D-FA 100-300mm f/4

**Pål Jensen** · 05-18-2016, 05:42 AM

I rather have a 150-450

Anyway, I could work as a replacement for the DA 300/4 as well, as it probably won't be significantly more expensive to manufacture, but find far more users. More and more of the not so very fast primes will be covered/replaced by zooms.
E.g. we probably would never see another 400/5.6 from Pentax....

D1N0 · 05-18-2016, 06:49 AM

Another Pro lens. Going well

RonHendriks1966 · 05-18-2016, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

This is high-end stuff: constant aperture, internal focusing, internal zooming.

1500 to 2000 euro.

ddamski · 05-18-2016, 06:55 AM

fantastic news.. i was at the zoo with the DA*300 and 77mm.. The 100-300 would be great in this case :-)

**WillWeaverRVA** · 05-18-2016, 07:38 AM - **1 Like**

Holy crap, I would love a FF-compatible 100-300 f/4 for my nonexistent K-1. In all seriousness, I really hope this pans out because that's going to be a very useful range on FF.

nomadkng · 05-18-2016, 07:58 AM

well damn, there goes the resale value of my Sigma 100-300 f4.

oh wait, I wasn't going to sell it in this lifetime anyway.

also mentioned was a 60mm macro. that sounds interesting...

**jatrax** · 05-18-2016, 08:27 AM

100-300 f/4 is a little unexpected based on previous Pentax 100-300 designs. But it seems Ricoh has no problem with doing things different. Sounds like a good FF lens that fits a good spot in their line up.

A 60-250 f/4 FF replacement for the DA*60-250 was actually what I was expecting. The DFA 70-200 f/2.8 is just too big for me but the 60-250 f/4 I can handle.

ogl · 05-18-2016, 09:15 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by WillWeaverRVA

Holy crap, I would love a FF-compatible 100-300 f/4 for my non existent K-1. In all seriousness, I really hope this pans out because that's going to be a very useful range on FF.

I would say - love non existent 100-300/4 for my non existent K-1

OoKU · 05-18-2016, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

The primary source: egami

Ricoh 100-300mm F4?????????????So-net???

DFA70-200/2.8 is lens one of the patens

Venom3300 · 05-18-2016, 09:31 AM

I feel like a 100-300 lens is a sports lens and for that I would want F2.8 not 4. So I just have a hard time seeing the need I guess.

**Pål Jensen** · 05-18-2016, 09:47 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by WillWeaverRVA

Holy crap, I would love a FF-compatible 100-300 f/4 for my nonexistent K-1. In all seriousness, I really hope this pans out because that's going to be a very useful range on FF.

I'll say even more useful on APS...

---------- Post added 05-18-16 at 06:49 PM ----------

Originally posted by Venom3300

I feel like a 100-300 lens is a sports lens and for that I would want F2.8 not 4. So I just have a hard time seeing the need I guess.

You couldn't afford one of those and hardly lift it. With todays high ISO performance, paying three times the price and twice the weight simply isn't worth it for most of us for just one stop....

**jatrax** · 05-18-2016, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Venom3300

I feel like a 100-300 lens is a sports lens and for that I would want F2.8 not 4. So I just have a hard time seeing the need I guess.

For me the need is just the lower weight. I have no interest in the 70-200 f/2.8, it's just too heavy for me. But a 70-200 f/4 might be just fine. Or this 100-300 f/4. With current ISO abilities in the cameras I am very happy to trade that one stop for a lower weight penalty.

Brooke Meyer · 05-18-2016, 01:40 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Mistral75

This is high-end stuff: constant aperture, internal focusing, internal zooming.

Which describes the Sigma 100-300/4 that I use as a performance lens.

**jpzk** · 05-18-2016, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Venom3300

I feel like a 100-300 lens is a sports lens and for that I would want F2.8 not 4. So I just have a hard time seeing the need I guess.

That would be some beast !!

Going back to when I had a Sigma 100-300/4 ... that was big enough.

Caat · 05-19-2016, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

100-300 f/4 is a little unexpected based on previous Pentax 100-300 designs. But it seems Ricoh has no problem with doing things different. Sounds like a good FF lens that fits a good spot in their line up.

A 60-250 f/4 FF replacement for the DA*60-250 was actually what I was expecting. The DFA 70-200 f/2.8 is just too big for me but the 60-250 f/4 I can handle.

I was wondering how small it could be. Its 50mm longer on the long end and 40mm longer on the short end.

Does anyone have any idea of Pentax could keep it to the same size as the DA*? Which is after all nearly FF, but the Sigma 100 to 300 Is pretty big if memory a serves...?

