[monochrome]

Yes, the 150-450 is an excellent performer, right out to the end of it's focal length.
I hope Pentax is not investing any significant money in a DA* 400 F4. The number of people that would buy that instead of or in addition to a 150-450 or a 560 has to be vanishingly small.
A new wide angle prime or a 70-200 F4 would likely sell in much greater numbers and be a much bigger ROI for Pentax.

Good points....

IMO a DFA 70-200/4 of the build quality, weight, IQ and aggressive pricing of the DFA 28~105 ZOOM would be a substantial seller.

[solitudebound]

Interesting. Although i haven't been watching this 70-200 f4 in particular. Spending more money on the hd or ltd models for a while now. I think the last telephoto i bought was the 150-450mm.
Would be interesting to hear more facts about the 70-200 F4.

[ZombieArmy]

IMO a DFA 70-200/4 of the build quality, weight, IQ and aggressive pricing of the DFA 28~105 ZOOM would be a substantial seller.

I'd save up for it. Already considering a 28-105 and I don't shoot fullframe.

[luftfluss]

I considered buying a Canon DSLR just to get access to lenses which aren't available in the Pentax mount, but I'm very happy with the DFA 150-450. While a longer lens would be great optically, it would cost far more than I could justify, and would only work on a tripod.

Yup. I feel ya.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[angerdan]

If Pentax had a yen to develop a somewhat exotic tele lens, I think a HD Pentax-D FA* 200mm F4 SDM AW should be the one. It fits in with the Pentax ethos and would be a modern update on a Pentax classic.

An D FA* 200mm 4.0 would combine the disadvantages of the DA* 200 with the ones from the DA* 300: to short focal length with to slow aperture.
Even the D FA 70-200/4 and D FA 150-450mm would cover 200/4.
And there's already an FA* 200mm 4.0 Macro.

[Kunzite]

Lenses they stopped making decades ago don't count; but yeah, a D FA* 200mm f/4 would better be a macro.

IMO the lens roadmap makes a lot of sense. I'd really like to see those on the market - then, what they'll have next.

[luftfluss]

An D FA* 200mm 4.0 would combine the disadvantages of the DA* 200 with the ones from the DA* 300: to short focal length with to slow aperture.
Even the D FA 70-200/4 and D FA 150-450mm would cover 200/4.
And there's already an FA* 200mm 4.0 Macro.

Lenses they stopped making decades ago don't count; but yeah, a D FA* 200mm f/4 would better be a macro.

Yes, sorry, I meant a 200mm Macro. I corrected my post.

[xmeda]

400/5.6 makes no sense, DFA 400/4 maybe, but that would be different league.

They need some 70-300/4-5.6 for FF (or better 60-300 and use it for both APS-C and FF)

Then they need something really long like Tamron 150-600, Sigma 150-600 or 60-600. So some DFA*150-600 would be nice..

But we only can dream about such lenses. Even if they appear on some lens road map in future it will take another decade to reach market. It is very sad, that all those FA* lenses were discontinued. They used to have so many lenses that are missing today.. 24/2, 85/1.4, 200/4 macro, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 250-600/5.6... instead we can buy some overpriced DA560 type lens.

[BigMackCam]

400/5.6 makes no sense, DFA 400/4 maybe, but that would be different league.

They need some 70-300/4-5.6 for FF (or better 60-300 and use it for both APS-C and FF)

Then they need something really long like Tamron 150-600, Sigma 150-600 or 60-600. So some DFA*150-600 would be nice..

But we only can dream about such lenses. Even if they appear on some lens road map in future it will take another decade to reach market. It is very sad, that all those FA* lenses were discontinued. They used to have so many lenses that are missing today.. 24/2, 85/1.4, 200/4 macro, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 250-600/5.6... instead we can buy some overpriced DA560 type lens.

Michal, given how invested you are in the K-mount and how much Ricoh / Pentax needs to change to meet your expectations, is there any hope that your posts will become positive in the near future? There's an awful lot of negativity in your 128 post history...

[Kunzite]

Michal, given how invested you are in the K-mount and how much Ricoh / Pentax needs to change to meet your expectations

Zero Pentax/Ricoh products, and no intention of buying anything new. Sorry, it had to be said - I'm tired of people making lists with products they wouldn't buy just to claim those are missing.

People who put their money where their mouths should be more credible in their demands, don't you think?

[RonHendriks1966]

Back in the old days one had to be an appreciated photographer publishing his work to be more credible on their opinion. Now anyone who says he is credible demands to be important.

[luftfluss]

I'm a person who shoots a lot of (old) long tele, and I admire (and envy) systems that have numerous choices, ranging from "consumer grade" zooms to "professional" fast primes.

That said, the DFA 150-450 appears to be an outstanding lens that offers very good performance @ 450mm even wide open - better than the 150-600's @ 600mm. So if you couple the DFA 150-450 with the HD 1.4x TC, you're matching the 150-600 in focal length and at the bare minimum matching it in resolving power.

As an example, Ephotozine rated the DFA 150-450's sharpness just shy of "excellent" wide open @ 450mm; they rated Sigma Sports 150-600 as just shy of "very good" wide open @ 600mm.

A long tele zoom is not an issue for Pentax.

[TwoUptons]

A long tele zoom is not an issue for Pentax.

But a medium, FF tele-zoom (70-200 or 75-300 or whatever) is a big issue, I think...

-Eric

[Serkevan]

Michal, given how invested you are in the K-mount and how much Ricoh / Pentax needs to change to meet your expectations, is there any hope that your posts will become positive in the near future? There's an awful lot of negativity in your 128 post history...

With the money he could get by selling his terribly un-modern gear, getting at least decently well into Fuji/Sony/Name-a-not-doomed-brand™ shouldn't be an issue.

But yelling at clouds is better I guess?

[normhead]

For me a 300 2.8 would be a better option. I use my Tamron 300 2.8 with the 1.4 TC, the 1.7x AF adapter and the Tamron NC7 2x adapter. 420 ƒ4, 510 ƒ4.5 and 600 ƒ5.6 in a lighter easier to carry package.

But a medium, FF tele-zoom (70-200 or 75-300 or whatever) is a big issue, I think...

-Eric

Not really.
I've been getting queries about the DA 55-300 PLM on a K-1.

I took a couple screen caps to show the amount of vignetting. At 300mm vignetting is minimal and image files are typically larger after cropping than APS_c file taken with ak-3.


You can see with this image at 108mm the vignetting is heavier, but still produces a 16:9 cropped 24 MP image.


The largest I can get cropping a K-3 image to 16:9 is 16 MP, so there is still a distinct resolution advantage on FF even if you can't use the whole frame. You just have to leave a bit of space around the desired part of the image. And it sure beats carrying a heavier lens.
This one taken at 108mm, but you will see similar vignetting at many other focal lengths.

Some magazine rated the DA 55-300 PLM against everyone else's comparable lenses and rated it best in class, and it's extremely quick focusing. Maybe it's Sony, Canon, Nikon, Tamron and Sigma that need to catch up. They corrected it better than the older design with more elements and groups. Does it even have competition among the other brands? Plus it was designed for a 24 MP APS_c camera, so way overkill in sharpness on a K-1.

You might be mistaken in just who needs to catch up here.