[ogl]

Me against all those Russians... so scary!

And I'll ask again: who said it isn't FF-compatible?

Adam said. With tests.

[Kunzite]

99%? I don't care about numbers you're making up on the spot.

Which tests? That "vignetting" thing, it's not something I would consider a reliable source (sorry to all involved, but I think you were too hasty in drawing conclusions).
There are long full frame lenses which vignettes as bad in the extreme corners; one example is the $13000 Canon 600mm f/4 L IS II.

[Tom S.]

Adam said. With tests.

Adam did not say it wasn't usable, he said it was, but that it does not cover the entire sensor/film area, and thus would require some cropping.

At least that's how I remember it.

[aurele]

Adam said. With tests.

DA 560mm F5.6 - is it a Full-frame lens? - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com

For me 1.3 stop of vigneting in the extreme corner is not really what you can called a "not ff lens".

go down, with the picture of the palm tree. nothing extreme as it seem on the white sheet of paper.

Consider that all the Canikon above 400mm have at least 0.5 to 1.5 stop of vigneting.


Still, it's good that Pentax offer it (Kunzite, you're not alone !), but obviously it won't be sold in huge number.

[goubejp]

I try to understand the strong sides of DA560...

FF - no, compact - no, very sharp - maybe, at F8 only, good price - no, good bokeh - no....

who can explain?

I would add no WR...

[aurele]

I would add no WR...

it's not weather resistant, it's ... wait for it ! ALL WEATHER ! Tadaaa ! More or less a WR in better i guess !

Check the Pentax website description ! Third paragraph http://www.pentax.fr/fr/optiques-monture-k/DA560mm-F5.6.html

[goubejp]

Me against all those Russians... so scary!

$3000 it's insane, and Pentax is better off without such "customers" - ready to bash Pentax for daring to make a product outside their price range.

It's easy to understand where they aim with this product if you can look further than your wallet. There are people who buys long, expensive Canikonigmony (Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Sony) lenses; why not for Pentax, too? There were people who bought the FA 600mm f/4, there are people who would grab one if they see it on e-bay. FFS, there are long lens owners on this very forum; and we have 9 reviews for the FA 600mm f/4.
If you don't have anything to offer to them, maybe not in the ideal shape and price from the beginning, you'll simply lose them. Or you could scare away other potential $$$-spending customers.
The trick, however, is that Pentax is a company and every company should strive to make a profit. Understand this, understand how much harder is for Pentax to do it with such low volumes, and you won't be disappointed when they will "fail" again to launch a lens for half of what a 3rd-party would ask.

But, you know what they say (the Vorlons, I mean) - understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side and the truth.

And I'll ask again: who said it isn't FF-compatible?

I own a FA600 f4 and post regularly in this forum. That said, I bought it second hand, at a bit more than half the price of the DA560. The idea is that the FA600 plays in another league, cause it is a f4 thus designed with 2 huges 150 mm ED lenses at the front. Should I change my FA600 for the DA560 ? I'll get silent AF (but is it as fast as the FA600 which is really fast), and may be the ability to use it handheld. I loose one stop, a little reach (5m vs 5,6 m), the ability to AF with a 1,4 converter, a good bokeh. For the sharpness I don't know but I doubt it is capable to beat the FA600 particularly at short distances. The thing that makes me doubt in the design is that the lens design is optimized for distant subjects. Let me say that, it depends on weather conditions, but above 20 meters image quality is really strongly degraded by atmospheric turbulences.

[Kunzite]

Still, it's good that Pentax offer it (Kunzite, you're not alone !), but obviously it won't be sold in huge number.

Glad to hear that I'm not alone! (this forum needs a Cheers! emoticon)

Maybe after some years the Pentax market share would grow large enough for a telescope-based long lens line to exist, at affordable prices compared to the competition's complex telephoto designs (with the 560mm being the first of them). Who knows.
Right now it's a bind: they can't sell it cheaper, because it's a very low volume item (400 units per month at start), and they can't sell more of them because it's expensive.

goubejp, I'm not saying you should buy the DA 560mm; just that people like you proves there is a (potential) market for long focal Pentax lenses.

[aurele]

I own a FA600 f4 and post regularly in this forum. That said, I bought it second hand, at a bit more than half the price of the DA560. The idea is that the FA600 plays in another league, cause it is a f4 thus designed with 2 huges 150 mm ED lenses at the front.

Somehow, Pentax previous lens from the film era is a bit deserving them : you sum it up well "why buy a new product when i can have equally good or best old product, for half of the price of the new ?".

From that point, Pentax will struggle no matter what.

Right now it's a bind: they can't sell it cheaper, because it's a very low volume item (400 units per month at start), and they can't sell more of them because it's expensive.

terrible but true. but i think they will do few batch and then stops. and let the stock go down, and present some new lens in few years. Especially if Ricoh want Pentax to grow.

[RockvilleBob]

Until formal tests are performed on the DA 560 all the talk about sharpness, bokeh, size and weight are just guesses based on half baked information and pictures of unknown origin and value. The Nikon 600 f4 is $10,000 and I see plenty of them where I shoot - yes 8% longer but 560 will be "longer" when used with K-5 cropped sensor vs Nikon FF. 43% more expensive. Wait for facts, then decide.

