Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-08-2008, 07:19 AM   #46
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
Check out the two reviews.
What I said: The 300/2.8 gets a rating of 10/10 while the 600/4 only gets a rating of 8/10. "Noticeably soft at f.4".

A 600/4 has a diameter of 150mm or a glass surface of 177 cm^2.
A 600/5.6 has a diameter of 107mm or a glass surface of 90 cm^2.
A 300/2.8 has a diameter of 107mm or a glass surface of 90 cm^2.

If I pay $5000+ for such a lens, it should be performer wide open. Otherwise, I would be better off with a 300/2.8 which captures the same amount of light wide open.

Having said this, I didn't say, the 600/4 isn't a good lens.
I said: "the optical quality of the 600/4 doesn't stand up to the promises of that of the 300/2.8 which is outstanding."

So, it's not a no-brainer and my question about the right to return still seems valid to me...

11-08-2008, 11:17 AM   #47
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,547
Sorry, I should have read more carefully. Thanks for the clarification.
11-08-2008, 03:13 PM   #48
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by Sirfishalot Quote
My vote goes to DA 500/5.6
Make that a 500/4.5 ala the old Takamura's, showing up @ affordable prices, and I'm interested.
11-08-2008, 03:20 PM   #49
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by Ishpuini Quote
Most annoying was when 420mm (or even 300mm after dicsmounting the TC) was too much and I needed slightly wider. I mounted the DA*50-135/2.8 but ever so often I didn't have the time for that or couldn't do it because there was too much dust.
+1... I intend on going back to Africa or other epic place with wildlife like the Galapagos (even tho I still have about 1000 RAWs to convert from my last trip to Africa!). But I will carry two bodies (maybe 3, one being a K-m?), to cover the wider ranges needed when the animal is too large & close for the super-telephoto setup sitting on the monopod...

But I can't agree with the "400 is the longest I needed". 600 or longer was perfect for Ngorongoro Crater and the Serengeti which are national parks where the land cruisers are not permitted to leave the road/trial. There's no such thing as "too long" when the lion staking its prey is about a mile away.

11-08-2008, 03:26 PM   #50
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
Why not buy one? You can special order 600/4 FA* from Pentax. 300/2.8 also. I wish I had the money to do just that. I know it weighs a tone, but ...
Surely. But they price themselves out of the market, with the Sigma 300/2.8 being so readily available, affordable, and such a good performer.
11-09-2008, 03:55 AM   #51
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
There's no such thing as "too long" when the lion staking its prey is about a mile away.
From what I have read, the atmosphere sets a limit to possible resolutions at a given distance, depending on humidity (low is better), temperature (low is better) and dust/pollution (low is better).
My own experiments suggest that 300mm on 14.6 MPixels are already about the limit at a dry and cold day in Munich (I.e., I couldn't resolve better than about 1 inch in about 1 mile distance independently from the focal length). Don't know about the conditions in Africa, though.

In this post, I posted an image of a church in 1 mile distance, taken with a 300mm lens (cf. last image):
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/316914-post25.html

Last edited by falconeye; 11-09-2008 at 04:04 AM.
11-09-2008, 09:52 PM   #52
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
My own experiments suggest that 300mm on 14.6 MPixels are already about the limit at a dry and cold day in Munich (I.e., I couldn't resolve better than about 1 inch in about 1 mile distance independently from the focal length). Don't know about the conditions in Africa, though.

In this post, I posted an image of a church in 1 mile distance, taken with a 300mm lens (cf. last image):
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/316914-post25.html
I was going to say "though the dust & heat distortion would be very evident". I should have .
In africa, with the dust & heat, conditions are terrible. But heat distortion does make photos look like a painting.


300/2.8 +2X TC; BG is the crater wall, not sky & clouds.

One of these days I'm going to do some controlled rez tests using my 300 alone & with, 1.4x, 1.7x & 2x (and maybe stacked). Whether using croping w/o TC vs using TCs yields best results has always been something I wanted a definitive answer on. I didn't think I'd see the zebra's stripes as well if I used just 300mm & cropped vs. the 600mm I used there. But I have no basis for knowing, as I wasn't going to open the camera mirror box to the elements in those conditions to experiment.
11-10-2008, 12:34 AM   #53
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,265
Mmm if one uses AF, the TC should provide more precise AF since the AF sensors will focus on smaller areas than without TCs.

