Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-30-2009, 02:51 AM   #166
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by kunik Quote
If Pentax does this lens i would think it would come in at about 7lb and cost $4000 USD or less
A Pentax 300/2.8 or 600/4 is app. 6x the price of a 300/4 ($6000). Going by diameter^3 (~weight), this is just a bit less of increase. So, 400/300^3 = 2.4x is an upper bound for such a lens. Therefore, a 400/4 should be $1600 - $2600.

05-30-2009, 05:07 AM   #167
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Read those B&H owner reviews to confirm 400mm DO status as "Poor Performer"

If canon sells their 400mm f4 for $5,500 why would pentax version cost less? If Nikon had one it would be about $7,000. Nikon supertele's are all much more expensive than Canon counterparts.

I think a used 300mm 2.8 FA and a vapoureware 1.4x SDM teleconverter is as close as Pentax mount owners will get to a Pentax 400mm f4 thats made by pentax and not third party options.

Don't forget to check the 400mm f4 owner reviews:

Canon | Telephoto EF 400mm f/4.0 DO | 7034A002 | B&H Photo Video



Now this one has a cult following. I've considered it, but no Image Stabilization makes me hessitant. Really for the price of $1,199 I think 400mm 5.6 is a great option at this focal length, well it you own a Eos Mount dslr or film camera:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html


Proof of Cult Following picture thread dedicated to 400mm 5.6L at fredmiranda:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/753966




QuoteOriginally posted by kunik Quote
I think the fact that the Canon is a DO lens adds significantly to the price (it is extremely small and light considering its specs). It is also a poor performer from what I have seen which makes it pretty unpopular. If Pentax does this lens i would think it would come in at about 7lb and cost $4000 USD or less

Last edited by Samsungian; 05-30-2009 at 05:27 AM. Reason: added thread link
05-30-2009, 05:22 AM   #168
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
My opinion (and what people are forgetting) :


135/2.8...not gonna happen. What focal length will this "replace"? Anyone
it's easy DA135 = 200 mm. at FF.

and I have been waiting DA135 for a long time.
05-30-2009, 05:54 AM   #169
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
If canon sells their 400mm f4 for $5,500 why would pentax version cost less? ]
Because the Canon is a diffraction optics lens. The Pentax will not be. A 400/4 is cheaper than a 300/2.8 lens. A Pentax 400/4 will cost $3000-4000.

05-30-2009, 06:30 AM   #170
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
In a way Nikon offers a 400mm f4 but as a zoom

This one has a strong following:

Nikon | 200-400mm f/4 G-AFS ED-IF VR Lens | 2146 | B&H Photo

But its $5,900 for a zoom. If Nikon made a prime 400mm f4 it would easily top $5,900. And theres no fancy DO elements in it to cut weight. Considering the 300mm 2.8 FA is no longer sold new and used 400mm 5.6 FA sells used for $2500 I cannot imagine a Pentax 400mm f4 costing less than $4000 in USA market.



QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Because the Canon is a diffraction optics lens. The Pentax will not be. A 400/4 is cheaper than a 300/2.8 lens. A Pentax 400/4 will cost $3000-4000.
05-30-2009, 07:21 AM   #171
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
This one has a strong following:

Nikon | 200-400mm f/4 G-AFS ED-IF VR Lens | 2146 | B&H Photo

But its $5,900 for a zoom. If Nikon made a prime 400mm f4 it would easily top $5,900. And theres no fancy DO elements in it to cut weight. Considering the 300mm 2.8 FA is no longer sold new and used 400mm 5.6 FA sells used for $2500 I cannot imagine a Pentax 400mm f4 costing less than $4000 in USA market.
That lens is a zoom lens. It has 2-3 times the number og glass elements of a prime 400/4 which is a simple construction. In addition, the Nikon lens has optical IS that grossly complicate the lens. Theres no comparison.
05-30-2009, 12:25 PM   #172
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Posts: 851
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
Considering the 300mm 2.8 FA is no longer sold new and used 400mm 5.6 FA sells used for $2500 I cannot imagine a Pentax 400mm f4 costing less than $4000 in USA market.
To compare rare used Pentax gear is not as useful as looking at new Canon gear.

