[jbinpg]

That buzzard shot is fantastic given the low light level.

[robjmitchell]

No No No, the price of this lens is far too cheap, On BH normal prices it is a mere US$1.25/g. The HD 40 Ltd on the other hand is US$6.20/g!
My own most expensive lens is US$5.80/g, why should I be forced to subsidise these silly bird shooters with huge cheap low volume glass!

[derekkite]

That is better. Those aren't cropped I take it. As you say, it takes a bit to know what works, but they seem pretty good.

Thanks.

[WPRESTO]

Those considering the price of a Nikon 7200 plus Sigma 150-600 should also think about the Nikon + Tamron 150~600, a combination that should be about the same $ as the Pentax lens alone.

[JinDesu]

With the converter. Without, it's pretty nice at open aperture.

I should probably wait with posting photos until I've had a chance to shoot in better light and take shots that are relevant to other people than those familiar with taking bird shots... for that latter subgroup it's a bit easier to recognise the specific value of a lens under adverse conditions. We tend to be happy with shots Actual Photographers would completely snub, simply because we know how the shot would normally look. When you're used to birds moving through dense shrubbery when it's severelly overcast, your standards tend to be different than when you're used to, say, conditions at which you'd be able to use the sensor shift capabilities of the K-3 ml II .

Just a teaser from tonight; click for the full-sized image on Flickr.



For birding purposes, you'd end up with a crop like this: Common Buzzard - Buteo buteo 2015-05-01 | Vogelwerkgroep Amsterdam

In this one, you can see the value of the IBIS.


Flare test; strong backlight. Crop to about 35% of original frame; unfortunately I just missed the focus (it's on the flowers behind the heron instead of on the heron).

Hey sorry, can't see the original full size image. Only large (2048x1362) available. I suspect you have the full size restricted from other users (it's a setting I use as well).

If you can right click your original size photos and paste the image link instead, that would be great

Basically for example, one of my shots: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jindesu/17062451251/sizes/k/
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7661/17062451251_03ca254006_o.jpg
^the full size image link has the _o (or /o/) at the end

[normhead]

The rabbit is simply gorgeous.....

[jpzk]

With the converter. Without, it's pretty nice at open aperture.

I should probably wait with posting photos until I've had a chance to shoot in better light and take shots that are relevant to other people than those familiar with taking bird shots... for that latter subgroup it's a bit easier to recognise the specific value of a lens under adverse conditions. We tend to be happy with shots Actual Photographers would completely snub, simply because we know how the shot would normally look. When you're used to birds moving through dense shrubbery when it's severelly overcast, your standards tend to be different than when you're used to, say, conditions at which you'd be able to use the sensor shift capabilities of the K-3 ml II .

Just a teaser from tonight; click for the full-sized image on Flickr.

Very nice, and this is exactly what I wanted to see: at the long end - 450mm.

In spite of your saying that you would prefer to wait for better light conditions to post, I really like what I am seeing here.
This looks much better (to me) at 450- without a TC - than with my K5/DA*300 with a DH 1.4X TC.

I am sure some will say that this is similar (in IQ) to the DA*300 + 1.4X TC but I think it is much better.
Whether this also has to do with the camera used, in your case the K3, remains to be seen.

Thanks for posting !

---------- Post added 05-01-15 at 09:56 PM ----------

Apologies if I'm repeating something that was posted earlier in this thread, but I'm not quite willing to read every post.
Digital camera reviews, photography techniques, photography gallery and photography forums has posted a review of the 150~450 that in brief finds: 1) excellent center soft edges @150mm wide open, corners to very good @ f8; 2) very good @ 300mm; 3) improving again @ 450mm with center into excellent range @ f8; 4) some color problems @ edges @ 450mm.

" ... 4) some color problems @ edges @ 450mm. "

One could always crop a little at the edges, right?

[Canada_Rockies]

PentaxUser (UK site) rates the 150-450 4½ stars. They have the MTF graphs to support their opinion. They do critique the CA at 450 mm (1.75 Pixels).

http://www.pentaxuser.com/review/pentax-hd-fa-150-450mm-f-4-5-5-6-ed-dc-aw-review-889

[Zygonyx]

Same finding as ephotozine, especially for CA in the long end.

@ Kunzite : you don't necessarily "have to buy" this lens to share internet experience re. its quality. And hopefully the selling price will drop with time or you will get the funds to take à used version

@OJGoreng : Thank you for these precious first impressions.
Already solved re. my lens addiction : i will keep my 2 FA*300 respectively for their compactness (f/4.5) and speed (f/2.8). But i wonder if i would keep DA*300, that i have hence no more intention to get ; and i will definitely get rid of my Bigma
I should add that screwdriven FA* or Bigma (i have the first version, and can offer à competitive price for it) never caused wildlife to be frightened by the noise : i use camouflage tissue to help keeping the AF noise unintrusive.

