[Zygonyx]

Interesting opinion, that i share for most.

[Tom S.]

A field test report by Anton Tsyupko of using the 150-450 to shoot commercial and military aviation, with aviation images and some commentary about pros and cons of the lens and it's features. Via Ricoh Russia:

????? ????? ? ????? ????????? HD PENTAX-D FA 150-450mm

via Google translate:

I got al the way to the end of the article and saw that Google translate didn't translate the Pro/Con list. So here it is:


Pros
1. Quick and tenacious enough autofocus, the presence of "extra. options ", optimizing its performance;
2. Good illumination, providing a large aperture lens subjectively compared with Sigma 150-500 when shooting under similar lighting conditions with the same exposure value;
3. Excellent color rendering;
4. Good contrast, sharpness, and resolution;
5. "Resistance to optical interference" when shooting through the bars, grass, haze, etc .;
6. Good ergonomics;
7. High quality workmanship and materials used;
8. The lack of effect of "loss" of the moving part of the lens under its own weight;
9. Nice bokeh effects from light sources, etc.

Minuses:
1. The weight of the lens too big;
2. The absence of an optical stabilizer;
3. Increased sensitivity to overexposure;
4. Tight zoom ring;
5. Cost.

[pathdoc]

The absence of an optical stabilizer;

Looking through all the Russian for camera references, I see the K-7 and the K-3 mentioned. Odd that he should complain about this - it's designed for use with cameras that have in-body stabilisation, after all.

[sholtzma]

What does "increased sensitivity to overexposure" mean? A tendency to overexpose? Or, somehow it doesn't play well with (purposely) overexposed shots?

[pathdoc]

My guess is the latter.

[repaap]

Looking through all the Russian for camera references, I see the K-7 and the K-3 mentioned. Odd that he should complain about this - it's designed for use with cameras that have in-body stabilisation, after all.

Yes, he said that Sigma with OS was better in that kind of stuff. So he want's to have an option for OS, in case if people want's to use it or SR...but he did not have K3II, which is supposed to be better with panning shots. He liked it with more stabile subjects thou.

Can't have it all. Seemed to be better quality than Sigma, optically and in other ways too for what I did get from that review/user experience.

[rawr]

Or, somehow it doesn't play well with (purposely) overexposed shots?

Some of the examples of the problem of over-exposure in the review relate to shooting a white commercial airplane against a bright sky backdrop, for example.

I think the camera metering/settings is probably the larger factor here, not the lens per se. I've noticed the same tendency to overexposure with the K-3 and lenses like the DA*300mm. Switching to center-weighted metering on the K-3, rather than matrix, usually helps produce better exposures under similar conditions.

[Tom S.]

What does "increased sensitivity to overexposure" mean? A tendency to overexpose? Or, somehow it doesn't play well with (purposely) overexposed shots?

Hey, I only provide translations, not interpretations!

[sholtzma]

Hey, I only provide translations, not interpretations!

No doubt. I assume it was a translation confusion. In any case, whatever he meant, we'll want to discern if the lens was truly the issue, which, as a previous poster noted, may well not be the case. The other "cons" seemed clear and fair.

[Tom S.]

No doubt. I assume it was a translation confusion. In any case, whatever he meant, we'll want to discern if the lens was truly the issue, which, as a previous poster noted, may well not be the case. The other "cons" seemed clear and fair.

Where's Ogl when we really need him?

[ars]

What does "increased sensitivity to overexposure" mean? A tendency to overexpose? Or, somehow it doesn't play well with (purposely) overexposed shots?

From what I've understood from the review, it is all about a tendency of the lens+camera to overexpose, especially in difficult situations (bright white plane in the sun, dark airport background or clouds). The author mentions that even automatic overexposure compensation also fails in such cases. Also, after some time, the problem disappears, when one get used to the combo and uses better exposure setup.

Another complaint was about SR system - the subjective feeling of the author is that it looses 2-3 stops against Sigma OS. Actually, this was the only big complain about the lens.

[sharik]

I got al the way to the end of the article and saw that Google translate didn't translate the Pro/Con list. So here it is:


Pros
1. Quick and tenacious enough autofocus, the presence of "extra. options ", optimizing its performance;
2. Good illumination, providing a large aperture lens subjectively compared with Sigma 150-500 when shooting under similar lighting conditions with the same exposure value;
3. Excellent color rendering;
4. Good contrast, sharpness, and resolution;
5. "Resistance to optical interference" when shooting through the bars, grass, haze, etc .;
6. Good ergonomics;
7. High quality workmanship and materials used;
8. The lack of effect of "loss" of the moving part of the lens under its own weight;
9. Nice bokeh effects from light sources, etc.

Minuses:
1. The weight of the lens too big;
2. The absence of an optical stabilizer;
3. Increased sensitivity to overexposure;
4. Tight zoom ring;
5. Cost.

Here is my version of translation (well, a corrected version of the text generated by Google Translate) that clarifies some weird wording:
Pluses:
1. Quick and tenacious enough autofocus, the presence of "extra options ", optimizing its performance;
2. Good coating that gives a feeling of higher transmission compared with Sigma 150-500 when shooting under similar lighting conditions with the same exposure settings;
3. Excellent color rendering;
4. Good contrast, sharpness, and resolution;
5. "Resistance to optical interference" when shooting through the bars, grass, haze, etc .;
6. Good ergonomics;
7. High quality workmanship and materials used;
8. The lack of zoom creep;
9. Pleasant bokeh and nice effects from light sources, etc.

Minuses:
1. Too heavy;
2. The absence of an optical stabilizer;
3. Increased sensitivity to flare;
4. Tight zoom ring;
5. Expensive.

At the end, he also mentions a very practical bag that is good not only for storage but also for carrying the lens.

[frogfoot]

He said also that it's not bad wide open at moderate FLs, but at the long end the lens is not that sharp and needs to close aperture to 6.3-7.1 and even to 8 to get the best.

[Vylen]

I still want this lens...

[repaap]

I still want this lens...

Me too.