[OrenMc]

I just tossed the name 40D out there without much knowledge of its preformance. I am just frustrated that I would have to consider something like this. I am just going to have to have some patience.

BTW, nice shots borno

[netuser]

I just tossed the name 40D out there without much knowledge of its preformance. I am just frustrated that I would have to consider something like this. I am just going to have to have some patience.

BTW, nice shots borno

A longer lens is comming OrenMc

[MJB DIGITAL]

What is typical is this kind of blanket statement about a particular piece of gear, but it's only typical of gearheads and fanboys, not really of any kind of reality... :ugh:

We, Pentax people, of all people should know that since our equipment is so often critisized by people who just didn't take the time to get to know anything about Pentax gear in the first place.

Thank you lol

I have shot on many of the ten series (20d, 30d, 40d...) and the one series (1ds, 1dmk2n, 1dsmk2, 1dsmk3) and a couple of nikons (don't remember which but my dad has a d80)...blah blah you get the point.

anyway, you always seem to find out what the limitations are in the gear and work around it. when you don't find those limitations and basically just suck, you just shoot a bunch of crap...no blaming it on the gear...

I'd be interested to know how many would actually buy this 400mm if it were to be released. That end of the market must be relatively small compared to shorter focal lengths. Pentax will only manufacture a lens they think will sell in sufficient numbers.

[netuser]

I'd be interested to know how many would actually buy this 400mm if it were to be released. That end of the market must be relatively small compared to shorter focal lengths. Pentax will only manufacture a lens they think will sell in sufficient numbers.

I'm saving/raising money for sigma 500/4.5 so ....

[HawaiianOnline]

I'm saving/raising money for sigma 500/4.5 so ....

+1. For some situations, there is no substitute for longer glass and "free" IS.

[jgredline]

I'm saving/raising money for sigma 500/4.5 so ....

If your serious, I have one for sale. I bought it last year and have used it less than 5 times. PM me if interested.

[snostorm]

I'd be interested to know how many would actually buy this 400mm if it were to be released. That end of the market must be relatively small compared to shorter focal lengths. Pentax will only manufacture a lens they think will sell in sufficient numbers.

Hi Gary,

I normally shoot long (300mm or longer), so I would fit into the target market, and I wouldn't consider a DA*400/4. It would be bigger than my FA*300/2.8 (longer, with the same front element size --112mm), and that's about as large a lens as I can use practically (age and health considerations) on a daily basis.
Also, unlike many it seems, I don't have any fantasies about how much a lens of this spec would cost -- probably between $4.5-6K USD. After so much angst about the pricing of the K-7(???), I doubt that very many would actually part with over $4K for this lens.

Nikon and Canon not only have deeper pockets, but have guaranteed sales of these expensive lenses -- not only to the relatively large numbers of sports and wildlife Pros, but also to the very numerous world-wide camera gear rental houses. Pentax has to sell these lenses to individuals, and a relatively small segment of an already small market share at that.

I'd probably only get marginally better optical performance than I do with a 1.4x TC and the FA*300/2.8, so how practical would that really be? -- IMO not very. . .not for that kind of $$$.

A 400/5.6 or 400/5.0 would be much more likely choices, with a more practical size and correspondingly smaller price tag -- I might consider a 400/5, as it would probably still AF with TCs where an f5.6 might struggle, even with the increased AF sensitivity of the K-7.

. . . and speaking of TCs. . . but that's another post. . .

Bottom line, I think that Pentax's best bet would be to release a DA*300/2.8. They already have a superb optical formula, and would only need to add WR, SDM, and Quick Shift plus the digital coatings. This is a much more useful FL/max aperture spec for an ultra tele, IMO.

Scott

[Andrew Faires]

I'd be interested to know how many would actually buy this 400mm if it were to be released. That end of the market must be relatively small compared to shorter focal lengths. Pentax will only manufacture a lens they think will sell in sufficient numbers.

If Pentax puts together a 400mm lens, I'd seriously consider it as long as it:
-was sharper than the existing FA*400 f/5.6
-could focus at least as fast/accurate as the FA* version on the k-7
-came with the standard weather-sealing that the DA* line offers

If Pentax did the above and put it in an F/4.0 flavour, that would seal the deal and my FA* version would be on ebay. Having said that, I wouldn't buy right away. My first priority is an UWA lens and then I'd be at least a year saving for the 400.

