DA* 400+ in the future?

Big I · 10-31-2008, 10:14 AM

whoops! nevermind, I just found it! sorry!

tomtor · 10-31-2008, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Ishpuini

I know it will probably never happen, but I would so like to see a DA*135-400/4 or similar.

Wim

Hi Wim,

I wonder why you would want it to be a zoom?

I have a Tokina-400/5.6 which I find a bit short in focal length for wildlife, but it has very nice physical dimensions, so I would like a 400/4 which could be combined with a 1.4x converter.

I think a 500/5.6 would be too long in physical dimensions.

I'm not sure if I would like it to be a zoom like 135-400, but combined with the 1.4x converter that might be more useful. The reason I wonder if zoom functionality outweighs a loss in IQ is that I seldom find that for wildlife a telephoto is too short.

Perhaps for sport things are different. If it is a zoom I would prefer 135-400/2.8-4 or would that be a strange wish?

roentarre · 10-31-2008, 02:25 PM

It has been a dream lens to own for many of us. It is taking a little too long.

rvannatta · 11-01-2008, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Ishpuini

I know it will probably never happen, but I would so like to see a DA*135-400/4 or similar.

Wim

well if the 60-250 zoom ever happens and has the optical quality
to get there with a doubler, you can get within an F stop of your goal.

I have a 300/f 2.8 and a 600 f 5.6 I've looked real hard to
try to see if the 600 wasa better than the 300 with a 2x doubler and I have yet to be able show myself a difference. consequently I usually don't carry the 600 due to logistics.

falconeye · 11-01-2008, 07:05 PM

Tokina has 8 lenses, which 7 of are availabe as Pentax lens.

The only one missing is the
Tokina AT-X 840 AF D (AF 80-400mm f/4.5~5.6).
With the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, it is one of their two FF lenses.

So, the very first speculation must be that this is the lens to fill the road map's super tele rectangle. Sorry folks.

tomtor · 11-02-2008, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by rvannatta

well if the 60-250 zoom ever happens and has the optical quality
to get there with a doubler, you can get within an F stop of your goal.

Doubling the 60-250/4 would result in a 120-500/8. That's two stops slower, not within an F stop of a 135-400/4.

A 1.4x will result in a 85-350/5.6, that's probably a bit too short/slow for a super tele.

The more I think about it, a 135-400/4 would indeed be ideal, but probably quite expensive.

MikePerham · 11-02-2008, 09:37 AM

I kinda like zooms for the normal wide to modest tele range and that is well served by the DA* 16-50 and 50-135 lenses. For anything longer or shorter, I think I would prefer primes. Perhaps I would get the 11-16 if Pentax were to introduce that in a DA* f2.8 version, but would rather have a 12mm f2.8 prime.

Same goes for the longer lenses and I think a DA*400 f4 would be ideal. Could be used with the 1.4 TX and would mate up with the DA*200 very well. Also I think a 400 prime would be less expensive than a 135-400 zoom and more compact if the later were also a constant f4 lens.

Talisker · 11-02-2008, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Tokina has 8 lenses, which 7 of are availabe as Pentax lens.

The only one missing is the
Tokina AT-X 840 AF D (AF 80-400mm f/4.5~5.6).
With the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, it is one of their two FF lenses.

Not so. The 11-16 mm isn't available as Pentax (however much people may wish), and the 100mm is a different lens as far as I'm aware. The 80-400mm is quite an old design that pre-dates the Tokina/Pentax joint working...

falconeye · 11-02-2008, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by MikePerham

For anything longer or shorter, I think I would prefer primes.

I second your opinion. Esp. long tele often needs to be cropped further and resolution is prime (in the double sense of the word

).

thibs · 11-02-2008, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Talisker

and the 100mm is a different lens as far as I'm aware.

No, AFAIK those are the same lenses although the 100mm might be a Tokina design, I'm not sure sure anymore about that.

Ishpuini · 11-06-2008, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by tomtor

Hi Wim,

I wonder why you would want it to be a zoom?

I have a Tokina-400/5.6 which I find a bit short in focal length for wildlife, but it has very nice physical dimensions, so I would like a 400/4 which could be combined with a 1.4x converter.

I think a 500/5.6 would be too long in physical dimensions.

I'm not sure if I would like it to be a zoom like 135-400, but combined with the 1.4x converter that might be more useful. The reason I wonder if zoom functionality outweighs a loss in IQ is that I seldom find that for wildlife a telephoto is too short.

Perhaps for sport things are different. If it is a zoom I would prefer 135-400/2.8-4 or would that be a strange wish?

I don't like variable aperture zooms too much because they are a pain to use in manual mode, so I would rather have it fixed f/4.

