[RonHendriks1966]

Indeed. In fact Ricoh might simply have decided to pursue the project as it was decided by Hoya untouched.
Meaning the the lens itself AND the quantity and price of it.
It would explain the whole thing. This is a remnant of Hoya. This IS a Hoya product. (I think)

Could be right. No idea how much time it would take when starting from scratch at the time off take-over by Ricoh. So this could be a running project from before the take-over.

[thibs]

it seems that for now Ricoh didn't do anything except launching product design under Hoya, AFAIK an AFAI read in "Pentax wants to hear you" thread.

Except the redesigned the K30 AFAIR.

This shows Pentax still had a number of projects. All got red light from Hoya but lights went green with Ricoh.

[oeriies]

Exactly - I can keep my excellent K-5 system for all photography except wildlife where I'd like a 500 to 600 lens. For wildlife I'd probably go with an older used Canon Pro body, one with demonstrated fast focus, and a used Canon lens. My reason for Canon over Nikon is there are more used Canon lenses available.

So I am really looking forward to the Forum test of the Sigma 500 and Pentax 560. If these lenses turn out to be high performers than I'd probably add the Sigma just because of price and a stop faster (probably equates to faster focus also.) The Pentax 560 would be an option if its performance is top notch, focus is fast and the price dropped significantly. If both the Sigma and Pentax turn out good but not top notch, then I would lean to buying a used Canon system - probably a top pro body two generations back from their newest model - more than enough pixels to make great prints with a great lens. To me being able to buy a high grade long lens is the driver. A well cared for, used Canon or Nikon will perform terrific.

I use a K-5, Sigma 500mm f4.5 combo and often get results I'm very happy with. There are two things that bother me, one is undoubtedly real and the other may or may not be. The first is continuous autofocus -- forget it -- which means that catching birds in flight or any moving subject is spray and pray. The second is that the manufacturer-provided MTF charts for the Canon and Nikon 500mm offerings look at lot better than for the Sigma. This makes me think I could get shots with even more resolution and contrast if I switched to Canon or Nikon. So, like RockvilleBob, I've been looking, comparing, and thinking.

Last week I was ready to pull the trigger on a new Nikon 500mm and a pre-ordered Nikon d7100, thinking this would give me an ideal combination of reach, resolution, autofocus, and pixel density/quality. And this combo is in the same ballpark in terms of price as the new Pentax 560, of presently unknown quality, and the K-3, whatever it turns out to be and whenever it appears. So I talked to the salesperson, struck the best deal I could, and told him I would do some price comparisons and get back to him in the morning. But by the next morning I had decided to stand pat. What is keeping me with Pentax/Sigma? Weight. The Nikon combo weighs nearly 2 lbs. more. That's going to be the difference between my going out for a long walk with my long lens, which I do all the time with the Pentax/Sigma, and thinking hard about whether I want to lug the weight.

The previous generation Canon 500mm with a pro body is even heavier than the Nikon combo. Canon has nailed the weight issue with the newest 500mm but the lens sells for over $10k. Even if price weren't an issue Canon's sensors don't cut it compared to the Sony or Toshiba sensors used by Nikon and Pentax. I don't want to pay mega bucks for the world's best long lens and then have to strap it onto an inferior body.

What does this have to do with this thread? First, Pentax beats Nikon on weight, either with the Sigma 500 or the Pentax 560. This is important to a lot of customers in the long lens market. Second Pentax beats Nikon and Canon on price with the Sigma 500. Of course you can buy the Sigma for Canikon mounts but you don't get shake reduction/image stabilization, which is a deal killer for most. Pentax doesn't beat Nikon on price by much with the 560, and that in my view is a serious and unnecessary marketing mistake. Third, the forthcoming K-3 will have to a least maintain parity with the new Nikon cropped bodies in pixel density and autofocus if Pentax is to have any chance of appealing to shoppers for a long lens who aren't irrationally committed to the Pentax brand. Fourth, resolution and contrast are really important for people who shoot birds (we want that fine feather detail), so if the Pentax 560 beats the Sigma and is the neighborhood of the Nikon and Canon 500mm on these variables, then maybe Pentax can take some market share, even at a $7000 price point.

Looking forward to the forum review of the lens.

Russ

[RockvilleBob]

I use a K-5, Sigma 500mm f4.5 combo and often get results I'm very happy with. There are two things that bother me, one is undoubtedly real and the other may or may not be. The first is continuous autofocus -- forget it -- which means that catching birds in flight or any moving subject is spray and pray. The second is that the manufacturer-provided MTF charts for the Canon and Nikon 500mm offerings look at lot better than for the Sigma. This makes me think I could get shots with even more resolution and contrast if I switched to Canon or Nikon. So, like RockvilleBob, I've been looking, comparing, and thinking.

