[Andrea K]

With all the patent references I gave you? You didn't try very hard...

Here a link to the patent application: 特開2016-139125 | 知財ポータル「IP Force」

Thanks and sorry!

[luftfluss]

Not directed only at you, but I really don't understand the fairly large number of posters stating they would like a 500 to 600mm lens to be released. There WAS a 560mm for sale for a few years, and it was apparently not very successful commercially.
What was wrong with it? The price? Then any other release (especially faster) will not be more favourable... The quality? Well I can't judge directly but from the posted photos and the few reviews it seems to have been quite nice, no?
This is not an agression Just a real question. I'm clearly not in the market for something like that and probably I missed something!?

For its specification, the 560/5.6 is too large, too heavy, too expensive when compared to other lenses that reach 500 or 600mm.

Also, using a prime that long can feel restrictive. For most users who are not hard-core long telephoto enthusiasts, a 150-600mm style zoom is the way to go.

[Serkevan]

For its specification, the 560/5.6 is too large, too heavy, too expensive when compared to other lenses that reach 500 or 600mm.

Also, using a prime that long can feel restrictive. For most users who are not hard-core long telephoto enthusiasts, a 150-600mm style zoom is the way to go.

I think the DA 560 doesn't even fit in a typical carry-on luggage, no? That's a significant design oversight IMO. And the DFA 150-450, which is optically fantastic, came out only two years later... I don't think a lot of people would choose a 560 prime while the DFA zoom has a far, far broader appeal (within its somewhat niche position as a "long, heavy lens")..

[normhead]

I think the DA 560 doesn't even fit in a typical carry-on luggage, no? That's a significant design oversight IMO.

I had the opportunity to tell one of the Japanese reps that when it was released. I think he was as disappointed as I was. For what I do, it's just not manageable.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Not directed only at you, but I really don't understand the fairly large number of posters stating they would like a 500 to 600mm lens to be released. There WAS a 560mm for sale for a few years, and it was apparently not very successful commercially.

They don't want to buy it, they just want it to be released because then they'll feel like Pentax is a big hitter in the heavy, fast, long lens world and they won't feel quite so (optically) under-endowed. The fact that only a couple of dozen people will actually buy one to repay Pentax for the development costs is irrelevant.

There's really nothing that all these people will ever want to shoot that they can't shoot with a K-3iii and a DFA 150-450mm.

[KiloHotelphoto]

I think the DA 560 doesn't even fit in a typical carry-on luggage, no? That's a significant design oversight IMO. And the DFA 150-450, which is optically fantastic, came out only two years later... I don't think a lot of people would choose a 560 prime while the DFA zoom has a far, far broader appeal (within its somewhat niche position as a "long, heavy lens")..

The 560 could fit in carry on luggage.

[Serkevan]

They don't want to buy it, they just want it to be released because then they'll feel like Pentax is a big hitter in the heavy, fast, long lens world and they won't feel quite so (optically) under-endowed. The fact that only a couple of dozen people will actually buy one to repay Pentax for the development costs is irrelevant.

There's really nothing that all these people will ever want to shoot that they can't shoot with a K-3iii and a DFA 150-450mm.

Absolutely agreed. While there are a handful of people who really really want to shoot stuff that more or less needs a 600mm high quality lens, I'd argue that the vast majority of that handful has either

A) learned to live with the 450 and crop,
B) ponied up for a FA* 250-600 (or other less modern glass), or
C) ponied up for a new system and left Pentax because it hasn't fulfilled their needs in the last ~20 years.

R&D most likely costs the same for Canon as it does for Pentax. Pentax has to bring strategic - not halo - products to the market, IMO. Take the recent DFA 21: it's a Limited lens (and from the samples it truly lives up to the name) which, while ultra wide, it's not THAT ultra wide that it makes it a super niche product (I'm the first to admit that the use cases for my Irix 11mm are very specific at best). And it doesn't cost even half of what a good 600mm would.

[normhead]

There's really nothing that all these people will ever want to shoot that they can't shoot with a K-3iii and a DFA 150-450mm.

Ain't it the truth. I have the Tamron 2x for my Tamron 300 2.8 to give me 600mm ƒ/5.6. And it works great with my K-1... yet, I almost never use it. Of the people I've actually known with 600mm or longer glass, most don't even use it once a year. The DFA 150-450 is a fantastic lens. And it's aperture at 5.6 means it's capable of using the 1.4 TC for those who want 600mm. The only issue as I see it is the price. If I was really desperate for a zoom that goes to 600mm, I'd already have sold a kidney and bought one.

[Serkevan]

The 560 could fit in carry on luggage.

Huh, that's good to know. At 522 mm in length, it barely fits a 55cm carry on (and does so without case, or you're carrying a specific lens case), so I assumed that it would be a risky move (although to be fair with non-low costs I've never had issues with the measures of my carry-on as long as it was a backpack).

