Is it possible that the "DA super telephoto"-lens will be a DA*-lens?

Andi Lo · 04-12-2009, 07:23 AM

DA* 60-250 is not the DA super telephoto. The exact range of the super telephoto hasn't been announced yet. 250 isn't yet super telephoto anyway I think.

18-250 is being discontinued IIRC.

lol101 · 04-13-2009, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by nixcamic

I'm personally hoping its a pentax version of the tokina 80-400mm, and that its reasonably priced. I'm also hoping that they hurry and make a pentax version of the 11-16mm.

Seriously, the 80-400 Tokina is a rather old design and did not fare well in the recent tests I have seen of the Canon and Nikon versions.

I sincerely hope that Pentax has still the knowledge to produce a modern design for this kind of lens without buying an old one from Tokina or anyone else.

Aditya Panda · 04-14-2009, 07:42 AM

I sincerely hope that super-tele is going to be a DA* 500mmF4 or perhaps even a 600mmF4. That would be the perfect complement to my DA* 300mmF4 which on many occasions is just too short for birds. A 400mmF4 really isn't enough for me to upgrade.... and I'm sure many of my fellow Pentaxians owning a DA* 300 have been dreaming of a DA* 500/4... I really wouldn't want to buy a Sigma 500mmF4.5 down the line... don't want to settle for anything less than DA* glass and weather sealing.

Cheers,
Aditya

falconeye · 04-14-2009, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

this is why Pentax did not just relaunch the excellent F*/FA* 300/4.5 but made a 300/4 instead

My FA* 300/4.5 + Tamron 1.4x deliver flawless AF performance on my K20D. It is not as snappy as w/o the converter. But it works. Looks like the limit is more like f/6.3 rather than f/5.6.

snostorm · 04-14-2009, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

My FA* 300/4.5 + Tamron 1.4x deliver flawless AF performance on my K20D. It is not as snappy as w/o the converter. But it works. Looks like the limit is more like f/6.3 rather than f/5.6.

Actually, the limit is more like f8 (effective max aperture) for AF in the Pentax bodies. I use my FA* 300/4.5 with the 1.7x AFA (effective f7.7 max aperture) quite a lot, and it will AF reliably on all but the darkest overcast days. On the other hand, my Tokina 150-500 f5.6 AT-X SD would not AF with the AFA at noon on June 21 on a cloudless sunny day as it's just too slow (but I was hoping . . .)

Scott

**Pål Jensen** · 04-14-2009, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by snostorm

Actually, the limit is more like f8 (effective max aperture) for AF in the Pentax bodies. I use my FA* 300/4.5 with the 1.7x AFA (effective f7.7 max aperture) quite a lot, and it will AF reliably on all but the darkest overcast days. On the other hand, my Tokina 150-500 f5.6 AT-X SD would not AF with the AFA at noon on June 21 on a cloudless sunny day as it's just too slow (but I was hoping . . .)

Scott

One thing is whats works and one thing is what works to the manufacturers specification of the AF system.
The real benefit of a 400/4 is that it is the longest and fastest lens that can confortable be handheld; also with a converter, greatly improving this super telephotos versatility.

eurostar · 04-15-2009, 01:46 AM

I am with Pål on this one. A 400/4 would be really easy to handheld, while at the same time delivering the same magnification a 600 did on film. Also, while Pentax have never managed to create a 400/5,6 really outstanding, they had the great performing M*400/4 for the 67.

Lastly, if Hoya has not changed the Pentax policy of bringing back the old lenses field of view, the 200/2,8 stands for the old 300/2,8, the 300/4 stands for both the 400/5,6 and the 500/4,5, sitting exactly in between, and then we need a 400/4 to stand for the old 600/4.

Unless they would do a true "super" tele(zoom), and present a 170-400/4, with fixed aperture, like the Nikkor 200-400/4. It would stand for the old 250-600/5,6, like that would be a great optical achievement... It would be also cosmically expensive, are there people out there that would buy it?

thibs · 04-16-2009, 01:38 PM

Except that Pentax adapted FOV but not aperture.

200/2.8 replaces 300/2.8, 300/4 replaces 400/4, 35/2.8 macro replaces 50/2.8 macro and 55/1.4 replaces 85/1.4.

jmbradd · 04-18-2009, 09:05 PM

I want a long prime or zoom similar to the nikon 200-400...something thats going to be big, burly and look like a tank turret.