Last week I was ready to pull the trigger on a new Nikon 500mm and a pre-ordered Nikon d7100, thinking this would give me an ideal combination of reach, resolution, autofocus, and pixel density/quality. And this combo is in the same ballpark in terms of price as the new Pentax 560, of presently unknown quality, and the K-3, whatever it turns out to be and whenever it appears. So I talked to the salesperson, struck the best deal I could, and told him I would do some price comparisons and get back to him in the morning. But by the next morning I had decided to stand pat. What is keeping me with Pentax/Sigma? Weight. The Nikon combo weighs nearly 2 lbs. more. That's going to be the difference between my going out for a long walk with my long lens, which I do all the time with the Pentax/Sigma, and thinking hard about whether I want to lug the weight.

The previous generation Canon 500mm with a pro body is even heavier than the Nikon combo. Canon has nailed the weight issue with the newest 500mm but the lens sells for over $10k. Even if price weren't an issue Canon's sensors don't cut it compared to the Sony or Toshiba sensors used by Nikon and Pentax. I don't want to pay mega bucks for the world's best long lens and then have to strap it onto an inferior body.

What does this have to do with this thread? First, Pentax beats Nikon on weight, either with the Sigma 500 or the Pentax 560. This is important to a lot of customers in the long lens market. Second Pentax beats Nikon and Canon on price with the Sigma 500. Of course you can buy the Sigma for Canikon mounts but you don't get shake reduction/image stabilization, which is a deal killer for most. Pentax doesn't beat Nikon on price by much with the 560, and that in my view is a serious and unnecessary marketing mistake. Third, the forthcoming K-3 will have to a least maintain parity with the new Nikon cropped bodies in pixel density and autofocus if Pentax is to have any chance of appealing to shoppers for a long lens who aren't irrationally committed to the Pentax brand. Fourth, resolution and contrast are really important for people who shoot birds (we want that fine feather detail), so if the Pentax 560 beats the Sigma and is the neighborhood of the Nikon and Canon 500mm on these variables, then maybe Pentax can take some market share, even at a $7000 price point.

Looking forward to the forum review of the lens.

Russ

Thanks Ruus. Birds in flight is one thing I hoped to use the Sigma 500 lens so the information about continuous focus was concerning. I currently use the Sigma 150-500 but need to limit the range to 400 and also use an aperture of about f10 for reasonable resolution. Russ, do you feel the continuous focus is a Pentax or Sigma problem? I am probably staying pat myself for at least another year to year and a half to see what Pentax announces. Very happy with my K-5 just really want a long prime for wildlife. I am also waiting to see what the Pentax long overdue TC does. It might let me go with the Sigma 300 f2.8 and a TC.
I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the issue with continuous focus and the Sigma 500 on Pentax.

[RonHendriks1966]

What is keeping me with Pentax/Sigma? Weight. The Nikon combo weighs nearly 2 lbs. more. That's going to be the difference between my going out for a long walk with my long lens, which I do all the time with the Pentax/Sigma, and thinking hard about whether I want to lug the weight.

Well the Canon 400mm/f4 DO lens is the low weight lens and with the 1.4x TC you have what you are looking for. Weight and available light are off enormous importance when working long hours.

[Greyser]

I use a K-5, Sigma 500mm f4.5 combo and often get results I'm very happy with. There are two things that bother me, one is undoubtedly real and the other may or may not be. The first is continuous autofocus -- forget it -- which means that catching birds in flight or any moving subject is spray and pray. The second is that the manufacturer-provided MTF charts for the Canon and Nikon 500mm offerings look at lot better than for the Sigma. This makes me think I could get shots with even more resolution and contrast if I switched to Canon or Nikon. So, like RockvilleBob, I've been looking, comparing, and thinking.

Last week I was ready to pull the trigger on a new Nikon 500mm and a pre-ordered Nikon d7100, thinking this would give me an ideal combination of reach, resolution, autofocus, and pixel density/quality. And this combo is in the same ballpark in terms of price as the new Pentax 560, of presently unknown quality, and the K-3, whatever it turns out to be and whenever it appears. So I talked to the salesperson, struck the best deal I could, and told him I would do some price comparisons and get back to him in the morning. But by the next morning I had decided to stand pat. What is keeping me with Pentax/Sigma? Weight. The Nikon combo weighs nearly 2 lbs. more. That's going to be the difference between my going out for a long walk with my long lens, which I do all the time with the Pentax/Sigma, and thinking hard about whether I want to lug the weight.

