560mm now available.

ElJamoquio · 03-10-2013, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Wide open and with a 1.4TC, will it be sharper than the 560mm closed to f/8? That is the question.

That's one question.

Whether or not the 560 f/5.6 is worth 3x the money is another; it's not, for me. Not that I'm going Canon, though. Long glass is cheaper on Nikon.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 03-10-2013 at 01:50 PM.

ElJamoquio · 03-10-2013, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

By the way, the weight of those lenses is about the same - maybe the 560 would be hand-holdable as well?

I'm aware that they're roughly the same weight. My only issue is my left shoulder, which gets fatigued (and painful) quite quickly. The Sigma was good but about the limit. If I have to hold the lens out further I won't be able to hand-hold for appropriate durations.

It's not a super-huge deal for me, though... when I go after bald eagles I'm using a tripod. When I go walking (elk, etc) I go with a shorter lens, like the 300. The 560 could potentially do both but I'd rather run two brands than pay $7k for a lens with a bunch of compromises.

Kunzite · 03-10-2013, 02:49 PM

Worth is quite subjective, don't you think? Since you're comparing it with a 400mm f/5.6+1.4xTC, a combination which is slower, and will only autofocus on select Canon cameras.
Running two brands, going with the Sigma - if there are alternatives, why not? Or with Nikon, even though all their super telephotos are more expensive, and they're missing the cheap 400 f/5.6 used as an example. I'm not saying you should buy the Pentax, nor that it's cheap (it isn't); go for whatever fits your needs.

GordonZA · 03-11-2013, 12:16 AM

Personally I'm just waiting to see some reviews of this lens... If I like what I see I may well get one.

For most photographers this kind of lens is a waste. For myself I would have it glued to my camera...

pingflood · 03-11-2013, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

slrgear.com, and please note I'm not saying it's bad.
Wide open and with a 1.4TC, will it be sharper than the 560mm closed to f/8? That is the question.

I would certainly hope NOT! The 400 is wicked sharp wide open and quite decent with a 1.4x though I found that stopping down to f/9 (yes, just 1/3rd stop) made a visible difference in large prints. But I would be surprised if a stopped down prime without a TC would not be sharper...

froeschle · 03-11-2013, 04:24 AM

As I said, I did not want to question a proper test [+].
Unfortunately, up to now, no reliable data on the optical performance is available for the 560/5.6.

Surprisingly, the most impressive pictures to date are taken of the lens and not with the lens.
Even photographers with experience in shooting with ultra tele lenses have not shown really good examples yet.

See, e.g.
First DA560mm shots
PFC - Pentax Fans Club
300 400 560 250-600 - Pentax Fans Club
falconworld

It remains to be seen how the DA 560 performs against the F(A)* 250-600, F(A)* 600, Sigma 500/4.5, (F)A* 300/2.8 + 2x (or cropped), Sigma 50-500...

Some theoretical data on the 250-600: #208, The Lens Design of the 250-600.

Sigma 50-500, 300, 500.

I could not find MTF diagrams for the FA* 600/4 or the FA* 300/2.8 (test winner in German ColorFoto 1/2001).
Is there any official data published by Pentax?

[+] Rating lenses primarily on real-world examples is also not a good idea.
Good pictures might be more related to the capability of the user.
High-end gear does not per se guarantee acceptable pictures.
Outstanding pictures do not necessarily require high-end gear.
It would not be a wise decision to buy a lens because of one or more reference images.
This also questions the usefulness of threads with example shots taken with a specific lens.
I am not convinced that somebody could identify a lens only by e.g. micro-contrast, colour rendition, bokeh, flare resistance, CA, etc.
Maybe a dedicated thread ("Identify the lens") with samples would be a good idea.
However, I have not yet seen a single convincing picture taken with the DA 560.
This might be due to problems of handling (balance, center of mass, tripod mount) or due to other issues.

dsport · 03-11-2013, 04:58 AM - **1 Like**

From the pics by DA560 so far, I really can't say I'm impressed.
Indeed, I was struggling before whether to get a DA560 or just to buy a FA*600/4 from my friend whom had shifted to Canon recently.
I am in favour of the DA560 in view of its weight and fast DC AF. However, counting on the IQ from DA560 as seen, I finally got the FA*600/4 from my friend, not to mention the price was also cheaper than the DA560.

I hopes I have make a wrong choice as I would really want to see good sample pics from the DA560 with IQ better than my FA*600/4 pics as below.

pingflood · 03-11-2013, 04:59 AM

Check out the shot of the house in your first link. Either it's got purple gutters or you have some serious CA going on.

froeschle · 03-11-2013, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Either it's got purple gutters or you have some serious CA going on.

