[boriscleto]

Personally the long glass in other mounts is only a bargain if you discount the speed. The DAF 150-450 is ƒ5.6, fast enough to use with a the 1.4 TC. The various 150-600s are ƒ6.3, and that makes a difference.

But Nikon now has a 200-500 F5.6 for about $1400. It's still pre-order though. That's why the Tamron 150-600 is down to $800 after rebate.

[normhead]

But Nikon now has a 200-500 F5.6 for about $1400. It's still pre-order though. That's why the Tamron 150-600 is down to $800 after rebate.

The MTF chart on that is nothing to write home about. Not even near Sigma 150-500m 50-500 ( or 150-450) quality on the edges. Just from my own research, your 150-500 is as good as anything, and a lot cheaper.
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens | Interchangeable Lens for DSLR cameras from Nikon

[boriscleto]

Just from my own research, your 150-500 is as good as anything, and a lot cheaper.

And I'm perfectly happy with it on the K-3 Still want a 150-450 though...maybe next year...

[boriscleto]

It isn't preorder. Available now as far as I can tell.

B&H is preorder. Adorama says it's back ordered.

[biz-engineer]

Personally the long glass in other mounts is only a bargain if you discount the speed. The DFA 150-450 is ƒ5.6, fast enough to use with a the 1.4 TC. The various 150-600s are ƒ6.3, and that makes a difference.

With the 150-450 f5.6 and 1.4x TC, one stop of light is lost (also 1 stop darker viewfinder) = 600mm f8, versus Tamron 150-600 f6.3, no TC needed.
Generally speaking, x1.4 TC provide good enough IQ when used with prime lenses (since the TC just magnifies the image, it also magnify the optical imperfection of the lens), but when x1.4 TC are used on zooms, especially sigmas, and even the DFA 150-450, I find that IQ is mediocre.

[normhead]

With the 150-450 f5.6 and 1.4x TC, one stop of light is lost (also 1 stop darker viewfinder) = 600mm f8, versus Tamron 150-600 f6.3, no TC needed.
Generally speaking, x1.4 TC provide good enough IQ when used with prime lenses (since the TC just magnifies the image, it also magnify the optical imperfection of the lens), but when x1.4 TC are used on zooms, especially sigmas, and even the DFA 150-450, I find that IQ is mediocre.

I can't find any DFA 150-450 plus 1.4 images to even look at.

[bdery]

2) the 150-450 is out of my budget. Its $3K here is Canada by the time it gets to my doorstep.

The same is true of equivalents from other brands.

4) Doesn't it just piss anybody off when a pentax mount lens is 2-3 hundred or more for the same lens in canon or nikon?

I disagree with your assessment. Pentax lenses are generally on par or cheaper than REAL equivalents from other brands. Except at launch, of course, that's inevitable.

[normhead]

I've been researching the 150-450 plus TC for another thread... may as well post this here too,

630mm @ ƒ8




Maybe a 150-600 would be better, but, the 150-450 is in the ball park.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/299352-k3ii...-wildlife.html

After going through the images in the DFA 150-450, most of which are very sharp, I can't think of a reason why this lens wouldn't work with a 1.4 TC.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/294721-post-your-hd-pentax...ctures-24.html

I'd love to see a thread on the 150-600 that's as good. But, this was a bit of work, I've done my fair share, someone else is going to have to pick up the slack. I've done the work on helens I'm interested in, if someone else thinks the 150-600 is a better deal, have at her. I'm really interested in if the 150-600s are ƒ5.6 at 450mm.

A few more 150-450 with 1.4 TC from Mike.P®







And one without the TC....


The TC doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to IQ, and definitely doesn't to auto-focus speed or anything like that. As far as i know from reports the ring motor in the 150-450 is faster than SDM, if that's what you are asking.