Other than that, Isuppose one should volonteer to make precise test but his will be heavily dependent on particuliar lens/TCs used.

11-10-2008, 01:02 AM   #54
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,030
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
But I can't agree with the "400 is the longest I needed". 600 or longer was perfect for Ngorongoro Crater and the Serengeti which are national parks where the land cruisers are not permitted to leave the road/trial. There's no such thing as "too long" when the lion staking its prey is about a mile away.
My only experience relates mainly to two visits to the South Luangwa NP in Zambia and one to Etosha NP in Namibia. Not exactly the same landscapes as you refer to, but I managed with 420mm just fine. Ok, a few mm extra could have been nice for birds and one or two longer distance observations, but still 420mm and some cropping made for great results while retaining sufficient resolution... A lot of the shots that required more extensive cropping suffered too much from shimmering air (because of the heat) so longer glass wouldn't have helped there anyway.

I agree with the painting effect you describe in your other post, as long as it's on the background. I generally want my subject nice and sharp, unless there's movement to be suggested.

Wim
11-10-2008, 01:09 AM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,030
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
One of these days I'm going to do some controlled rez tests using my 300 alone & with, 1.4x, 1.7x & 2x (and maybe stacked). Whether using croping w/o TC vs using TCs yields best results has always been something I wanted a definitive answer on. I didn't think I'd see the zebra's stripes as well if I used just 300mm & cropped vs. the 600mm I used there. But I have no basis for knowing, as I wasn't going to open the camera mirror box to the elements in those conditions to experiment.
Before leaving for Southern Africa two months ago, I did a minor test with my FA*300/4.5 on two of the TCs I own, i.e. the Tamron 1.4x and the Sigma EX2x.

On the Tamron 1.4x I needed to stop down the aperture to at least f/9.5 (I work with half stops) to get a result of comparable sharpness or better detail as without the TC. The Sigma was beyond redemption, no matter how much I stopped down.

Hence I decided to leave the 2x at home (though it worked very nicely with the Sigma EX70-200 I previously owned) and only took the 1.4x. Fortunately there was enough light to use the TC frequently, though I did leave it off in morning and evening light as well as for the night shots with flash.

hth, Wim
11-10-2008, 07:53 AM   #56
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
I didn't think I'd see the zebra's stripes as well if I used just 300mm & cropped vs. the 600mm I used there.
This is some very nice Zebra photo! Unfortunately, it is heavily scaled down for the web. Assuming, the zebras are some 1 mile away, my 1 inch resolution guess would mean that you would still see the white in the zebra's eyes -- when viewed at full rez. Is it true?

BTW, turbulence is ok with short exposure times (stopping down helps too). Aerosol particles are much worse. The African desert probably isn't such a bad place for long distance shots -- because it is dry.
11-10-2008, 10:57 AM   #57
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 1,077
Revisiting Lens Heft for 600/4

Slow to get the scale out, but here are the figures:

Pentax FA*600/4 ready to shoot weighs 15.6 pounds
same lens minus tripod collar and Protective Front Filter weighs 13.6 pounds

Pentax FA*250-600/5.6 ready to shoot weighs 12.8 pounds
same lens minus tripod collar and Protective Front Filter weighs 11.2 pounds

Note that both these lenses have an integral non-removable hood. Most competitors' big guns have separate hoods which I personally dislike as I shoot a lot in winter cold with gloves on and dropping lens hoods happens with my other lenses, just not with the big guns.

I presume our friends at c and n weigh their lenses for publication purposes with any removeable pieces off the lens--ie no lens hood, no tripod collar and no front filter. The Pentax big guns came with the Protective Front Filters standard and list those filters in the owners manual as being an integral part of the optical formula not to be removed. They are massive, heavy filters--10 ounce for the 150mm on the 600, and 7 ounces for the 112mm on the big zoom. If we could remove the hood from the 600/4 the "publication weight" could be as low as 12.8 ish pounds. Curious what c's rumored 11 and a half pound 600/4 weighs in ready to shoot condition with all options installed? I'm guessing it's flirting with 14 pounds ish.