According to tomkeet it was taken at about a mile in very bright low sun.

He is testing the DA 560 against his FA* 600.

E.g. the starling and the jay seem to be captured by the DA 560 (@5.6 and 1/500s with K-5):

ISO 800
Garden Starling - large
Garden Starling

ISO 1600
Jay - large
Jay

Others seem to be taken with the FA*.

gazonk · 03-11-2013, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

Check out the shot of the house in your first link. Either it's got purple gutters or you have some serious CA going on.

Yes, I noticed strong purple fringing around the highlights in that shot, too. Strange.

Zygonyx · 03-13-2013, 01:16 PM

That's probably CA, but i dont find it too problematic (could be worse)

froeschle · 03-18-2013, 07:46 AM

The question has been raised whether to Get the DA560 or just crop from a 400mm lens?

Concerning the previous discussion, I wonder how reliable the comparison is.
The presented differences are rather small.
The exif-data reveals: No flash, 1/20s (1/15s).

So, usage of f11 (see e.g. Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 - f5.6, f8, f11) is not my main concern.

VisualDarkness · 03-21-2013, 06:09 PM

While pics posted here from lenses like the FA*600 really pops (great photo works guys!) I still don't find the DA560 that pleasing to the eyes. It's like the background is more defined than the subject in focus at times, not sharpness-wise but when it comes to the "dreamy" aberrations and the bad handling of branches and such comparet to similarly prices lenses.

eurostar · 03-22-2013, 12:24 AM

Frankly, from what I have seen up to today I don't see any advantage to use this lens instead of a Bigma. Even if the price should fall a lot, still I wouldn't see why to use a lens so long when another has same quality and is much more portable. Surely the Bigma is bad at long distance, but birds must be near to get good quality shot, with any lens.

Any way tomorrow I am going to Milan to a Photo Show, I hope they allow visitors to try the lens at the Pentax booth, I am very curious to see it in my hands.

rawr · 03-22-2013, 04:37 AM

Dxo just did a test and review of the [USD $13,000] Sony 500mm f4. Maybe they will test the DA 560 soon too. They have already tested the DA*300 - it will be interesting to compare the two.

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

03-10-2013, 01:43 PM	#286
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Kunzite Wide open and with a 1.4TC, will it be sharper than the 560mm closed to f/8? That is the question. That's one question. Whether or not the 560 f/5.6 is worth 3x the money is another; it's not, for me. Not that I'm going Canon, though. Long glass is cheaper on Nikon. Last edited by ElJamoquio; 03-10-2013 at 01:50 PM.

03-10-2013, 01:49 PM	#287
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Kunzite By the way, the weight of those lenses is about the same - maybe the 560 would be hand-holdable as well? I'm aware that they're roughly the same weight. My only issue is my left shoulder, which gets fatigued (and painful) quite quickly. The Sigma was good but about the limit. If I have to hold the lens out further I won't be able to hand-hold for appropriate durations. It's not a super-huge deal for me, though... when I go after bald eagles I'm using a tripod. When I go walking (elk, etc) I go with a shorter lens, like the 300. The 560 could potentially do both but I'd rather run two brands than pay $7k for a lens with a bunch of compromises.

03-10-2013, 02:49 PM	#288
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Worth is quite subjective, don't you think? Since you're comparing it with a 400mm f/5.6+1.4xTC, a combination which is slower, and will only autofocus on select Canon cameras. Running two brands, going with the Sigma - if there are alternatives, why not? Or with Nikon, even though all their super telephotos are more expensive, and they're missing the cheap 400 f/5.6 used as an example. I'm not saying you should buy the Pentax, nor that it's cheap (it isn't); go for whatever fits your needs.

03-11-2013, 12:16 AM	#289
GordonZA Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Planet Earth Photos: Albums Posts: 351 Original Poster	Personally I'm just waiting to see some reviews of this lens... If I like what I see I may well get one. For most photographers this kind of lens is a waste. For myself I would have it glued to my camera...

03-11-2013, 02:46 AM	#290
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Kunzite slrgear.com, and please note I'm not saying it's bad. Wide open and with a 1.4TC, will it be sharper than the 560mm closed to f/8? That is the question. I would certainly hope NOT! The 400 is wicked sharp wide open and quite decent with a 1.4x though I found that stopping down to f/9 (yes, just 1/3rd stop) made a visible difference in large prints. But I would be surprised if a stopped down prime without a TC would not be sharper...

