DA* 400mm F4 coming!

Peter Zack · 12-10-2009, 10:30 AM - **2 Likes**

Time to Wake Up?!?!

In my dreams, my DA* 400mm f4 looks better than this

I can dream with less distortion. Actually the dream version of my D-FA400mm f2.8 looks waaaay better

That is one poor fake.

**Ron Boggs** · 12-10-2009, 10:30 AM

and--you may be on to something there. I first thought it was just the strap, but on closer examination zoomed on the higher res version, it does, in fact, look a bit like a second front element and the longer lens in the image begins to look a bit pasted in--microcontrast doesn't seem to match or is that just the way the DA* finish reflects light? If they went to the trouble of pasting in a longer lens, why not clean up the shorter lens front element better than it appears?

Again, the image is a poor marketing photo. So poor as to prove that it almost can't be a marketing photo. Even a marketing assistant wouldn't have all the "issues" in an image and then try to use it for real marketing purposes.

So once again, we are analyzing a silly web photo--yawn.

WerTicus · 12-10-2009, 10:40 AM

Okay, so where was the shot taken? I'm going to say NZ

One of the south lakes.

vizjerei · 12-10-2009, 11:18 AM

"Mom~ someone don't brother to do a better photoshop job~"

Last edited by vizjerei; 12-10-2009 at 02:29 PM.

Blue · 12-10-2009, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Time to Wake Up?!?!

In my dreams, my DA* 400mm f4 looks better than this

I can dream with less distortion. Actually the dream version of my D-FA400mm f2.8 looks waaaay better

That is one poor fake.

Not to mention the photo was taken with a Canon Powershot A700.

goubejp · 12-10-2009, 02:40 PM

My DA* 300f4 length is 190 mm

AlexanderMayorov · 12-10-2009, 02:57 PM

http://ultraxs.com/image-2574_4B211E0D.jpg

check high resolution

Peter Zack · 12-10-2009, 03:07 PM

For what? The image is a fake.....

lol101 · 12-10-2009, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by AlexanderMayorov

http://ultraxs.com/image-2574_4B211E0D.jpg

check high resolution

It still looks like a 300f4...

If it's a 400mm, it isn't f4 but could be f5.6 (approx. same size as 300f4 but a bit longer).

Oggy · 12-10-2009, 03:11 PM

Looking at Alexander's link blown up as far as it will go, the gold writing between the focus distance window and the body looks very much as if it says Pentax 300.

Shame.

RBellavance · 12-10-2009, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Ron Boggs

Again, the image is a poor marketing photo. So poor as to prove that it almost can't be a marketing photo. Even a marketing assistant wouldn't have all the "issues" in an image and then try to use it for real marketing purposes.

I guess you're not familiar with PhotoshopDisasters ?

As for the lens pictured here, I have no opinion on its reality or lack thereof. I'll just point out that several people said the new D-FA100/2.8 macro was not real because the "leaked" images looked photoshopped.

RBellavance · 12-10-2009, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Oggy

Looking at Alexander's link blown up as far as it will go, the gold writing between the focus distance window and the body looks very much as if it says Pentax 300.

Agreed. The first number definitely looks like a "3" to me.

pcarfan · 12-10-2009, 04:34 PM

Looks like the DA300/4

dopeytree · 12-10-2009, 05:10 PM

It either says 300 or 600 in the gold lettering definatley not 400.

Andrew Faires · 12-10-2009, 05:42 PM

If that's not a PS job (and the bottom of the lens really looks like a chop job), then it's an f/5.6 based on the fact this looks like an FA* 400 f/5.6 that's been coloured in.

Also, is it me, or does that k-7 seem a bit larger than life in that guys hands?

12-10-2009, 03:11 PM	#25
Oggy Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: West Sussex UK Posts: 235	Looking at Alexander's link blown up as far as it will go, the gold writing between the focus distance window and the body looks very much as if it says Pentax 300. Shame. Last edited by Oggy; 12-10-2009 at 03:12 PM. Reason: fosuc???

