[normhead]

Norm, I'm not asking for a 150-600...



Chris

I was just thinking 400mm is really nice on APS-c , 600mm equivalent, but it's a sort of half way there number on FF. On FF 600 is the magic number. MY guess is a 400 ƒ4, while awesome in that it would give you 560 ƒ5.6 with a TC, would be pricey.

Check out the Canon 400 ƒ4


$9,000 dollars Canadian

I wonder if Pentax even has any of that type of customer left, people who want to drop $9000 on a lens.

A 400 ƒ4 would be as much glass as the 560 ƒ5.6 which costs over $5000 Canadian.

So yes a 400 ƒ4 would be nice, but it's unlikely many would buy it. And with other brands having 500 ƒ4, and 600 ƒ4, I'm not sure it would help Pentax much. Anyone going for really long lenses is probably not still with Pentax, although some of the big spenders that are left have bought legacy glass, where those kinds of numbers are common.

My choice would be a replacement for my Tamron 300 2.8 and a matched 2x TC. YOu'd still be looking at $4000 CDN minimum.

Or were you looking to drop $10k ?

There's little more frustrating than trying to find affordable long glass solutions.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-10-2020 at 07:50 AM.

[repaap]

Isn’t there 560/5,6 already available? That should be good

[normhead]

Isn’t there 560/5,6 already available? That should be good

There is....a Pentax rep put one in my hands once hoping I'd order one. It's way to big and long for my kind of opportunities.

And apparently it's not too shabby with the TC on it.

[phoebus]

Isn’t there 560/5,6 already available? That should be good

But is doesn't have SR, which was the point I was making above... ...that SR in the lens may help autofocus performance.

[TwoUptons]

Here's the thing, the 70-300 is a 4.28 to one ratio. Not many lenses with that kind of ratio are good throughout their ranges the 60-250 being the exception. So clearly, we are talking about either a $1500 lens, or one with limited usefulness. God help us if it's a Tamron, not a new modern design.

I'm hoping it's of the same relative quality as the 55-300 for APS-C... and that's more than 5:1 zoom...
It's clearly going to be variable aperture, and probably not nearly as useful with a teleconverter as the 60-250 or 70-210 (or 70-200 f2.8), so I don't think it's going to be $1500...
But I really hope it isn't of "limited usefulness".

And since the patents say Ricoh all over them, the only way it will be a Tamron is if Pentax licenses it to them...
...which is not necessarily a bad thing, as the Tamron 70-300 I currently have is, well, of "limited usefulness"

-Eric

[normhead]

I'm hoping it's of the same relative quality as the 55-300 for APS-C... and that's more than 5:1 zoom...

That DA 55-300 completely rewrote the script for what you can get for not much money... but ƒ6.3... hmmmmm.

[FozzFoster]

That DA 55-300 completely rewrote the script for what you can get for not much money... but ƒ6.3... hmmmmm.

As the dudes at my local camera store will tell ya: "There's no free lunch!"

[normhead]

As the dudes at my local camera store will tell ya: "There's no free lunch!"

Something that I have had cause to wonder about. Why is there no free lunch? There oughta be free lunch.

The A 400 5.6 is as close as you can get. It's not free, and it's not lunch, but in the context above, it's pretty close.

[repaap]

There is....a Pentax rep put one in my hands once hoping I'd order one. It's way to big and long for my kind of opportunities.

And apparently it's not too shabby with the TC on it.

Guys who are shooting with it, seems to like it. Lenght has been complait thou.

But is doesn't have SR, which was the point I was making above... ...that SR in the lens may help autofocus performance.

No, Who knows, perhaps if this 70-300 has SR, we will see a series of longer lenses with SR? Sounds good if it would indeed give AF a better chance, also for shooter. It is interesting times ahead

[normhead]

But is doesn't have SR, which was the point I was making above... ...that SR in the lens may help autofocus performance.

Mounting. a heavy lens on tripod also vastly increases AF performance. I'm not saying in lens stabilization will never help in any circumstance, but it's not what you seem to think it is.

All these lenses in this image have in lens stabilization, except my Tammy 300, yet they are all on tripods. There's is a lesson there.

Even with in lens SR, it can be very hard to hold a big lens steady enough to achieve focus, and it's much harder to find your subject.

There may be a small percentage of your images where it's a big deal, but in my experiences it's with shorter lenses than 300mm, and less than 2 pounds.





The one on the right with no tripod? A complete newbie, still figuring it out.

A Pentax guy with a K-1 and 150-450... we don't need no stinking in lens stabilization.


So there are lot of people with in lens stabilization, who are happiest not throwing fate to the wind and depending on it. You pretty much have to consider it a possible option with unknown value in any given circumstance as far as I can tell. Reviewers make way too much of a big deal about it. On the big heavy lenses it's next to worthless 90% of the time. That would be any 400mm or longer lens but something like my old A-400 5.6.