[philbaum]

Hi Gary,
I normally shoot long (300mm or longer), so I would fit into the target market, and I wouldn't consider a DA*400/4. It would be bigger than my FA*300/2.8 (longer, with the same front element size --112mm), and that's about as large a lens as I can use practically (age and health considerations) on a daily basis.
Also, unlike many it seems, I don't have any fantasies about how much a lens of this spec would cost -- probably between $4.5-6K USD. After so much angst about the pricing of the K-7(???), I doubt that very many would actually part with over $4K for this lens.
Nikon and Canon not only have deeper pockets, but have guaranteed sales of these expensive lenses -- not only to the relatively large numbers of sports and wildlife Pros, but also to the very numerous world-wide camera gear rental houses. Pentax has to sell these lenses to individuals, and a relatively small segment of an already small market share at that.
I'd probably only get marginally better optical performance than I do with a 1.4x TC and the FA*300/2.8, so how practical would that really be? -- IMO not very. . .not for that kind of $$$.
A 400/5.6 or 400/5.0 would be much more likely choices, with a more practical size and correspondingly smaller price tag -- I might consider a 400/5, as it would probably still AF with TCs where an f5.6 might struggle, even with the increased AF sensitivity of the K-7.
. . . and speaking of TCs. . . but that's another post. . .
Bottom line, I think that Pentax's best bet would be to release a DA*300/2.8. They already have a superb optical formula, and would only need to add WR, SDM, and Quick Shift plus the digital coatings. This is a much more useful FL/max aperture spec for an ultra tele, IMO.
Scott

Scott, you make way too much sense. I belong to a 70 member camera club, and we have a few members that are really into the birding thing. 2 have 600mm lenses, the most recently purchased was a Nikon lens with VR for $10,000 about 24 months ago. To hold this heavy monster, a specialized tripod was purchased with a special gimbal head which added another $800 to the cost. These guys have choice birding areas where the distance isn't too far from their car, they set up their equipment, and spend their time available pretty much at that spot trying to identify and capture images of various bird species to add to their stock photo sites. Occasionally they will give lectures on the birds in a particular area, perhaps going into the 8 or 10 varieties of local sea gulls. There's nothing wrong with this field of photography, but newbies might want to spend some time in the field with audobon types before investing too much. Its not for everyone.
My DA300f4 weighs 34 oz and i find that as much as i want to lug along anywhere. I occasionally find a good landscape or cityscape use for it, but if i had to sell lenses, it would be among the first group to go.

[eurostar]

I have an empty spot between the 60-250 and the A600/5,6 to fill with a lens aimed to make BIF. Not considering the cost, I fear a 400/4 would be too heavy/large for this use. I owned the FA*300/2,8 and it was too big, I had to use a monopod for it and was not enough agile for flying birds.
For this kind of use, a 400/5,6 I feel would be easier. I tried a friend's FA*400/5,6, but the lack of a focus limiter was a problem.

[Eaglerapids]

I'd be interested to know how many would actually buy this 400mm if it were to be released. That end of the market must be relatively small compared to shorter focal lengths. Pentax will only manufacture a lens they think will sell in sufficient numbers.

It would definitely make me think long and hard. But do I need a 300mm AND a 400mm that costs $5000? I think snostorm makes a good point, if Pentax came out with a DA* 400/5.6 in the $1300 range and it was tack sharp at f5.6 I would be all over it. I don't know if I will ever be able to afford a 500/4 lens but if Pentax came out with one I it would lock me into Pentax for the duration, meaning i would for sure stay with their bodies into the future. I bet there are many like me also. With no big guy to dream about there is no choice for a serious birder but to go to Canon or Nikon. Or, I suppose, to go with the big Sigma. But I didn't buy into Pentax for the chance to buy Sigma lenses.
But it's a moot point, Pentax can't even release a high quality 1.4X teleconverter, it'll be years before we see anything above and beyond the DA* 300/4. Prove me wrong Pentax, I dare you.

[ghelary]

I owned the FA*300/2,8 and it was too big, I had to use a monopod for it and was not enough agile for flying birds.

You certainly have heard of it, but have you tried a Wimberley head with a tripod.

It would definitely make me think long and hard. But do I need a 300mm AND a 400mm that costs $5000? I think snostorm makes a good point, if Pentax came out with a DA* 400/5.6 in the $1300 range and it was tack sharp at f5.6 I would be all over it. I don't know if I will ever be able to afford a 500/4 lens but if Pentax came out with one I it would lock me into Pentax for the duration, meaning i would for sure stay with their bodies into the future. I bet there are many like me also. With no big guy to dream about there is no choice for a serious birder but to go to Canon or Nikon. Or, I suppose, to go with the big Sigma. But I didn't buy into Pentax for the chance to buy Sigma lenses.
But it's a moot point, Pentax can't even release a high quality 1.4X teleconverter, it'll be years before we see anything above and beyond the DA* 300/4. Prove me wrong Pentax, I dare you.

Oh, you're even putting a price on it and it is the same price than the 60-250/4...

What happen, if they release it and the price is closer to 2000$/€ ?

The fact is, very few people will know about such a lens before it's released. There's plenty of decent 3rd party glass (Sigma) or second hand gear. Why don't you buy what you need now ?

Guillaume

[netuser]

If your serious, I have one for sale. I bought it last year and have used it less than 5 times. PM me if interested.

I'm serious but I wouldn't buy from the US since the lens is heavy for shipping costs and also I would have to deal with customs.

(Will change the selling to sold from DA*300 since payment arrived YESSSSSS a bit closer to long glass )

[eurostar]

You certainly have heard of it, but have you tried a Wimberley head with a tripod.

Tripod and wimberly are very good where shorebirds and waders gather up, like marshy areas, while I frequent hilly and mountain areas to photograph mostly raptors...