[normhead]

Personally, using the Tammy 300 2.8, and either the 1.4 or 1.7x AF adapter, it would be hard for them to sell me any long lens. It'a a relatively light weight combination that fits in a shoulder bag with no issues. A 300 2.8 capable of using stacked TCs would be my choice. The one disadvantage to the Tammy is it doesn't work with stacked TCs unlike my DA*200 which extends to 476mm with stacked TCs.

A good sharp 300 2.8 with stacked TCs or a matched 2x TC would get you to 600mm and ƒ5.6. Or a with the stacked 1.4 and 1.7 would get you to 720mm ƒ6.3.

As for people talking long glass that's not heavy... that is seriously why the 300 and 1.4 shine. As for it not being an adequate solution, the 1.4's cost in IQ is 3%. You can lose that much going from 800 ISO to 1600 ISO. Keep it in context.

And the fact that the 300 loses 3% of it's resolution with the TC, in no way suggests you can actually make a 400 5.6 that's sharper for the same money or even quite a bit more.

I'm much more likely to have this discussion with someone who's tried the 300 ƒ4 and 1.4 TC and found it to be inadequate in some way, than someone reciting their world view of how things work from a theoretical perspective. It gets old... you tell folks what the solution to the problem is, they say "That's not good enough for me."

I have what I need, right now this second, so could you. Either go legacy or current, but quit dreaming about the impossible. Get on with it. You're missing photo ops sitting on your hands.

Pentax doesn't have the market share to produce really good, long fast glass. The 560 ƒ5.6 is probably as good as it's going to get for quite a while. Making up imaginary lenses that are, lighter, sharper, shorter etc. doesn't really help.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-05-2017 at 10:59 AM.

[Lowell Goudge]

for me, i look at weight for this solution.

while a zoom is a nice to have, you generally are at the maximum focal length all the time,

therefore if i look at what i have presently in this focal length range, and autofocus, i have a sigma APO EX 70-200/2.8 (non DG NON MCRO) plus 2 x TC with a combined weight of about 1850 grams, or the K300/4 plusa 1.7x converter at about 1100 grams .

i would expect a DA/DFA 400/5.6 at an equivalent weight to the existing FA of 1140 grams or perhaps lighter .

while a DFA is probably not an issue with compatibility or even optical design, it is less attractive for wild life users on FF since even at 400 mm there is a lot of cropping on an APSC sensor

me personally i would like something longer, at F5.6 or faster. but at the moment all there is is the DA 560/5.6 for me that is the next logical step, or perhaps the sigma 500/4.5 with a 1.4X

[normhead]

for me, i look at weight for this solution.

while a zoom is a nice to have, you generally are at the maximum focal length all the time,

therefore if i look at what i have presently in this focal length range, and autofocus, i have a sigma APO EX 70-200/2.8 (non DG NON MCRO) plus 2 x TC with a combined weight of about 1850 grams, or the K300/4 plusa 1.7x converter at about 1100 grams .

i would expect a DA/DFA 400/5.6 at an equivalent weight to the existing FA of 1140 grams or perhaps lighter .

while a DFA is probably not an issue with compatibility or even optical design, it is less attractive for wild life users on FF since even at 400 mm there is a lot of cropping on an APSC sensor

me personally i would like something longer, at F5.6 or faster. but at the moment all there is is the DA 560/5.6 for me that is the next logical step, or perhaps the sigma 500/4.5 with a 1.4X

4 years ago, i told a Pentax rep that the 560 was too long for the type of hiking and canoeing I do. Not too long in focal length. too long physically. It won't fit on one of my pelican cases.or a shoulder bag. Their disappointment was palpable. The tamron 300 2.8 has been my saviour. It fits in a shoulder bag and with the 1.7 it's 510mm and ƒ4.5.

There are so many of us who favour smaller gear, I'm just not sure the 560 was designed with us in mind and given the current bigger lenses with less focal length than the competition thing that's happening, I'm not sure Pentax is ever going to make a long lens for me again.