[falconeye]

Since the 560 was announced, I took notice of new telelens designs by Canon (500/4, 600/4) and Nikon (800/5.6).

Esp. comparing the DA 560 with Nikon 800:

Diameter: 100 vs. 140 mm (x2 surface)
Weight: 3kg vs. 4.5kg
Length: 520 vs. 460 mm
Lenses: 6 vs. 20
Fluorite: 0? vs. 2

This new generation of lenses are more lightweight (the Canon 500/4 is 3.2kg) than even the "scope design"-like Pentax. But what does really worry me is the published MTF figures for the new lens designs featuring fluorite glass.

Nikon publishes open aperture M30 MTF for the new 800 which is a flat 0.99 across the entire image field and S30 which stays above 0.95. That's stunning. Even with an 1.4x converter it beats other lenses. The new Canon's are reported for their sharpness too.

No question these new super tele lenses cost a fortune (between 10k and 18k$!). But I am really eager to see where Pentax does stand technically against Canikon in 2013. If in-depth testing reveals the DA 560 is an optical gem then it may well be worth its price. But I doubt it. It only has the diameter of a 400/4 and only 1/3 of lenses.

At the time of the FA 600/4, Pentax optical quality was top notch, on par with Canikon and a tad more affordable.

If the DA 560 today cannot beat the optical quality of the FA 600/4 (and it will have a hard time to do), then the DA 560 would not be attractive and very overprized.

So, time to see some real MTF tests and real world photos with the K-5IIs. Better yet, some full frame corner crops taken with the VG900 and adapter. Until this information emerges, I fear nobody would have enough information to buy the lens.

[falconeye]

560 will be "longer" when used with K-5 cropped sensor vs Nikon FF.

Just a kind reminder that "reach" scales with pixel pitch, not crop factor.

K-5, D7000 and full frame D800 all have the same "length".

600/4 on a D7100 will be 1.3x longer than 560/5.6 on a K-5II.

Not that I care. But please stop to spread the myth that reach scales with crop factor.

[Adam]

No question these new super tele lenses cost a fortune (between 10k and 18k$!). But I am really eager to see where Pentax does stand technically against Canikon in 2013. If in-depth testing reveals the DA 560 is an optical gem then it may well be worth its price. But I doubt it. It only has the diameter of a 400/4 and only 1/3 of lenses.

We will do our best to gauge its sharpness in the PF in-depth review, but unfortunately a cross-brand comparison isn't possible at the moment (the best we can do is a Sigma 500mm or Pentax 250-600mm comparison). And frankly, with lenses these long you just about need precision equipment to be able to output reliable comparative tests with different lenses...

With that said, based on initial test chart observations I would say that the 560mm is sharp, but not extraordinarily so. It also suffers from a fair amount of CA, for which the 4-element design is likely to blame. If you have any suggestions for evaluating this lens, let me know and I will forward them to Ole, who's doing the review. I'm planning on extending our loan of the 560mm by a month to ensure that the review evaluates it fairly.

Corner sharpness is actually decent on film, it seems, so if you're willing to correct the vignetting in post I suppose the lens would be usable- that's a bit of good news!

[eastman]

Me against all those Russians... so scary!

$3000 it's insane, and Pentax is better off without such "customers" - ready to bash Pentax for daring to make a product outside their price range.

It's easy to understand where they aim with this product if you can look further than your wallet. There are people who buys long, expensive Canikonigmony (Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Sony) lenses; why not for Pentax, too? There were people who bought the FA 600mm f/4, there are people who would grab one if they see it on e-bay. FFS, there are long lens owners on this very forum; and we have 9 reviews for the FA 600mm f/4.
If you don't have anything to offer to them, maybe not in the ideal shape and price from the beginning, you'll simply lose them. Or you could scare away other potential $$$-spending customers.
The trick, however, is that Pentax is a company and every company should strive to make a profit. Understand this, understand how much harder is for Pentax to do it with such low volumes, and you won't be disappointed when they will "fail" again to launch a lens for half of what a 3rd-party would ask.

But, you know what they say (the Vorlons, I mean) - understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side and the truth.

And I'll ask again: who said it isn't FF-compatible?

Since your post is quoting the Vorlons, did you know that Friday was the 20th anniversary of the broadcast date of "The Gathering" (The Babylon 5 pilot)?

[Kunzite]

Since the 560 was announced, I took notice of new telelens designs by Canon (500/4, 600/4) and Nikon (800/5.6).

Esp. comparing the DA 560 with Nikon 800:

Diameter: 100 vs. 140 mm (x2 surface)
Weight: 3kg vs. 4.5kg
Length: 520 vs. 460 mm
Lenses: 6 vs. 20
Fluorite: 0? vs. 2

ED: 2 vs. 0
And the 20 elements are there because of the telephoto design, and because of the IS; not only to provide a superior image quality

eastman: nope, thanks for telling.