[osv]

It doesn't even seam like Ricoh knows which way they want to go with their delays and releasing new "pro" lenses with DC motors (one is delayed) and then releasing another one that's a rebranded Tamron. I have no problems with a re branded Tamron but there seems to be no consistency here for coming out with glass for the full frame. Everytime I say thats enough and get ready to start over I think no I'll wait abit longer and see if things change with the third parties releasing their newer lenses in k-mount when the FF comes out. To be honest I'm not holding my breath. Why do we even bother? End of morning rant.

that sounds like pentax hasn't released a definitive ff lens roadmap??

if pentax does come out with those two rebranded tamrons that people have been talking about, it would imho be very desirable... those lenses are probably better than both of the similar focal length fe-mount zooms that people normally get for the sony mirrorless ff cameras.

ricoh should be trumpting that from the rooftops, if it's true, because then the whole pentax ff thing wouldn't be such a big unknown.

[Rupert]

I bet I've read this post a thousand times...here and at DPR and a dozen other sites...it goes the same every time...just worded a little different each time.....

It goes like this...."I'm out here on the bridge and I'm thinking of jumping...anyone want to try and save me?"

The crowd quickly gathers and gives all kinds of reasons not to jump....and a few of us are saying, "what the heck is holding you back?"

I still read them, I guess that makes me a voyeur.......or as Otis puts it..."just plain dumb"?

Regards!

I just checked in for Otis, he was curious to see if the OP jumped and if anyone got any shots of the big splat? He likes to illustrate his bedtime stories he reads to the little blind orphan squirrels!

Regards!

[gastch]

I just checked in for Otis, he was curious to see if the OP jumped and if anyone got any shots of the big splat? He likes to illustrate his bedtime stories he reads to the little blind orphan squirrels!

Regards!

Still here, although there are other lens I would like that fit in my budget in other mounts it's not worth jumping ship for. Pentax still has some of the best pros vs cons reason's to stay.

[Nicolas06]

Nor necessarily, you can keep your Pentax gear and buy from another brand only what you don't find in Pentax mount. For instance you can buy a D610 and a Tamy 150-600, it costs less that selling all Pentax gear and rebuying the same in Nikon mount. For the price of a DFA150-450, you can almost have a D610+150-600 new.

That's true but an APSC + 150-450 is giving you 675mm equivalent framing in FF. get a sigma 150-500 and you get 750 equivalent framing in FF. Because the D610 is 24MP only, and the 150-600 is not pixel sharp like an FA77 can be, you'll not gain that much by cropping compared to the APSC solution. To me, I'am not sure of the benefit and a D7200 + 150-600 would make more sense (and cost less).

[Nicolas06]

Just a couple points: 1) I didn't say I want a FF. I think they are overrated. But because of this I think maybe its the boost Pentax needs to grab more market share which leads to more third party lenses being available. 2) the 150-450 is out of my budget. Its $3K here is Canada by the time it gets to my doorstep. 3) Although the 300F4 is awesome even with cropping I think I want the flexibility of zoom. 4) Doesn't it just piss anybody off when a pentax mount lens is 2-3 hundred or more for the same lens in canon or nikon? Its great for resale but its sucks when buying.

Gastch to be clear you don't have much investment in photography now. You brought only entry level gear (of great quality) except the body that is a bit more on the high end side.

You can decide to sell everything, rebuy everything in another brand (I would choose Nikon in your case) and buy the 150-600. You could keep everything, and buy the 150-600 + a body for it. In both case this is going to cost you approximately the cost of buying TWO 150-600, that is as much as all the money you already invested in photography (at least as much as your gear is worth new today).

Or you could decide to buy a 150-500 from sigma in Pentax mount for the price of a 150-600. The 150-500 is not the latest greatest and you could find its flaws, but basically it would fill the same purpose and give you the same results as a 150-600. A 150-600 is just the new version of a 150-500. That the same thing, that target the same audience, that make the same photos.

You could decide for a 150-450 but from your past track record this is not what you tend to do.