The previous generation Canon 500mm with a pro body is even heavier than the Nikon combo. Canon has nailed the weight issue with the newest 500mm but the lens sells for over $10k. Even if price weren't an issue Canon's sensors don't cut it compared to the Sony or Toshiba sensors used by Nikon and Pentax. I don't want to pay mega bucks for the world's best long lens and then have to strap it onto an inferior body.

What does this have to do with this thread? First, Pentax beats Nikon on weight, either with the Sigma 500 or the Pentax 560. This is important to a lot of customers in the long lens market. Second Pentax beats Nikon and Canon on price with the Sigma 500. Of course you can buy the Sigma for Canikon mounts but you don't get shake reduction/image stabilization, which is a deal killer for most. Pentax doesn't beat Nikon on price by much with the 560, and that in my view is a serious and unnecessary marketing mistake. Third, the forthcoming K-3 will have to a least maintain parity with the new Nikon cropped bodies in pixel density and autofocus if Pentax is to have any chance of appealing to shoppers for a long lens who aren't irrationally committed to the Pentax brand. Fourth, resolution and contrast are really important for people who shoot birds (we want that fine feather detail), so if the Pentax 560 beats the Sigma and is the neighborhood of the Nikon and Canon 500mm on these variables, then maybe Pentax can take some market share, even at a $7000 price point.

Looking forward to the forum review of the lens.

Russ

Last year I was sitting on a fence waiting for the 560/5.6. Today I shoot Sigma 500/4.5 mostly exclusively. And I shoot mostly handheld.

There is my take on the 560/5.6. Expensive, unknown, too long, MFD is too long, extremely long by itself, hard to transport, it may be sharp and contrasty, but also may exhibit extra CA due to simplified design, hand holding is questionable (however, there are a few reports from the pople who managed to hold it that it is OK).

Continuos mode issue is not related to the 500/4.5 I think. It is purely Pentax AF problem. Even worse: my 2+ years old K-5 starts flopping the mirror uncontrollably after using AF.C. I have managed to get quite decent BIF shots since I started using Sigma (AF.S, SR on, shutter about 1/800-1/1000 or higher, centered focus, spot metering, 7fps). I wish to have a bit more contrast with it and focus limiter and HSM motor, which are implemented for CaNikon versions. Well... we don't have a choice here. Regrdless, Sigma is amazing. It was immediate and very noticeable improvement over my very not bad copy of FA*300/4.5 (standalone and when paired with the Tamron 1.4x Pz-AF). And, as I said, I shoot mostly handheld. Also there is possibility for improvement without switching to major brands: to use the Sigma on a tripod and with Better Beamer.
The only thing what I regret now is that I missed so many great opportunities, waiting for mystica at that time 560/5.6 and not buying 500/4.5. Browsing through my so-so FA*300 shots I see that I missed the fight of two hawks in the air (happend too far for the 300mm), beautiful osprey shot with a bleeding fish in the talons (it was not as bad with FA*300 actually), red-shouldered hawk, enjoying bloody lunch (was not too bad, but 500mm woud definitely shine here), a few shots of quite rare birds, etc.
My regards,
SG

[LFLee]

share some real life 560mm image from Pentax Fan Club:




Original post: <2013> P??????-??????-PFC - Pentax Fans Club

sample photo: ????DA 300mm FA400mm DA560mm FA250-600mm ??-PFC - Pentax Fans Club

---

Last edited by LFLee; 03-01-2013 at 10:21 AM.

[Chris Mak]

Last year I was sitting on a fence waiting for the 560/5.6. Today I shoot Sigma 500/4.5 mostly exclusively. And I shoot mostly handheld.

There is my take on the 560/5.6. Expensive, unknown, too long, MFD is too long, extremely long by itself, hard to transport, it may be sharp and contrasty, but also may exhibit extra CA due to simplified design, hand holding is questionable (however, there are a few reports from the pople who managed to hold it that it is OK).