Fortunately I'm in position where I don't care, at least as long as my Tammy remains functional.

[Lowell Goudge]

4 years ago, i told a Pentax rep that the 560 was too long for the type of hiking and canoeing I do. Not too long in focal length. too long physically. It won't fit on one of my pelican cases.or a shoulder bag. Their disappointment was palpable. The tamron 300 2.8 has been my saviour. It fits in a shoulder bag and with the 1.7 it's 510mm and ƒ4.5.

There are so many of us who favour smaller gear, I'm just not sure the 560 was designed with us in mind and given the current bigger lenses with less focal length than the competition thing that's happening, I'm not sure Pentax is ever going to make a long lens for me again.

Fortunately I'm in position where I don't care, at least as long as my Tammy remains functional.

what version of the tammy do you have. i tested one many years ago, with the 1.7x converter and my K10 at the time but the one i tested had terrible fringing in the red spectrum and some lateral CA, when focused on a black and white sign. More than what i can recall from my K300/4 and 1.7x which i admit does have some. but i think there was a 60A, 60B and 360 versions.

the 60A did not consider the UV filter in the optical path and performed worse with it when installed, the 60B corrected this issue, but the 360 is I think the one to really look our for but they are rare.

[normhead]

I'm pretty sure it's the 60B, and it does fringe when shooting against the sky, but then, most lenses do.

[Des]

As for people talking long glass that's not heavy... that is seriously why the 300 and 1.4 shine. As for it not being an adequate solution, the 1.4's cost in IQ is 3%. You can lose that much going from 800 ISO to 1600 ISO. Keep it in context. And the fact that the 300 loses 3% of it's resolution with the TC, in no way suggests you can actually make a 400 5.6 that's sharper for the same money or even quite a bit more.

I've got a Sigma 400 f5.6 tele macro and a Pentax FA*300 f4.5, which I use with a Kenko 1.5x TC (which is really 1.4x). Since I got the FA* +TC I don't use the 400 much. The FA*300 + TC has three disadvantages compared with the 400 f5.6: 1/3 stop slower (equivalent of 420mm f6.3); doesn't have a focus limiter; and the equivalent focal length isn't passed to the camera for EXIF and SR. Oh, and it doesn't have a retractable hood like the Sigma. Limiter aside, autofocus is about the same. In every other way, the 300 + TC is better: sharper, lighter, more compact, better IQ generally. And of course it also gives me a stellar (as the name says) 300 f4.5. The relatively light weight and compactness alone are a killer benefit.

In theory either combination should work fine on 36x24, but I don't have a K-1 so I can't confirm.

TBH it would be hard for me to justify spending $$$$ on a new 400 f5.6, even at similar weight and bulk to the Sigma, for DC AF, WR and newer coatings.

If you want a currently available 400 f5.6 to use on Pentax APS-C, you've already got two options, each WR, and each with quiet AF: DA*300 + 1.4x TC, or DFA 150-450. (Not to mention the Bigma which is f6.3 at 400.) You're not going to get better IQ than either of these from a 400 f5.6, nor a lighter more compact setup than the 300 + TC, and you won't get the versatility of either setup, and it won't be cheaper.

If you want 400 f5.6 on FF, you've already got the DFA 150-450.

So where's the business case for Ricoh to make a new 400 f5.6? FF users who want a longish prime, less than the 560, and significantly lighter/more compact than the DFA 150-450, and APS-C users who want lighter weight and less bulk than the zoom and better AF than the 300+TC? If - and it's a big if - there is enough demand amongst those users to make a new lens viable, surely both those issues would be better addressed by making a DFA 300 f4 and a FF-compatible WR TC? That would be far less a niche product than a DFA 400 f5.6.

Incidentally, apart from the Canon EF 400 f5.6 L (released about 2006), is there a single 400 f5.6 still on the market in any mount? I don't think Sigma still has one, and Nikon doesn't. If the big guys don't think they can make a buck from a 400 f5.6, why do we think Ricoh could?