Now what is better? Switch and spend twice the money and get something marginally better or stay here for half the price? For your profile, honestly that to stay there, get something that comparable maybe not as much in fashion but less expensive. So the 150-500. You did that for your 50mm prime, you could have brought the DA*55 or FA43 but decided for the DA50. You could have choosen a pentax 16-50 but decided for a sigma 17-50. You could have take a 50-135 f/2.8 to complement the 17-50 but taken a 18-135. Overall you could have gone the FF route, but choosen APSC. There more difference between the 150-450 and 150-600 than there is between the 150-600 and 150-500... And that's more in favor of the 150-450!. Don't let yourself be deceived by marketing, a 150-500 is similar to a 150-600.

Now would there still be a case where you'd really want to switch? Yes. A case where you foreseen to spend much more in photographic gear to acquire much more gear and that from your own analysis each time the gear in Canon mount or Nikon mount are significantly cheaper/better than the gear in Pentax mount. Honestly that not that sure: Pentax own gear is less expensive or the same than Nikon/Canon first party. Half of the sigma line-up is available in K-mount for the same price, in particular the most common lenses. But on the other hand Pentax provide you many small primes that exhibit outstanding flare resistance and picture quality that nobody else is offering (DA/FA ltd).

The irony in all of this is how much you are actually going to use your long tele. You don't have a single heavy lenses. All you lenses are TINY and SMALL compared to theses 150-500, 150-600 or 150-450 behemoth. Theses things are huge, they are somewhat slow, need lot of practice to get great shoots and lot of time investment to get more interresting wildlife pictures than a duck or squirel that anybody manage to get anyway with they kit lense. They just wait for th the thing to come to them, and that happen all the time.

If you are not 100% sure you should start with a 55-300 or 70-300 for almost nothing. Going on the used market and getting the non WR version for the 55-300, you would not loose more than 50$ if you resell it after. That does match your spending profile perfectly. That's much smaller/ligher but already quite a thing. Look how much you use it, or not... Then after you used it for a year every weeks and feel the limitations it put to your practice, you can seriously think of why you want a 150-600 with the associated tripod and accessories.

Honestly I didn't put even a bit of fanboyism here. You could complain forever that you didn't get the BEST deal by going into Pentax. Yeah, well most people by definition almost never get the BEST deal anyway. The K3 will be less expensive soon, has more FPS, SR, WR and has a better build than whatever else Nikon/Canon could provide you for the price. If you go Nikon/Canon you'll find that you need to buy lenses with optical stabilization that are bigger/more expensive, you'll find the build quality is not the same except if you go to pro level gear... It is not like there is 1 true perfect choice. You could complain all you want of your past decision of using Pentax. But that a past decision, You can't change it so for the future, you should just see objectively how much you gain by switching or staying in Pentax, and how much it cost in money and in the type of picture you'll be able to make too.

[biz-engineer]

That's true but an APSC + 150-450 is giving you 675mm equivalent framing in FF. get a sigma 150-500 and you get 750 equivalent framing in FF. Because the D610 is 24MP only, and the 150-600 is not pixel sharp like an FA77 can be, you'll not gain that much by cropping compared to the APSC solution. To me, I'am not sure of the benefit and a D7200 + 150-600 would make more sense (and cost less).

The 600 of 150-600 on a D750/D610 performs better than the 400 of DFA 150-450 on K-3. I currently have the DA*300 + TC (f5.6), and the AF is off more than 50% of the time; there is simply not enough AF precision at 420mm. The photos from the DFA150-450/K-3 did not convince me (sorry, spending $2000 to shoot at f8, it's a joke, my former Pentax 18-250 (tamron) was also good at f8...), I guess the AF is better than with DA*300+TC. Whereas I tried the D750+150-600 combo and the AF is spot on every time. I haven't moved to Nikon because, the K-3 and lenses that I currently have satisfy me, from 12 to 200mm (essentially Tamron and limited, all screw drive) just deliver high quality images. But beyond 300mm, sorry, Pentax is lagging behind. From 400mm onward, it's getting harder to get good results, the DoF is tiny, AF must be precise (and accurate enough so it can be tuned with micro adjustment) and shutter speed also increases (1/FL), most of the time ISO between 800 and 3200. APSC+TC is fine for posting on the web , but for print enlargements, not so much. Of course, there are always people satisfied with web size quality level, but as I put thing together such as sensor size compared to the weight and size of a DSLR setup, I think that carrying 3kg of gear to be satisfied with post-card sized photo, is just seeing things with a lack of perspective. The Sigma and Tamron 150-600 are a break through the market, those lenses do not have any equivalent competition from OEM, they are rather cheap and perform great on FF. When I photograph, my selection criteria is to zoom x4 (about 50%) on the K-3 LCD display, if not sharp with 4x magnification, I delete.

