[falconeye]

Obtaining 100% accurate focus is an impossibility by manual focusing a K-5 IIs so I resorted to relying on CDAF.
...
Eliminating any and all vibrations during the shot was very hard with this long bastard of a lens.

Hi Ole,

I anticipated your problems and it is why I forwarded my detailed procedure. Of course, you are not forced to follow it. But then you know who to blame if the result is without any meaning.

As a matter of fact, only very few people ever mastered the art to do a proper tele lens test. This is why they are this rare. But it isn't actually that difficult if you know how to.

So, there are two things you really need to do:

If you can't clamp the lens onto a block of concrete then really use flash to do the test shots. These focal lengths are too prone to pick up vibration and then the results can't be used.

And second, really do the focus bracket using a slider rail or whatever. Relying on contrast AF or manual LV focus just won't be sufficient.

P.S.
BTW, this is how a 100% crop from a camera with the K-5IIs pixel pitch and no Bayer-AA filter looks like:

(from http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/D800AA/D800AAFilter.html; the crop is sharpened)

Note that I use a special version of the ISO test chart which has embedded patches of the chart at 4x resolution (you can imitate this by printing multiple copies and have each copy only fill 1/4 the frame height). The above crop is from the center patch. So, the Nyquist frequency is shifted to number "6" rather than 24 as in the original chart (or 32 if at full scale). The original chart doesn't go down to 24 (only 20) but variations exist where it goes down to 40. I still prefer my variation. As you can see in my chart, Bayer-moiré kicks in at about 80% Nyquist and remains invisible below.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 03-05-2013 at 12:13 PM.

[cali92rs]

Not entirely on topic but worth a mention:

Nikon has updated the 80-400/4.5-5.6 and the new MTF figures look much more interesting -> Nikon | Imaging Products | AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

The 30 lp/mm MTF at the tele end stays above 65-85% (old version to the right):



Depending on what we find for the DA560, it may be another possible competitor, esp. if combined with an 1.4xTC which does still AF.

What about the Nikon 200-400mm f4?
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens 2187 B&H Photo

That plus the 1.4xTC is only a couple hundred bucks more than DA560 with a lot more flexibility, and I would be willing to bet a lot better resolution.

[goubejp]

Isn't manual focus @ 10x in LV more reliable than CDAF?

Its the way I proceed when I have to manual focus my FA600 but the focus ring is not demultiplicated enough for very precise focus. As recommanded by falconeye, a rail is better. And by the way, there is a slight focus shift when lens is stopped down

[JinDesu]

Its the way I proceed when I have to manual focus my FA600 but the focus ring is not demultiplicated enough for very precise focus. As recommanded by falconeye, a rail is better. And by the way, there is a slight focus shift when lens is stopped down

Not to mention, attempting to focus such a long lens at 10x must be tremendously hard with each small vibration shaking your LV image all around.

And that the focus ring might not be that easy to reach and manipulate while trying to look at it on LV.

[ElJamoquio]

The DA560: Through March 23.

The F*250-600: Forever, it is Adam's.

Don't think I could do anything by the 23rd. You're proably better off building something out of lumber than my tripod, though.

[dane.dawg]

I own the Sigma 500/4.5 and hope the DA560 is better then it for Pentax sake. I find it funny so many people complaining about long glass for Pentax and the 500/4.5 has been out for years but probably less then 20 members on this forum own it and how many of us would spend the big cash on the long Nikon and Canon glass..

[ElJamoquio]

I own the Sigma 500/4.5 and hope the DA560 is better then it for Pentax sake. I find it funny so many people complaining about long glass for Pentax and the 500/4.5 has been out for years but probably less then 20 members on this forum own it and how many of us would spend the big cash on the long Nikon and Canon glass..

I like the 500/4.5 but was put off by it being the same price for less features than Nikon/Canon.

I wasn't willing to spend the cash for it when I can by used longer glass for the same price for the Nikon.

[Greyser]

I like the 500/4.5 but was put off by it being the same price for less features than Nikon/Canon.

I wasn't willing to spend the cash for it when I can by used longer glass for the same price for the Nikon.

Couple of weeks ago I was shooting along with very well equipped Nikon shooter: D4+600/4 on a heavy Manfrotto with a gimbal. The guy carried baby jogger for all his gears. I was shooting hand held with K-5 and Sigma 500/4.5 on CarrySpeed double loops sling...

[ElJamoquio]

Couple of weeks ago I was shooting along with very well equipped Nikon shooter: D4+600/4 on a heavy Manfrotto with a gimbal. The guy carried baby jogger for all his gears. I was shooting hand held with K-5 and Sigma 500/4.5 on CarrySpeed double loops sling...

If I wanted to shoot handheld (and don't get me wrong, I do shoot handheld a lot) I would still go Nikon D600 with the 500mm. Better balance, far easier (5x?) to track wildlife, and I always post-process anyway so there's basically no extra time spent cropping. On the plus side, I can get closer too for finer detail if I want; and I vastly prefer the Nikon AF to the Pentax's.

On top of that the used prices for the 500 in Nikon are about $1k cheaper than the Pentax. On the negative side there's no OS. All in all, though, for me, the Nikon will produce better pictures 95%+ of the time.

[RockvilleBob]

I own the Sigma 500/4.5 and hope the DA560 is better then it for Pentax sake. I find it funny so many people complaining about long glass for Pentax and the 500/4.5 has been out for years but probably less then 20 members on this forum own it and how many of us would spend the big cash on the long Nikon and Canon glass..