03-11-2013, 04:24 AM	#291
froeschle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 552	As I said, I did not want to question a proper test [+]. Unfortunately, up to now, no reliable data on the optical performance is available for the 560/5.6. Surprisingly, the most impressive pictures to date are taken of the lens and not with the lens. Even photographers with experience in shooting with ultra tele lenses have not shown really good examples yet. See, e.g. First DA560mm shots PFC - Pentax Fans Club 300 400 560 250-600 - Pentax Fans Club falconworld It remains to be seen how the DA 560 performs against the F(A)* 250-600, F(A)* 600, Sigma 500/4.5, (F)A* 300/2.8 + 2x (or cropped), Sigma 50-500... Some theoretical data on the 250-600: #208, The Lens Design of the 250-600. Sigma 50-500, 300, 500. I could not find MTF diagrams for the FA* 600/4 or the FA* 300/2.8 (test winner in German ColorFoto 1/2001). Is there any official data published by Pentax? [+] Rating lenses primarily on real-world examples is also not a good idea. Good pictures might be more related to the capability of the user. High-end gear does not per se guarantee acceptable pictures. Outstanding pictures do not necessarily require high-end gear. It would not be a wise decision to buy a lens because of one or more reference images. This also questions the usefulness of threads with example shots taken with a specific lens. I am not convinced that somebody could identify a lens only by e.g. micro-contrast, colour rendition, bokeh, flare resistance, CA, etc. Maybe a dedicated thread ("Identify the lens") with samples would be a good idea. However, I have not yet seen a single convincing picture taken with the DA 560. This might be due to problems of handling (balance, center of mass, tripod mount) or due to other issues.

03-11-2013, 04:58 AM - 1 Like	#292
dsport Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Hong Kong Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	From the pics by DA560 so far, I really can't say I'm impressed. Indeed, I was struggling before whether to get a DA560 or just to buy a FA600/4 from my friend whom had shifted to Canon recently. I am in favour of the DA560 in view of its weight and fast DC AF. However, counting on the IQ from DA560 as seen, I finally got the FA600/4 from my friend, not to mention the price was also cheaper than the DA560. I hopes I have make a wrong choice as I would really want to see good sample pics from the DA560 with IQ better than my FA*600/4 pics as below.

03-11-2013, 04:59 AM	#293
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Check out the shot of the house in your first link. Either it's got purple gutters or you have some serious CA going on.

03-11-2013, 05:24 AM	#294
froeschle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 552	Quote: Either it's got purple gutters or you have some serious CA going on. According to tomkeet it was taken at about a mile in very bright low sun. He is testing the DA 560 against his FA* 600. E.g. the starling and the jay seem to be captured by the DA 560 (@5.6 and 1/500s with K-5): ISO 800 Garden Starling - large Garden Starling ISO 1600 Jay - large Jay Others seem to be taken with the FA*.

03-11-2013, 05:27 AM	#295
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by pingflood Check out the shot of the house in your first link. Either it's got purple gutters or you have some serious CA going on. Yes, I noticed strong purple fringing around the highlights in that shot, too. Strange.

03-13-2013, 01:16 PM	#296
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	That's probably CA, but i dont find it too problematic (could be worse)

03-18-2013, 07:46 AM	#297
froeschle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 552	The question has been raised whether to Get the DA560 or just crop from a 400mm lens? Concerning the previous discussion, I wonder how reliable the comparison is. The presented differences are rather small. The exif-data reveals: No flash, 1/20s (1/15s). So, usage of f11 (see e.g. Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 - f5.6, f8, f11) is not my main concern.

03-21-2013, 06:09 PM	#298
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	While pics posted here from lenses like the FA*600 really pops (great photo works guys!) I still don't find the DA560 that pleasing to the eyes. It's like the background is more defined than the subject in focus at times, not sharpness-wise but when it comes to the "dreamy" aberrations and the bad handling of branches and such comparet to similarly prices lenses.

03-22-2013, 12:24 AM	#299
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Frankly, from what I have seen up to today I don't see any advantage to use this lens instead of a Bigma. Even if the price should fall a lot, still I wouldn't see why to use a lens so long when another has same quality and is much more portable. Surely the Bigma is bad at long distance, but birds must be near to get good quality shot, with any lens. Any way tomorrow I am going to Milan to a Photo Show, I hope they allow visitors to try the lens at the Pentax booth, I am very curious to see it in my hands.

03-22-2013, 04:37 AM	#300
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Dxo just did a test and review of the [USD $13,000] Sony 500mm f4. Maybe they will test the DA 560 soon too. They have already tested the DA*300 - it will be interesting to compare the two.