Continuos mode issue is not related to the 500/4.5 I think. It is purely Pentax AF problem. Even worse: my 2+ years old K-5 starts flopping the mirror uncontrollably after using AF.C. I have managed to get quite decent BIF shots since I started using Sigma (AF.S, SR on, shutter about 1/800-1/1000 or higher, centered focus, spot metering, 7fps). I wish to have a bit more contrast with it and focus limiter and HSM motor, which are implemented for CaNikon versions. Well... we don't have a choice here. Regrdless, Sigma is amazing. It was immediate and very noticeable improvement over my very not bad copy of FA*300/4.5 (standalone and when paired with the Tamron 1.4x Pz-AF). And, as I said, I shoot mostly handheld. Also there is possibility for improvement without switching to major brands: to use the Sigma on a tripod and with Better Beamer.
The only thing what I regret now is that I missed so many great opportunities, waiting for mystica at that time 560/5.6 and not buying 500/4.5. Browsing through my so-so FA*300 shots I see that I missed the fight of two hawks in the air (happend too far for the 300mm), beautiful osprey shot with a bleeding fish in the talons (it was not as bad with FA*300 actually), red-shouldered hawk, enjoying bloody lunch (was not too bad, but 500mm woud definitely shine here), a few shots of quite rare birds, etc.
My regards,
SG

Hi Greyser,

Don't deprive yourself again, by waiting for the k3
Try it on the K5IIs, apart from better (more accurate) autofocus, you get better noise control at iso 400/800, less need for sharpening (and subsequent artifacts) due to no AA (plus higher and finer detail), less motion blur due to apparently improved SR and reduced effects of mirror slap. (these last two are my own interpretation of what I see, but are shared by others that have the K5IIs).
O, and if you want to improve contrast, try the B&W 46E CLEAR UV HAZE MRC (010M), it improved contrast on my Sigma 500/4.5 noticeably. The included filter was the Sigma MC normal.

By the way: I kind of hate to say it, but I don't think the DA560mm will be a spectacular lens. The review is taking (too) long, and if it had been a hit, word would have at least been spread about it by now. This lens was one of the main reasons for daring the move from Olympus, but it just did not grab me after release, even though I have not seen a single image from it. It's the combination of price and specs, too expensive for the aperture, too long for my taste (I want to shoot handheld), too simple by design (I don't like the idea of pronounced CA's in bird shots).
Anyway, I went for a used Sigma 500, so I still would still have options to upgrade, but I think Ithe Sigma will do just fine on the K5IIs, and in future: a K3.

Chris

[eurostar]

Personally I don't think the problem with AF-C is of the camera. It's of the camera AND the lens. With K-5 and the 60-250, AF-C and priority to focus I have been able to get excellent results with bird in flight, very fast shearwaters coming near the boat where we were standing, and I had the same results of people with Canon and Nikon top APS-C and FF bodies. The problem is that the 60-250 is, at least for my part of the world, too short for most of the birds. With other lenses, like the DA*300/4, I haven't been able to have the same performance, because the lens is too slow to focus.

[LFLee]

Hi Greyser,

By the way: I kind of hate to say it, but I don't think the DA560mm will be a spectacular lens. The review is taking (too) long, and if it had been a hit, word would have at least been spread about it by now. This lens was one of the main reasons for daring the move from Olympus, but it just did not grab me after release, even though I have not seen a single image from it. It's the combination of price and specs, too expensive for the aperture, too long for my taste (I want to shoot handheld), too simple by design (I don't like the idea of pronounced CA's in bird shots).
Anyway, I went for a used Sigma 500, so I still would still have options to upgrade, but I think Ithe Sigma will do just fine on the K5IIs, and in future: a K3.

Chris

Sample of 560mm available in my above post. here are them (K5+DA560mm, taken by that guy's wife):




Equipment own by that guy:

[goubejp]

It was reported that the formula design of this lens if of type petzval
Petzval lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So it's not a new design that could make this lens distinghish itself from the competitors by its optical performances...

[Greyser]

share some real life 560mm image from Pentax Fan Club:

I went through all bird images. They look nice, contrast, and sharp. However, I'd like to see the closer shots, indeed. Also the bokeh is kind of on a dark side.

[goubejp]

I went through all bird images. They look nice, contrast, and sharp. However, I'd like to see the closer shots, indeed. Also the bokeh is kind of on a dark side.

Hard to tell, would need a full scale image or a 100 % crop; bokeh looks fine to me but I suspect fringing on the 2nd shot (the great tit) in the white/black transition on the tit head.

[dane.dawg]

I use a K-5, Sigma 500mm f4.5 combo and often get results I'm very happy with. There are two things that bother me, one is undoubtedly real and the other may or may not be. The first is continuous autofocus -- forget it -- which means that catching birds in flight or any moving subject is spray and pray.

I disagree with this statement, my results with the k-5 and sigma combo has worked very well this winter for Eagles in flight..

[eurostar]

Sample of 560mm available in my above post. here are them (K5+DA560mm, taken by that guy's wife):

But at this size you can obtain the same results with the BIgma.