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sports Coming down	Elva	Post Your Photos!	1	05-19-2010 07:29 PM
Tokina 80-400mm vs. Sigma 135-400mm	Buddha Jones	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-02-2008 04:53 PM
what coming?	PaengBonafe	Pentax News and Rumors	6	08-21-2007 06:27 PM

12-10-2009, 10:30 AM - 2 Likes	#16
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Time to Wake Up?!?! In my dreams, my DA* 400mm f4 looks better than this I can dream with less distortion. Actually the dream version of my D-FA400mm f2.8 looks waaaay better That is one poor fake.

12-10-2009, 10:30 AM	#17
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	and--you may be on to something there. I first thought it was just the strap, but on closer examination zoomed on the higher res version, it does, in fact, look a bit like a second front element and the longer lens in the image begins to look a bit pasted in--microcontrast doesn't seem to match or is that just the way the DA* finish reflects light? If they went to the trouble of pasting in a longer lens, why not clean up the shorter lens front element better than it appears? Again, the image is a poor marketing photo. So poor as to prove that it almost can't be a marketing photo. Even a marketing assistant wouldn't have all the "issues" in an image and then try to use it for real marketing purposes. So once again, we are analyzing a silly web photo--yawn.

12-10-2009, 10:40 AM	#18
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Okay, so where was the shot taken? I'm going to say NZ One of the south lakes.

12-10-2009, 11:18 AM	#19
vizjerei Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,418	"Mom~ someone don't brother to do a better photoshop job~" Last edited by vizjerei; 12-10-2009 at 02:29 PM.

12-10-2009, 02:31 PM	#20
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Peter Zack Time to Wake Up?!?! In my dreams, my DA* 400mm f4 looks better than this I can dream with less distortion. Actually the dream version of my D-FA400mm f2.8 looks waaaay better That is one poor fake. Not to mention the photo was taken with a Canon Powershot A700.

12-10-2009, 02:40 PM	#21
goubejp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: France Photos: Albums Posts: 804	My DA* 300f4 length is 190 mm

12-10-2009, 02:57 PM	#22
AlexanderMayorov Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Istanbul Photos: Gallery Posts: 466	http://ultraxs.com/image-2574_4B211E0D.jpg check high resolution

12-10-2009, 03:07 PM	#23
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	For what? The image is a fake.....

12-10-2009, 03:08 PM	#24
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by AlexanderMayorov http://ultraxs.com/image-2574_4B211E0D.jpg check high resolution It still looks like a 300f4... If it's a 400mm, it isn't f4 but could be f5.6 (approx. same size as 300f4 but a bit longer).

12-10-2009, 04:32 PM	#26
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by Ron Boggs Again, the image is a poor marketing photo. So poor as to prove that it almost can't be a marketing photo. Even a marketing assistant wouldn't have all the "issues" in an image and then try to use it for real marketing purposes. I guess you're not familiar with PhotoshopDisasters ? As for the lens pictured here, I have no opinion on its reality or lack thereof. I'll just point out that several people said the new D-FA100/2.8 macro was not real because the "leaked" images looked photoshopped.

12-10-2009, 04:33 PM	#27
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by Oggy Looking at Alexander's link blown up as far as it will go, the gold writing between the focus distance window and the body looks very much as if it says Pentax 300. Agreed. The first number definitely looks like a "3" to me.

12-10-2009, 04:34 PM	#28
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Looks like the DA300/4

12-10-2009, 05:10 PM	#29
dopeytree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Somerset, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 619	It either says 300 or 600 in the gold lettering definatley not 400.

12-10-2009, 05:42 PM	#30
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	If that's not a PS job (and the bottom of the lens really looks like a chop job), then it's an f/5.6 based on the fact this looks like an FA* 400 f/5.6 that's been coloured in. Also, is it me, or does that k-7 seem a bit larger than life in that guys hands?