[robjmitchell]

Same finding as ephotozine, especially for CA in the long end.

Not the same finding, the same review

[Zygonyx]

Oups... indeed, i think i was mislead by the english / my smartphone....

[OJGoreng]

If you can right click your original size photos and paste the image link instead, that would be great

Basically for example, one of my shots: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jindesu/17062451251/sizes/k/
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7661/17062451251_03ca254006_o.jpg
^the full size image link has the _o (or /o/) at the end

Ah, that explains a lot, let's see if this works. Numbers between brackets are [Focal length; 1/aperture; 1/shutter time; ISO]; all shots handheld, AA filter off, SR on.
Buzzard [450; 5.6; 1000; 640] : https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8777/17335759031_43fcfb53b9_o.jpg
Hare [450; 8; 250; 320]: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7660/17128731207_5fd5490df2_o.jpg
Herring gull [360; 5.6; 640; 200]: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7768/17335789711_69f678ea1d_o.jpg In this focal range, the DA* 300 is definitely sharper and has better color reproduction, but that's to be expected from a DA* prime..
Lesser Black-Backed Gull [450; 8 ;320; 200] : https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8785/16713726594_1eb0cf7a5f_o.jpg

I am sure some will say that this is similar (in IQ) to the DA*300 + 1.4X TC but I think it is much better.

My impression so far is that when the subject is at fairly close range, the DA* + converter does a very good job, especially when stopped down a bit (I routinely use f/8 for that combo). But as soon as the subject is further away (and with birds, this is more often the case than not unless you work exclusively from a hide) the IQ rapidly goes down, for some reason. I don't understand how that works from a theoretical point of view, but it is one reason why for distant subjects I actually prefer the 1.7x AFA over the 1.4 HD converter; I get more acceptable shots that way (the other reasons being the focus limiter imposed by the AFA - less hunting, and the much faster focussing speed of the AFA's screwdrive over the SDM). Maybe it's as simple as the slightly longer focal length being enough for the camera to focus significantly more accurately. Less chance of birds flying between focus sensor points, or something.

[JinDesu]

That lesser black gull seems to have left a present on the floor

[nitehntr]

I have a question for all that complain that the lens is expensive. Do you own a Car?
How much did it cost you? How much does it cost you each month? Value lost per year?
I did a choice to not have a car and be able to buy anything i want instead. Take a look through your expenses instead of complaining about the cost
"For the same cost i could get a d7200 and the sigma 150-600" apparently you do have the found to get that setup. So why dont you, and then replace all your pentax glas, sell your old body with a loss. How much money would you have saved in the end?

Sorry for the rant but this is getting realy old now.
Tl:dr you dont complain for 40 pages in a thread that the new 77 inch LG oled screen is to expensive, instead you settle for the 55 inch until the price drop. You all sound like spoiled children running around in a department store

my only problems with the price is the fact that pentax has a small market share and shrinking. third party manufacturers are no longer bringing out new lenses in the K mount. so instead of trying to gain market share i feel they are gouging legacy users. i have no problem spending money if i feel that i am receiving value for my money. i just don't feel like the value is there in this case. there is no way these lenses should cost nearly three times as much as the sigma versions. pentax is making excellent products and the camera bodies are very competitively priced but then they gouge us with the glass. this is not the way to recover market share. my dad was an old gun trader and he would rather make a little at a time on a lot of stuff that make a lot on a little bit of stuff. the first way gains you customers the second way sends them elsewhere. if pentax is going to survive as a brand or even if the mount is going to survive they have to attract new shooters. and right or wrong price drives a lot if not most decisions. i love my K3 but they need to adjust prices of the glass to attract the new shooters. my 2 cents for what its worth.

[Kunzite]

And here we go again... a Pentax lens, a high-end product with excellent build quality, an entirely new AF system, a new coating and optics comprising of 18 elements from which 3 are ED and 1 SLD should only be priced 1/3rd from Canikon's similar products. Wow.

What you're asking is for Pentax to stop making high-end products. A lens for 1/3rd of the price would be:
- plastic (maybe WRed, no AW)
- cheap DC motor (instead of the new, fast version)
- cheap optics
Assuming it can be made at all. And then you'll complain that it's not better than some Sigma!

I'm supportive of the idea of introducing more affordable lenses, but not this. High-end products are needed; even the ones I can't afford.