I am one of those on the fence about the Sigma 500 prime. I started using the K-5 two years ago, switching from Sony, primarily to do HDR. I switched to Pentax because only the top of the line Sony, at that time the A900, offered bracketing suitable for HDR. Pentax offered the best price/performance for my needs at that time. Since then I've extended my photography interests to include more wildlife, including birds in flight. My next lens will be a 500mm prime or longer; I did buy the Sigma 150-500 which performs well given its price and design. I am waiting to see if Pentax improves auto focus with the follow on to the K-5.
Buying a quality 500 prime or longer lens opens the opportunity to buy a used Canon or Nikon along with their long lens versus adding the Sigma 500 or Pentax 560. So I am waiting to see how the 560 performs (and what the final street price will be) and for the follow on to the K-5.
Other than BIF I am very happy with Pentax and just need to see what this year brings.

[Pål Jensen]

If I wanted to shoot handheld (and don't get me wrong, I do shoot handheld a lot) I would still go Nikon D600 with the 500mm. Better balance, far easier (5x?) to track wildlife, and I always post-process anyway so there's basically no extra time spent cropping. On the plus side, I can get closer too for finer detail if I want; and I vastly prefer the Nikon AF to the Pentax's.

On top of that the used prices for the 500 in Nikon are about $1k cheaper than the Pentax. On the negative side there's no OS. All in all, though, for me, the Nikon will produce better pictures 95%+ of the time.

That is odd. A 500mm on a D600 should be compared to a 300mm on a K5. The latter is definitely more handholdable and have better balance not to mention vastly cheaper...

[oeriies]

Couple of weeks ago I was shooting along with very well equipped Nikon shooter: D4+600/4 on a heavy Manfrotto with a gimbal. The guy carried baby jogger for all his gears. I was shooting hand held with K-5 and Sigma 500/4.5 on CarrySpeed double loops sling...

Exactly. Being able to easily carry the K-5 Sigma 500/4.5 with a BlackRapid shoulder strap and shoot hand held is why I don't own the Nikon 500mm F/4G, which with appropriate body is over 2 lbs heavier and very awkward to carry. I admit to lusting after the new Canon 500mm F/4 IS II, but Canon doesn't currently offer a pro-level cropped body that can do it justice. When that comes along (soon according to rumors), we'll probably be talking about more than $12k for the lens and body. The K-3 Sigma 500 combo is going to be roughly half that and will give very good results. I hope the same can be said for the K-3 Pentax 560. At least for the Pentax Sigma combo there will be a compelling value proposition.

[traderdrew]

Exactly. Being able to easily carry the K-5 Sigma 500/4.5 with a BlackRapid shoulder strap and shoot hand held is why I don't own the Nikon 500mm F/4G, which with appropriate body is over 2 lbs heavier and very awkward to carry. I admit to lusting after the new Canon 500mm F/4 IS II, but Canon doesn't currently offer a pro-level cropped body that can do it justice. When that comes along (soon according to rumors), we'll probably be talking about more than $12k for the lens and body. The K-3 Sigma 500 combo is going to be roughly half that and will give very good results. I hope the same can be said for the K-3 Pentax 560. At least for the Pentax Sigma combo there will be a compelling value proposition.

I 100% agree with you. I shot with some Canonites the other day with big glass. They didn't like the EOS-7D. One of them said that you have to learn to hit the exposure just right with the 7D, if not, you have to much noise in post processing.

[ElJamoquio]

That is odd. A 500mm on a D600 should be compared to a 300mm on a K5. The latter is definitely more handholdable and have better balance not to mention vastly cheaper...

We're talking about the 500-ish lenses. For me, the advantage of the Pentax K-5II is OS, (I forgot to mention) frame rate, too-dark-to-matter-to-me AF performance, and a 5-10% price advantage.

For me, the advantage of the D600 is vastly easier tracking, better AF, better balance IMO, and the ability to get closer, better pictures (until the MFD, of course).

I post-process my images, so the fact that the K-5 is pre-cropped isn't in-and-of-itself an advantage for me.

[rvannatta]

Right, at 10 meters a 600 at f4 has only 4 cms of depths of field; most of the time I stop my 600 to f8 to get 8 cms of depths of field to get managable depth of field

Perhaps you could confirm an observation that I think I have made with respect to long lenses and DOF. Specifically, I have spent some
time comparing the results of a couple Pentax exotics that I happen to own--- an FA*600 f/4 and an A*400 f/2.8 and a pentax dedicated
TC's.-- the 2x-L and the 1.4x-L sometimes stacked with another converter...

Answers I've been fishing for include whether Optical cropping (adding a TC) produced better results than Digital Cropping (cropping in Photoshop). One of the casual observations that I have made however. is that adding a TC to a lens doesn't seem to alter
the DOF characteristics of the lens, Thus if you were fairly close (lens to subject) where DOF could become an issue you could
use the A*400 with a mild TC (the 1.4x-L) --- and get the effective focal length of almost 600---- actually 560, but the DOF associated
with a 400mm lens instead of the longer focal length glass.

Guess I'm looking for some validation of what I think I've observed... but anyhow my present thinking is that the 400mm with a TC
is a pretty good gambit where DOF (or lack thereof) is going to be the spoiler of a photo. Or am I keeping my A*400 f/2.8 around
even though it has no chance of out performing the FA*600 f/4 no matter what the conditions....