05-18-2016, 01:40 PM - 2 Likes	#28
Brooke Meyer Guest	Originally posted by Mistral75 This is high-end stuff: constant aperture, internal focusing, internal zooming. Which describes the Sigma 100-300/4 that I use as a performance lens. Last edited by Brooke Meyer; 04-12-2017 at 10:46 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA 100-300mm, FA 28-70mm F/4, FA 28-80mm, F 35-80mm	jjdgti	Sold Items	7	07-17-2015 11:47 AM
Pentax FA 100-300mm f/4.7-5.8 or DA 55-300mm?	ncrecordkeeper	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	08-25-2011 11:46 PM

05-18-2016, 05:42 AM	#16
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	I rather have a 150-450 Anyway, I could work as a replacement for the DA 300/4 as well, as it probably won't be significantly more expensive to manufacture, but find far more users. More and more of the not so very fast primes will be covered/replaced by zooms. E.g. we probably would never see another 400/5.6 from Pentax....

05-18-2016, 06:49 AM	#17
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Another Pro lens. Going well

05-18-2016, 06:50 AM	#18
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Mistral75 This is high-end stuff: constant aperture, internal focusing, internal zooming. 1500 to 2000 euro.

05-18-2016, 06:55 AM	#19
ddamski Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Fribourg , Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 163	fantastic news.. i was at the zoo with the DA*300 and 77mm.. The 100-300 would be great in this case :-)

05-18-2016, 07:38 AM - 1 Like	#20
WillWeaverRVA Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Richmond, VA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	Holy crap, I would love a FF-compatible 100-300 f/4 for my nonexistent K-1. In all seriousness, I really hope this pans out because that's going to be a very useful range on FF.

05-18-2016, 07:58 AM	#21
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	well damn, there goes the resale value of my Sigma 100-300 f4. oh wait, I wasn't going to sell it in this lifetime anyway. also mentioned was a 60mm macro. that sounds interesting...

05-18-2016, 08:27 AM	#22
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	100-300 f/4 is a little unexpected based on previous Pentax 100-300 designs. But it seems Ricoh has no problem with doing things different. Sounds like a good FF lens that fits a good spot in their line up. A 60-250 f/4 FF replacement for the DA*60-250 was actually what I was expecting. The DFA 70-200 f/2.8 is just too big for me but the 60-250 f/4 I can handle.

05-18-2016, 09:15 AM - 2 Likes	#23
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by WillWeaverRVA Holy crap, I would love a FF-compatible 100-300 f/4 for my non existent K-1. In all seriousness, I really hope this pans out because that's going to be a very useful range on FF. I would say - love non existent 100-300/4 for my non existent K-1

05-18-2016, 09:25 AM	#24
OoKU Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 740	Originally posted by Mistral75 The primary source: egami Ricoh 100-300mm F4?????????????So-net??? DFA70-200/2.8 is lens one of the patens

05-18-2016, 09:31 AM	#25
Venom3300 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 714	I feel like a 100-300 lens is a sports lens and for that I would want F2.8 not 4. So I just have a hard time seeing the need I guess.

05-18-2016, 09:47 AM - 1 Like	#26
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by WillWeaverRVA Holy crap, I would love a FF-compatible 100-300 f/4 for my nonexistent K-1. In all seriousness, I really hope this pans out because that's going to be a very useful range on FF. I'll say even more useful on APS... ---------- Post added 05-18-16 at 06:49 PM ---------- Originally posted by Venom3300 I feel like a 100-300 lens is a sports lens and for that I would want F2.8 not 4. So I just have a hard time seeing the need I guess. You couldn't afford one of those and hardly lift it. With todays high ISO performance, paying three times the price and twice the weight simply isn't worth it for most of us for just one stop....

05-18-2016, 12:14 PM	#27
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Venom3300 I feel like a 100-300 lens is a sports lens and for that I would want F2.8 not 4. So I just have a hard time seeing the need I guess. For me the need is just the lower weight. I have no interest in the 70-200 f/2.8, it's just too heavy for me. But a 70-200 f/4 might be just fine. Or this 100-300 f/4. With current ISO abilities in the cameras I am very happy to trade that one stop for a lower weight penalty.

05-18-2016, 03:41 PM	#29
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by Venom3300 I feel like a 100-300 lens is a sports lens and for that I would want F2.8 not 4. So I just have a hard time seeing the need I guess. That would be some beast !! Going back to when I had a Sigma 100-300/4 ... that was big enough.

05-19-2016, 01:26 AM	#30
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by jatrax 100-300 f/4 is a little unexpected based on previous Pentax 100-300 designs. But it seems Ricoh has no problem with doing things different. Sounds like a good FF lens that fits a good spot in their line up. A 60-250 f/4 FF replacement for the DA60-250 was actually what I was expecting. The DFA 70-200 f/2.8 is just too big for me but the 60-250 f/4 I can handle. I was wondering how small it could be. Its 50mm longer on the long end and 40mm longer on the short end. Does anyone have any idea of Pentax could keep it to the same size as the DA? Which is after all nearly FF, but the Sigma 100 to 300 Is pretty big if memory a serves...?