400mm is about the longest I mostly need. I went to Africa recently using my FA*300 on my Tamron 1.4x TC, resulting in 420mm. This was great (except perhapd for a few small birds) though getting optically good results meant stopping down to f/9.5. However, since this type of photography is mostly from a vehicle that has its limitations in movement a zoom would have been much easier. 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. Hence my wish for a DA*135-400/4. I almost always used the 50-135 at 135mm in those cases. The DA*60-250/4 with the same TC might work too, but probably manual focus only, same as with the other SDM lenses inspite of the powerzoom contacts in the TC enabling SDM (the DA*s just don't lock focus with the TC). I hope the Pentax TC will solve this problem, but I fear it will take more than just a TC (the K30D with upgraded AF?).

A fixed 400mm or longer lens would be too much for specific use to justify its price for me.

Wim

tomtor · 11-06-2008, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Ishpuini

I don't like variable aperture zooms too much because they are a pain to use in manual mode, so I would rather have it fixed f/4.

400mm is about the longest I mostly need. I went to Africa recently using my FA*300 on my Tamron 1.4x TC, resulting in 420mm. This was great (except perhapd for a few small birds) ...

A fixed 400mm or longer lens would be too much for specific use to justify its price for me.

Clear, thanks for your answers. My wildlife is mostly birds, so that's probably the reason why I don't find the need to zoom out very often.

We'll see what the future will bring, a zoom lens is ok for me, but I'm afraid I'll probably find it too expensive anyway, haven't been photographing birds very much lately.

**Canada_Rockies** · 11-06-2008, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Sebbe_J

Hahaha, yeah, that would be perfect

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 ...

falconeye · 11-07-2008, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

Why not buy one? You can special order 600/4 FA* from Pentax. 300/2.8 also.

I heard that the optical quality of the 600/4 doesn't stand up to the promises of that of the 300/2.8 which is outstanding. If one buys a lens built on order, is it possible to return it?

**Canada_Rockies** · 11-07-2008, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

I heard that the optical quality of the 600/4 doesn't stand up to the promises of that of the 300/2.8 which is outstanding. If one buys a lens built on order, is it possible to return it?

Not according the lens review database here. Check out the two reviews. One is quite critical of bits falling off, but from 5.6 in both reviews the lens is sharp and contrasty. The second review did not like it on the K10d, but there isn't enough information for me to guess why.

11-02-2008, 09:37 AM	#37
MikePerham Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Prince George, BC Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 642	My 2 cents worth... I kinda like zooms for the normal wide to modest tele range and that is well served by the DA* 16-50 and 50-135 lenses. For anything longer or shorter, I think I would prefer primes. Perhaps I would get the 11-16 if Pentax were to introduce that in a DA* f2.8 version, but would rather have a 12mm f2.8 prime. Same goes for the longer lenses and I think a DA400 f4 would be ideal. Could be used with the 1.4 TX and would mate up with the DA200 very well. Also I think a 400 prime would be less expensive than a 135-400 zoom and more compact if the later were also a constant f4 lens.

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

10-31-2008, 10:14 AM	#31
Big I Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Central Kansas Posts: 112	whoops! nevermind, I just found it! sorry!

10-31-2008, 02:03 PM	#32
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	Originally posted by Ishpuini I know it will probably never happen, but I would so like to see a DA*135-400/4 or similar. Wim Hi Wim, I wonder why you would want it to be a zoom? I have a Tokina-400/5.6 which I find a bit short in focal length for wildlife, but it has very nice physical dimensions, so I would like a 400/4 which could be combined with a 1.4x converter. I think a 500/5.6 would be too long in physical dimensions. I'm not sure if I would like it to be a zoom like 135-400, but combined with the 1.4x converter that might be more useful. The reason I wonder if zoom functionality outweighs a loss in IQ is that I seldom find that for wildlife a telephoto is too short. Perhaps for sport things are different. If it is a zoom I would prefer 135-400/2.8-4 or would that be a strange wish?

10-31-2008, 02:25 PM	#33
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	It has been a dream lens to own for many of us. It is taking a little too long.

11-01-2008, 06:32 PM	#34
rvannatta Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apiary, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,181	Originally posted by Ishpuini I know it will probably never happen, but I would so like to see a DA*135-400/4 or similar. Wim well if the 60-250 zoom ever happens and has the optical quality to get there with a doubler, you can get within an F stop of your goal. I have a 300/f 2.8 and a 600 f 5.6 I've looked real hard to try to see if the 600 wasa better than the 300 with a 2x doubler and I have yet to be able show myself a difference. consequently I usually don't carry the 600 due to logistics.

11-01-2008, 07:05 PM	#35
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Tokina has 8 lenses, which 7 of are availabe as Pentax lens. The only one missing is the Tokina AT-X 840 AF D (AF 80-400mm f/4.5~5.6). With the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, it is one of their two FF lenses. So, the very first speculation must be that this is the lens to fill the road map's super tele rectangle. Sorry folks.