Again, none of these lenses will ever be used hand held--including c's lightweight 600--so as long as the weight is somewhere within the operating range of a heavy tripod and sturdy head (gimball or otherwise) a couple pound difference really doesn't change much in terms of ability to deal with working weight. I guess the snide remark might be, "hey, for a pound and a half I can have a Pentax, that's an easy decision!"

These type of lenses require a backpack style carry bag for off road adventures. I use a Better Birder's Scope Pack (now defunct) and the Domke reworking of that earlier pack. I also have a Kinesis semihard tube pack that has the earlier "square box" strap frame system that is not as user friendly as the other two mentioned packs. But the Kinesis has way more storage options and add-on side bags. And it's WAY more rugged. All three packs have padded shoulder straps, chest snap to connect the straps and padded waist belt/hip support. Compared to a pack for backpacking, these lenses in a pack are very light--less than half of most backpackers' packs--so no sniveling! And frankly, if you don't want to carry heavy equipment and oversized tripods and such, don't play the Supertelephoto game. I commonly travel without the big guns--they just aren't everyday shooters for me. And aren't likely to be every day shooters for you either.
11-10-2008, 11:31 AM   #58
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
Don't know if this helps....

I can personally state the FA* 300/2.8 is an outstanding lens, in terms of sharpness and clarity. I rarely shoot below F/3.5 or F/4 because I want some DOF in the shot.

I know it is very sharp even wide open: I saw no softness anywhere in the test shots at F/2.8. I was able to easily see the embedded dust particles in the finish at 9 feet away. I just wish the sensor was a 24x36 instead, so I would truly know if the edges are just as sharp in the corners of the smaller sensor test images.

BTW, that FA* 250-600/5.6 is sharp at all focal lengths, wide open. It's a real treat. I don't mind carrying larger/heavier lenses and gear for the job.

Regards,
Marc
11-10-2008, 02:03 PM   #59
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 1,077
Marc,
It was nice to see your tests with the 250-600, just to confirm that I wasn't loopy in my own unscientific tests. Plus, I really haven't "tested" any of my gear since the digital era. My tests were with transparency film and 8x and 12x magnification as well as resolution of prints up to 16x20. Nice to see that my recent digital results can be confirmed thru testing.

Also, I'm not misreading your comment am I? You said you have no problem lugging around heavy gear? Well, the whitetail rut is getting going and I have several trips coming up. I could really use a good Sherpa. You wouldn't have a problem taking the month off work and slogging thru knee-deep snow would you? Just teasing...
11-10-2008, 02:27 PM   #60
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
you are SO in trouble Ron... 8-)

QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Boggs Quote
Marc,
It was nice to see your tests with the 250-600, just to confirm that I wasn't loopy in my own unscientific tests. Plus, I really haven't "tested" any of my gear since the digital era. My tests were with transparency film and 8x and 12x magnification as well as resolution of prints up to 16x20. Nice to see that my recent digital results can be confirmed thru testing.
I think it's a stellar lens - no question. I'm picking up an 11x19 taken with the lens this week.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Boggs Quote
Also, I'm not misreading your comment am I? You said you have no problem lugging around heavy gear? Well, the whitetail rut is getting going and I have several trips coming up. I could really use a good Sherpa. You wouldn't have a problem taking the month off work and slogging thru knee-deep snow would you? Just teasing...

Besides, I think I'll do the smart thing and bring the snowshoes. That means I can carry the equipment and watch you slug it out in knee deep snow.... I'll use the big guns till you catch up... Of course, you have to cover the airfare/lodging!!

Ya gotta cover your bases and do your homework before posting Ron...

Cheers,
Marc
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: 12 Rolls Arista Legacy Pro 400 (aka Fuji Neopan 400) k100d Sold Items 1 11-22-2009 08:38 PM
Where Photography is Going in the Near Future mithrandir Photographic Technique 102 02-23-2009 05:11 AM
Future photographer hopefully? Atindra Post Your Photos! 9 09-24-2008 10:02 PM
Future 'Adaptations' John Kovarik Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 2 09-22-2007 02:07 PM
Tokina ATX 80-400 or K mount 400?? WRB Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 01-12-2007 05:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:54 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top