots on par with FA600/4 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
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by falconeye 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
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Adam No birds for you yet, but feel free to pixel peep these test charts (center): F5.6 / 8 / 11 (center) https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F056_130226_22s_w.tif https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F080_130226_23s_w.tif https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F110_130226_24s_w.tif F* 250-600mm at F5.6, for comparison, center: https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/F520-A-ctr-F056_130226_80s_w.tif 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
miles Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Corfu, Greece Photos: Albums Posts: 104	Originally posted by Adam No birds for you yet, but feel free to pixel peep these test charts (center): F5.6 / 8 / 11 (center) https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F056_130226_22s_w.tif https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F080_130226_23s_w.tif https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/DA560-A-ctr-F110_130226_24s_w.tif F* 250-600mm at F5.6, for comparison, center: https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/DA560/F520-A-ctr-F056_130226_80s_w.tif 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!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2013, 01:36 AM	#193
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by miles 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
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by JinDesu 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
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by pingflood 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.