I could live with a 200-400 f/4 if they can get it in the 1000-1500 range.

Basically for me I want a lot for a decent price...if i'm plunking down 1000-1500 on a lens I want a lot even though camera gear doesn't often do that. Constant aperture, long reach, large filter diamater, metal construction, sdm lens, GPS, built in bird call, built in intervolometer for an injured animal call, bluetooth and the ability to will the san jose sharks to victory.

Honestly though pentax I would love a true wildlife lens not worth its weight in gold, but IQ good enough to warrant packing it in to tough locations.

**Pål Jensen** · 04-19-2009, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by jmbradd

I could live with a 200-400 f/4 if they can get it in the 1000-1500 range.
.

Dream on!:ugh:

A 400/4 prime lens will cost between $3000-$4000 if we're lucky....

blende8 · 04-19-2009, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by eurostar

I am with Pål on this one. A 400/4 would be really easy to handheld,

My hands must be very different than yours.
I can handhold only up to about 200mm for consistently sharp shots.

I would like to see a small 400/5.6 lens.

jmbradd · 04-20-2009, 11:36 AM

i meant a 200-400 zoom and dreaming was the whole point of the post.

glanglois · 04-20-2009, 01:02 PM

Given the aggressive (closeout?) pricing on the 18-250 in the US, perhaps Hoya are dropping it from the Pentax-badged lineup. It's freely available as a Tamron; Hoya may want to spend resources on exclusive lenses whilst leaving the rest of the market to third parties.

I don't think my Tamron 18-250 is performing any differently than a Pentax version. Where's the benefit to me or to Pentax? I fear they froze the market during the period when we were waiting for the Pentax announcement. That didn't benefit anyone!

04-19-2009, 04:35 AM	#25
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by jmbradd I could live with a 200-400 f/4 if they can get it in the 1000-1500 range. . Dream on!:ugh: A 400/4 prime lens will cost between $3000-$4000 if we're lucky.... Last edited by Pål Jensen; 04-19-2009 at 04:46 AM.

04-19-2009, 04:57 AM	#26
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Originally posted by eurostar I am with Pål on this one. A 400/4 would be really easy to handheld, My hands must be very different than yours. I can handhold only up to about 200mm for consistently sharp shots. I would like to see a small 400/5.6 lens. Last edited by blende8; 04-19-2009 at 05:51 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do custom "artistic" or even "funny" lens caps evenexist?	lovemehate	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	02-10-2016 09:10 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax "Super Program" w/Telephoto Lens (US/CAN)	TokyoRevelation	Sold Items	4	07-24-2010 08:42 AM
K-mount Experts: How to convert a "KAF2" lens to "KF"?	panoguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	07-08-2010 05:20 PM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM
Another "which telephoto" lens thread	BGH	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	11-01-2007 05:09 AM

04-12-2009, 07:23 AM	#16
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	DA* 60-250 is not the DA super telephoto. The exact range of the super telephoto hasn't been announced yet. 250 isn't yet super telephoto anyway I think. 18-250 is being discontinued IIRC.

04-13-2009, 01:42 AM	#17
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by nixcamic I'm personally hoping its a pentax version of the tokina 80-400mm, and that its reasonably priced. I'm also hoping that they hurry and make a pentax version of the 11-16mm. Seriously, the 80-400 Tokina is a rather old design and did not fare well in the recent tests I have seen of the Canon and Nikon versions. I sincerely hope that Pentax has still the knowledge to produce a modern design for this kind of lens without buying an old one from Tokina or anyone else.

04-14-2009, 07:42 AM	#18
Aditya Panda Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Bhubaneswar, India Photos: Gallery Posts: 104	I sincerely hope that super-tele is going to be a DA* 500mmF4 or perhaps even a 600mmF4. That would be the perfect complement to my DA* 300mmF4 which on many occasions is just too short for birds. A 400mmF4 really isn't enough for me to upgrade.... and I'm sure many of my fellow Pentaxians owning a DA* 300 have been dreaming of a DA* 500/4... I really wouldn't want to buy a Sigma 500mmF4.5 down the line... don't want to settle for anything less than DA* glass and weather sealing. Cheers, Aditya

04-14-2009, 09:08 AM	#19
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Pål Jensen this is why Pentax did not just relaunch the excellent F/FA 300/4.5 but made a 300/4 instead My FA* 300/4.5 + Tamron 1.4x deliver flawless AF performance on my K20D. It is not as snappy as w/o the converter. But it works. Looks like the limit is more like f/6.3 rather than f/5.6.