A new 300/2.8 IS from Canon is $4100
A new 400/5.6 from Canon is $1200 - I have no idea why the Pentax is fetching such a high used price???
A new 200/2.8 from Canon and Pentax cost almost exactly the same ~$700
The Canon 400/4 is DO and is not comparable

To suggest a 400/4 would cost anywhere near the same price as a 400/5.6 ($1200) is VERY wishful thinking. The price of the Canon 300/2.8 is likely $200-$500 more than a Pentax would be because of the IS. My guess is this 400/4 lens from Pentax would cost $3500-$4000. If I am out by more than $500 on either end I would be pretty surprised.
05-30-2009, 02:11 PM   #173
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
it's easy DA135 = 200 mm. at FF.

and I have been waiting DA135 for a long time.
And we already have a 200/2.8...they should make the 135mm faster like 2.5 or even 2. IF they do a DA* or DA Ltd of this lens it should be a 135/2.

05-30-2009, 02:33 PM   #174
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Posts: 851
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
And we already have a 200/2.8...they should make the 135mm faster like 2.5 or even 2. IF they do a DA* or DA Ltd of this lens it should be a 135/2.
Agreed. The 135/2 is one of the gems in the Canon lineup. Its gotta be one of the best wedding lenses ever.
05-30-2009, 02:36 PM   #175
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
Pentax did develop a FA* 150/2 but never marketed it. Maybe time for a resurrection?
They also developed an FA 90/3.5 Macro Limited.....
05-30-2009, 05:15 PM   #176
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 736
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Pentax did develop a FA* 150/2 but never marketed it. Maybe time for a resurrection?
They also developed an FA 90/3.5 Macro Limited.....
They also prototyped a 300mm F2!
That would be cool
05-30-2009, 05:34 PM   #177
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
And we already have a 200/2.8...they should make the 135mm faster like 2.5 or even 2. IF they do a DA* or DA Ltd of this lens it should be a 135/2.
It is very easy to declare that there should be a 135mm f/2 without realizing that there is a very big difference between a 135mm f/2 and a 135mm f/2.8. There needs to be a doubling of the size of the front element, an increase in size, weight and naturally... cost. Even among Canon and Nikon users, the proportion of them using a 135mm f/2 is relatively small. Having f/1.8 or f/2 is certainly a welcome prospect but will it sell in numbers, considering there are many Pentax users who are penny pinchers that complain how expensive Pentax lenses are... How many already own the current DA* 200mm f/2.8 or DA* 300mm f/4 which are very good optically???
05-30-2009, 05:46 PM   #178
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Posts: 851
The canon 135/2 weighs ~750g, has a 72mm front filter and costs less than $1000. All of these parameters fall within reason for many pentaxians
05-30-2009, 07:47 PM   #179
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
ouch, thats up $80 in past couple months

I know a guy who owns this 135mm f2 & he uses canon extension tube 12mm II for butterfly in flight shots. Insanely speedy autofocus with extention tube attached. Bummer about the price increase:


Canon | Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2520A004


QuoteOriginally posted by kunik Quote
The canon 135/2 weighs ~750g, has a 72mm front filter and costs less than $1000. All of these parameters fall within reason for many pentaxians
05-30-2009, 10:27 PM   #180
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
It is very easy to declare that there should be a 135mm f/2 without realizing that there is a very big difference between a 135mm f/2 and a 135mm f/2.8. There needs to be a doubling of the size of the front element, an increase in size, weight and naturally... cost. Even among Canon and Nikon users, the proportion of them using a 135mm f/2 is relatively small. Having f/1.8 or f/2 is certainly a welcome prospect but will it sell in numbers, considering there are many Pentax users who are penny pinchers that complain how expensive Pentax lenses are... How many already own the current DA* 200mm f/2.8 or DA* 300mm f/4 which are very good optically???
QuoteOriginally posted by kunik Quote
The canon 135/2 weighs ~750g, has a 72mm front filter and costs less than $1000. All of these parameters fall within reason for many pentaxians
If they do it...it's gotta be a * or Ltd. Even if it was a normal DA and even if it was still an f/2.8, look at the price of the "pedestrian" used F version. IMO the * would be an f/2 or the Ltd would be an f/2.5-8...that's just how it would be. I can't see this lens as a regular DA...
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!
lenses, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hopes for the future? Pentax full frame (ff), K-5, and lenses Clinton Pentax DSLR Discussion 35 09-05-2010 05:07 PM
If Pentax goes full frame, will they promote 645 lenses to fill the lens gap? turbosaturn Pentax News and Rumors 17 07-10-2010 09:36 PM
Full Frame Lenses Taff Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 10-25-2009 01:00 AM
Digital Only or Full Frame lenses JamieP Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 05-10-2009 08:48 PM
Full Frame Digital with DA lenses konraDarnok Pentax News and Rumors 27 08-20-2008 11:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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