With a 70-300 type of lens, Pentax has probably gone for the optimal in lens SR focal length.

[repaap]

Mounting. a heavy lens on tripod also vastly increases AF performance. I'm not saying in lens stabilization will never help in any circumstance, but it's not what you seem to think it is.

All these lenses in this image have in lens stabilization, except my Tammy 300, yet they are all on tripods. There's is a lesson there.

Even with in lens SR, it can be very hard to hold a big lens steady enough to achieve focus, and it's much harder to find our subject.

There may be a small percentage of your images where it's a big deal, but in my experiences it's with shorter lenses than 300mm, and less than 2 pounds.

There seems to be one potographer in perfect camo, it is not visible at all. Not a suprise that it is pentax user. have to dissappear among canons.

kidding aside. I took my a 400/5,6 and did place it on my (gone by now) Oly 5MkII and it became some what 800 mm lens. First thought was to get some birds in front of it. I did. for a split second, and then hunting and finding it again. Even if Olympus SR make image more stabile, it was still hopeless hunting. I'm sure that those gimbals are useful even with lighter setups.

[normhead]

There seems to be one potographer in perfect camo, it is not visible at all. Not a suprise that it is pentax user. have to dissappear among canons.

kidding aside. I took my a 400/5,6 and did place it on my (gone by now) Oly 5MkII and it became some what 800 mm lens. First thought was to get some birds in front of it. I did. for a split second, and then hunting and finding it again. Even if Olympus SR make image more stabile, it was still hopeless hunting. I'm sure that those gimbals are useful even with lighter setups.

The trouble with hunting without a tripod, is you lose track of where you are. With a tripod it's pretty easy to do a grid scan scan across drop down bit, scan back, drop down a bit more. Without the tripod you're just randomly looking at places with no particular rhyme nor reason.

---------- Post added 06-10-20 at 02:57 PM ----------

There seems to be one potographer in perfect camo, it is not visible at all. Not a suprise that it is pentax user. have to dissappear among canons.

K-3 on the camera, K-1 for the group shot.

I had a really bad day that day. Everyone else was just snapping away, I couldn't find the bird, even with no cameras up to my eye. Very frustrating. No wonder I took time out for the group shot. At least I could find them in the viewfinder. Usually I'm the guy telling everyone else where it is, A guy with a Nikon 600 ƒ4 and a 1.4 TC absolutely wiped everyone else's butss. Amazing detail and isolation. 840mm was the perfect focal length for the subject.

Somedays you have the best equipment for the job, somedays you don't. It's all luck of the draw as far as I can tell. I've been out with my 60-250 shooting Pa Fox and left all the long lens guys in the dust. They were way back trying to get him in the frame.


Many of the long lens shooters are now carrying a smaller zoom as well as their heavy glass, just for similar occasions.

Like this lady, a bazooka on the tripod, smaller lens for close captures around her waist.


Many of my early shots were taken with the 60-250 and TC.
I got started with my A-400 being my longest glass and the 60-250 with the 1.4 for 350mm 5.6, is a great option.

[repaap]

That seems about right. Good thing about 400 mm is when on FF, it is not as cramped as it is on aps-c. I’d love to buy one day even 150-450. But so many fine new lenses on my list to buy. This 70-300 will do until then. Jury is still out with SR thing, until we see what it is. ‘Newbie’ will probably benefit from this most. I have to get more time to sit down and wait and patience for it too. You, Norm said that you started out with a400/5,6. I’d recon it is a fine lens to do that.

[normhead]

That seems about right. Good thing about 400 mm is when on FF, it is not as cramped as it is on aps-c. I’d love to buy one day even 150-450. But so many fine new lenses on my list to buy. This 70-300 will do until then. Jury is still out with SR thing, until we see what it is. ‘Newbie’ will probably benefit from this most. I have to get more time to sit down and wait and patience for it too. You, Norm said that you started out with a400/5,6. I’d recon it is a fine lens to do that.

It certainly impresses on you how much you have to clean up your style of shooting. I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a start in telephoto. trouble is, there just aren't that many around. If everyone wants one, that will just push the price up.

[thibs]

Here's the thing, the 70-300 is a 4.28 to one ratio. Not many lenses with that kind of ratio are good throughout their ranges the 60-250 being the exception. So clearly, we are talking about either a $1500 lens, or one with limited usefulness. God help us if it's a Tamron, not a new modern design.

If the said lens is indeed relateds to this patent, it can't be Tamron or the patent would be labelled with Tamron on it and not Pentax.
But Ricoh might end with the same decision as the 70-210/4. Might.