04-14-2009, 03:03 PM	#20
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by falconeye My FA* 300/4.5 + Tamron 1.4x deliver flawless AF performance on my K20D. It is not as snappy as w/o the converter. But it works. Looks like the limit is more like f/6.3 rather than f/5.6. Actually, the limit is more like f8 (effective max aperture) for AF in the Pentax bodies. I use my FA* 300/4.5 with the 1.7x AFA (effective f7.7 max aperture) quite a lot, and it will AF reliably on all but the darkest overcast days. On the other hand, my Tokina 150-500 f5.6 AT-X SD would not AF with the AFA at noon on June 21 on a cloudless sunny day as it's just too slow (but I was hoping . . .) Scott

04-14-2009, 03:19 PM	#21
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by snostorm Actually, the limit is more like f8 (effective max aperture) for AF in the Pentax bodies. I use my FA* 300/4.5 with the 1.7x AFA (effective f7.7 max aperture) quite a lot, and it will AF reliably on all but the darkest overcast days. On the other hand, my Tokina 150-500 f5.6 AT-X SD would not AF with the AFA at noon on June 21 on a cloudless sunny day as it's just too slow (but I was hoping . . .) Scott One thing is whats works and one thing is what works to the manufacturers specification of the AF system. The real benefit of a 400/4 is that it is the longest and fastest lens that can confortable be handheld; also with a converter, greatly improving this super telephotos versatility.

04-15-2009, 01:46 AM	#22
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	I am with Pål on this one. A 400/4 would be really easy to handheld, while at the same time delivering the same magnification a 600 did on film. Also, while Pentax have never managed to create a 400/5,6 really outstanding, they had the great performing M*400/4 for the 67. Lastly, if Hoya has not changed the Pentax policy of bringing back the old lenses field of view, the 200/2,8 stands for the old 300/2,8, the 300/4 stands for both the 400/5,6 and the 500/4,5, sitting exactly in between, and then we need a 400/4 to stand for the old 600/4. Unless they would do a true "super" tele(zoom), and present a 170-400/4, with fixed aperture, like the Nikkor 200-400/4. It would stand for the old 250-600/5,6, like that would be a great optical achievement... It would be also cosmically expensive, are there people out there that would buy it?

04-16-2009, 01:38 PM	#23
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Except that Pentax adapted FOV but not aperture. 200/2.8 replaces 300/2.8, 300/4 replaces 400/4, 35/2.8 macro replaces 50/2.8 macro and 55/1.4 replaces 85/1.4.

04-18-2009, 09:05 PM	#24
jmbradd Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Albums Posts: 325	I want a long prime or zoom similar to the nikon 200-400...something thats going to be big, burly and look like a tank turret. I could live with a 200-400 f/4 if they can get it in the 1000-1500 range. Basically for me I want a lot for a decent price...if i'm plunking down 1000-1500 on a lens I want a lot even though camera gear doesn't often do that. Constant aperture, long reach, large filter diamater, metal construction, sdm lens, GPS, built in bird call, built in intervolometer for an injured animal call, bluetooth and the ability to will the san jose sharks to victory. Honestly though pentax I would love a true wildlife lens not worth its weight in gold, but IQ good enough to warrant packing it in to tough locations.

04-20-2009, 11:36 AM	#27
jmbradd Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Albums Posts: 325	i meant a 200-400 zoom and dreaming was the whole point of the post.

04-20-2009, 01:02 PM	#28
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	Given the aggressive (closeout?) pricing on the 18-250 in the US, perhaps Hoya are dropping it from the Pentax-badged lineup. It's freely available as a Tamron; Hoya may want to spend resources on exclusive lenses whilst leaving the rest of the market to third parties. I don't think my Tamron 18-250 is performing any differently than a Pentax version. Where's the benefit to me or to Pentax? I fear they froze the market during the period when we were waiting for the Pentax announcement. That didn't benefit anyone!