[Wheatfield]

Absolutely agreed. While there are a handful of people who really really want to shoot stuff that more or less needs a 600mm high quality lens, I'd argue that the vast majority of that handful has either

A) learned to live with the 450 and crop,
B) ponied up for a FA* 250-600 (or other less modern glass), or
C) ponied up for a new system and left Pentax because it hasn't fulfilled their needs in the last ~20 years.

R&D most likely costs the same for Canon as it does for Pentax. Pentax has to bring strategic - not halo - products to the market, IMO. Take the recent DFA 21: it's a Limited lens (and from the samples it truly lives up to the name) which, while ultra wide, it's not THAT ultra wide that it makes it a super niche product (I'm the first to admit that the use cases for my Irix 11mm are very specific at best). And it doesn't cost even half of what a good 600mm would.

For those who really feel the need for a super telephoto, the option exists to buy a lens and body from another manufacturer and dedicating it to a particular activity.
Not a hard concept. When I was shooting film I had 3 different systems from 3 different manufacturers to do what I wanted to do.
I don't see why a person couldn't buy a 600+mm lens from, for example, Nikon, and pick up one of their bodies to use for their bird photography. All it would mean in the field is carrying an extra body. If one is already carrying a reasonable fast 600mm lens, the body is small potatoes.

Ricoh is being very strategic about what lenses they are releasing, and it is apparent they are going to release what they expect to make money on. I see the DFA21/2.4 as a bit of a risk for them because it is a relatively limited use very wide angle. A 600/4 * lens would be an even more limited use lens that they would never recover their invenstment on.

[acoufap]

They don't want to buy it, they just want it to be released because then they'll feel like Pentax is a big hitter in the heavy, fast, long lens world and they won't feel quite so (optically) under-endowed. The fact that only a couple of dozen people will actually buy one to repay Pentax for the development costs is irrelevant.

There's really nothing that all these people will ever want to shoot that they can't shoot with a K-3iii and a DFA 150-450mm.

Guess it‘s the right time to release a DFA TC1.4x.

[KiloHotelphoto]

Huh, that's good to know. At 522 mm in length, it barely fits a 55cm carry on (and does so without case, or you're carrying a specific lens case), so I assumed that it would be a risky move (although to be fair with non-low costs I've never had issues with the measures of my carry-on as long as it was a backpack).

I travel regularly with my Canon gear with no problems and it’s bigger than the 560. I get a 600 F4, 100-500 two R5’s with battery grips a 1.4 and 2x tc and the 50mm 1.8 in my backpack.

The 560 really isn’t that big, it’s long but it’s really skinny and light and the way the hood slides down is nice it takes up no room. The lens hood for my Canon is huge, I know some guys who will put that in their checked luggage but at almost a $1,000 to replace it I’m not taking the chance with it getting damaged.

[RobG]

You did not misread it, however the OP miswrote it. The 120-600mm numerical example in the patent application is actually f/4.9-6.5. Commercially that would be a f/5-6.3 lens, not f/5-5.6.

OK, except the example I was pointing to was 125-600? Even so, if it's the same f-stop on the long end as the DFA 150-450 but with 600mm, that would be a 33% gain in maximum focal length with no loss in brightness. I can get a 40% gain from the HDDA 1.4 TC but the minimum f-stop becomes at least f8, and there's a significant loss of sharpness (at least on my copy).

---------- Post added 20-10-21 at 09:39 AM ----------

The 560 could fit in carry on luggage.

Maybe in America, but certainly not in Australia, and certainly not on any of the international flights I've been on. Qantas carry-on rules specify a 115cm total dimensions with 56cm on the long side. The lens is just over 52cm but I seriously doubt that a hard case would fit inside 56cm. You also get only one carry-on bag. So you carry on the lens and put the rest of your camera gear in the hold?
Or was your post missing a smiley?

[Mistral75]

OK, except the example I was pointing to was 125-600? Even so, if it's the same f-stop on the long end as the DFA 150-450 but with 600mm, that would be a 33% gain in maximum focal length with no loss in brightness. (...)

The exact values of the numerical example in question are 123.50-592.46mm f/4.9-6.5. Definitely f/6.5 at the long end, not f/5.6.

A lens with such specifications would be commercially named 120-600mm f/5-6.3 or 125-600mm f/5-6.3, your pick.

[RobG]

The exact values of the numerical example in question are 123.50-592.46mm f/4.9-6.5. Definitely f/6.5 at the long end, not f/5.6.
A lens with such specifications would be commercially named 120-600mm f/5-6.3 or 125-600mm f/5-6.3, your pick.

I'm not sure why this response was necessary. Calm down.

I said: "Even so, if it's the same f-stop on the long end as the DFA 150-450 but with 600mm, that would be a 33% gain in maximum focal length with no loss in brightness".