11-02-2008, 12:51 AM	#36
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	Originally posted by rvannatta well if the 60-250 zoom ever happens and has the optical quality to get there with a doubler, you can get within an F stop of your goal. Doubling the 60-250/4 would result in a 120-500/8. That's two stops slower, not within an F stop of a 135-400/4. A 1.4x will result in a 85-350/5.6, that's probably a bit too short/slow for a super tele. The more I think about it, a 135-400/4 would indeed be ideal, but probably quite expensive.

11-02-2008, 10:03 AM	#38
Talisker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Isle of Skye, Scotland Photos: Gallery Posts: 262	Originally posted by falconeye Tokina has 8 lenses, which 7 of are availabe as Pentax lens. The only one missing is the Tokina AT-X 840 AF D (AF 80-400mm f/4.5~5.6). With the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, it is one of their two FF lenses. Not so. The 11-16 mm isn't available as Pentax (however much people may wish), and the 100mm is a different lens as far as I'm aware. The 80-400mm is quite an old design that pre-dates the Tokina/Pentax joint working...

11-02-2008, 10:26 AM	#39
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by MikePerham For anything longer or shorter, I think I would prefer primes. I second your opinion. Esp. long tele often needs to be cropped further and resolution is prime (in the double sense of the word ).

11-02-2008, 01:59 PM	#40
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Talisker and the 100mm is a different lens as far as I'm aware. No, AFAIK those are the same lenses although the 100mm might be a Tokina design, I'm not sure sure anymore about that.

11-06-2008, 03:16 AM	#41
Ishpuini Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Antwerp, Belgium Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,727	Originally posted by tomtor Hi Wim, I wonder why you would want it to be a zoom? I have a Tokina-400/5.6 which I find a bit short in focal length for wildlife, but it has very nice physical dimensions, so I would like a 400/4 which could be combined with a 1.4x converter. I think a 500/5.6 would be too long in physical dimensions. I'm not sure if I would like it to be a zoom like 135-400, but combined with the 1.4x converter that might be more useful. The reason I wonder if zoom functionality outweighs a loss in IQ is that I seldom find that for wildlife a telephoto is too short. Perhaps for sport things are different. If it is a zoom I would prefer 135-400/2.8-4 or would that be a strange wish? I don't like variable aperture zooms too much because they are a pain to use in manual mode, so I would rather have it fixed f/4. 400mm is about the longest I mostly need. I went to Africa recently using my FA300 on my Tamron 1.4x TC, resulting in 420mm. This was great (except perhapd for a few small birds) though getting optically good results meant stopping down to f/9.5. However, since this type of photography is mostly from a vehicle that has its limitations in movement a zoom would have been much easier. Most annoying was when 420mm (or even 300mm after dicsmounting the TC) was too much and I needed slightly wider. I mounted the DA50-135/2.8 but ever so often I didn't have the time for that or couldn't do it because there was too much dust. Hence my wish for a DA135-400/4. I almost always used the 50-135 at 135mm in those cases. The DA60-250/4 with the same TC might work too, but probably manual focus only, same as with the other SDM lenses inspite of the powerzoom contacts in the TC enabling SDM (the DA*s just don't lock focus with the TC). I hope the Pentax TC will solve this problem, but I fear it will take more than just a TC (the K30D with upgraded AF?). A fixed 400mm or longer lens would be too much for specific use to justify its price for me. Wim

11-06-2008, 12:54 PM	#42
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	Originally posted by Ishpuini I don't like variable aperture zooms too much because they are a pain to use in manual mode, so I would rather have it fixed f/4. 400mm is about the longest I mostly need. I went to Africa recently using my FA*300 on my Tamron 1.4x TC, resulting in 420mm. This was great (except perhapd for a few small birds) ... A fixed 400mm or longer lens would be too much for specific use to justify its price for me. Clear, thanks for your answers. My wildlife is mostly birds, so that's probably the reason why I don't find the need to zoom out very often. We'll see what the future will bring, a zoom lens is ok for me, but I'm afraid I'll probably find it too expensive anyway, haven't been photographing birds very much lately.

11-06-2008, 10:55 PM	#43
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Sebbe_J Hahaha, yeah, that would be perfect 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 ...

11-07-2008, 04:31 AM	#44
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies Why not buy one? You can special order 600/4 FA* from Pentax. 300/2.8 also. I heard that the optical quality of the 600/4 doesn't stand up to the promises of that of the 300/2.8 which is outstanding. If one buys a lens built on order, is it possible to return it?

11-07-2008, 10:50 AM	#45
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by falconeye I heard that the optical quality of the 600/4 doesn't stand up to the promises of that of the 300/2.8 which is outstanding. If one buys a lens built on order, is it possible to return it? Not according the lens review database here. Check out the two reviews. One is quite critical of bits falling off, but from 5.6 in both reviews the lens is sharp and contrasty. The second review did not like it on the K10d, but there isn't enough information for me to guess why.