[Nicolas06]

The 600 of 150-600 on a D750/D610 performs better than the 400 of DFA 150-450 on K-3. I currently have the DA*300 + TC (f5.6), and the AF is off more than 50% of the time; there is simply not enough AF precision at 420mm. The photos from the DFA150-450/K-3 did not convince me (sorry, spending $2000 to shoot at f8, it's a joke, my former Pentax 18-250 (tamron) was also good at f8...), I guess the AF is better than with DA*300+TC. Whereas I tried the D750+150-600 combo and the AF is spot on every time. I haven't moved to Nikon because, the K-3 and lenses that I currently have satisfy me, from 12 to 200mm (essentially Tamron and limited, all screw drive) just deliver high quality images. But beyond 300mm, sorry, Pentax is lagging behind. From 400mm onward, it's getting harder to get good results, the DoF is tiny, AF must be precise (and accurate enough so it can be tuned with micro adjustment) and shutter speed also increases (1/FL), most of the time ISO between 800 and 3200. APSC+TC is fine for posting on the web , but for print enlargements, not so much. Of course, there are always people satisfied with web size quality level, but as I put thing together such as sensor size compared to the weight and size of a DSLR setup, I think that carrying 3kg of gear to be satisfied with post-card sized photo, is just seeing things with a lack of perspective. The Sigma and Tamron 150-600 are a break through the market, those lenses do not have any equivalent competition from OEM, they are rather cheap and perform great on FF. When I photograph, my selection criteria is to zoom x4 (about 50%) on the K-3 LCD display, if not sharp with 4x magnification, I delete.

Just one thing, you are basically advocating for FF not the brand. That's a choice, a common choice, a choice that the OP doesn't make. Also it doesn't solve the issue that if you want 600mm APSC framing, your FF is just going to give you that: 600mm APSC framing (thanks to cropping) with a 10MP crop. The D750 is going to provide you better AF but in term of quality, a $300 entry level APSC will do better when you need reach in term of magnifcation.

The people that get a lense that go up to 600 usually do it for the long end and do it because there no affordable and manageable even longer lenses. They will crop anyway. An FF with few MP like the D750 is not the ideal for such use. One might find the need to buy an APSC body to get the max out of this 600mm! We could argue that the 150-600 is not able to resolve more than 10MP worth of detail in the APSC image circle anyway, but honestly that would not make a sound argument for advocating the purchase !

Reality is that the 900mm lenses that would make FF getting supperior result compared to 600mm APSC shoots are not that common to come by. Or innexpensive.

Here you argument is that you get a 600mm consumer zoom + FF because a slightly cropped 300mm prime on APSC to match 400mm framing is going to look significantly worse. I don't buy that. I would buy it if we were speaking of a 600mm high quality prime. But then the price is not exactly the same. I buy that your DA*300 used wide open and cropped is going to look better... Because the 300mm perform well at f/4, you are not going to gain anything in term of high iso or deph of field compared to 600mm f/6.3 neither...

Honestly try try D750 + 150-600 combo for a while and tell us... I understand that's tempting but my opinion is you'll spend lot of money, that you'll get heavier/bigger gear and the gain in quality will be in the 150-450 range, FF framing, where a 60-250 or 100-300 f/4 does the job quite well already on APSC, and not the 450-1500mm range FF equivalent that most 150-600 buying are looking for when they use it on APSC (and where it become a 225-900 equivalent).