[hatsofe]

You "never" get enough reach for wildlife. The 150-450 give you on APS the same angle of view as a 693mm on FF; a very long lens in anyones book. You need a 800mm lens or longer to make significant more reach when comparing to the standards we were used to in the film days. We are talking then of lenses that are hard to use and very expensive. There is no real solution other than getting closer to the subject.......

Actually , the focal length of a lens objective , I think, should relate to the composition of that picture that you are going to create. There are cases when one wants to show all the microscopic details of bird's feathers ( repeated scenario in majority bird photography sites, kind of middle ground between bird macro and bird mug shot, no composition needed) . This type of a picture definitely mandates closest distance possible and at least half-decent optics with 100-400mm focal length. Another wildlife type photography (one of many, of course), where some kind of artistic composition is involved, and the main object in such picture doesn't fill up the entire picture frame with itself, but is actually being just a part of it , may be done with wide range of optics, including even a short focal length. Yet, in most cases 500mm or 600mm are the proper ones and most suitable for artistic wildlife photography. Focal length over 600mm brings in a lot of limitations and I personally would skip it.

---------- Post added 07-21-21 at 07:22 PM ----------

I'd like to see a picture of that "contraption", I've thought about doing the same for either my 645 300mm* or 645 400mm; they both perform quite well with the 2x converter.

No problem, I'll take a picture of at least one of them ( I built 3 for different objectives) during this coming weekend and if things go right I'll post it here for you. I'm planning to build separate boxes for two cameras assembled with 150-450mm and the 645 300/4 + converter and carry both of them attached to a dolly . I have to assemble and dismantle my photo rifles for transportation and storage so far, and it's a pain...

---

Last edited by hatsofe; 07-31-2021 at 02:02 AM.

[normhead]

A list Pentax lenses, almost all of the telephotos perform well on modern sensors. Some of the older wide angle lenses lack modern edge sharpness.

*: Pentax Lens Search | PentaxForums.com

[hatsofe]

A list Pentax lenses, almost all of the telephotos perform well on modern sensors. Some of the older wide angle lenses lack modern edge sharpness.

*: Pentax Lens Search | PentaxForums.com

Thank you! Very good table and I bookmarked it. Most of the interesting stuff is rare and prohibitively expensive and sold either on eBay or by other second hand online retailers . Not only I can't afford to spend 4-8K USD at once, but I wouldn't even think of buying any second hand item (lens objective) on eBay for that kind of money. In matter to actually receive the item I would have to pay customs and all other applicable ( and made-up) taxes first. If I were disappointed upon reception and farther checking that lens, I most likely could be reimbursed by the eBay or the seller, but no one would return me the customs and all the other fees. We talking about lots of money possibly wasted.
I actually had plans for Pentax 560/5.6 . I could do payments on this one, and it's a new glass with warranty. Now , apparently it is not going to happen.

[normhead]

That's a familiar sounding theme around my house. However start looking at what good telephoto glass costs from other companies and $4-8k starts to look like a great price. Just saying, many people here use older Pentax glass to great effect and some have bought in the last 3 years.

[hatsofe]

Great pictures in the album. Thanks for the link!

I took pictures of my pistol grip for Pentax A 645 300/4 +2x teleconverter + 645 to K mount adapter. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask.

[stihlmania]

Thank you! Very good table and I bookmarked it. Most of the interesting stuff is rare and prohibitively expensive and sold either on eBay or by other second hand online retailers . Not only I can't afford to spend 4-8K USD at once, but I wouldn't even think of buying any second hand item (lens objective) on eBay for that kind of money. In matter to actually receive the item I would have to pay customs and all other applicable ( and made-up) taxes first. If I were disappointed upon reception and farther checking that lens, I most likely could be reimbursed by the eBay or the seller, but no one would return me the customs and all the other fees. We talking about lots of money possibly wasted.
I actually had plans for Pentax 560/5.6 . I could do payments on this one, and it's a new glass with warranty. Now , apparently it is not going to happen.

If I ever sell my SMC A*400 f 2.8 I will keep you in mind. Purchased new in early 1988 for $4,200 with matching 1.4 XL converter. I still consider this lens to be the best Pentax has ever produced. Honestly all the long telephoto and zoom lenses Pentax made back then were very high quality and sharp. You will pay dearly for one these days as they are rare in usable condition. If Pentax had not produced the K-3III my lens would be for sale right now….and I would have switched to Canon…. The K-3 III has brought new life to all my lenses and cameras, my K-3, K-3 II’s now focus better than they did before I purchased the K-3 III , funny how that happens as somehow I learned with a new camera how to use my older cameras and lenses even better but not with AF-C. The K-3 III can do BIF, none of my other Pentax cameras can follow a moving subject properly, birds being the worst case scenario for me as I do not do people and pets…wildlife only. I did test the K-1, K- II and the KP for AF-C also, no better than my K-3’s in my opinion. Others may have a different opinion but such is life….

[nitehntr]

Thank you! Very good table and I bookmarked it. Most of the interesting stuff is rare and prohibitively expensive and sold either on eBay or by other second hand online retailers . Not only I can't afford to spend 4-8K USD at once, but I wouldn't even think of buying any second hand item (lens objective) on eBay for that kind of money. In matter to actually receive the item I would have to pay customs and all other applicable ( and made-up) taxes first. If I were disappointed upon reception and farther checking that lens, I most likely could be reimbursed by the eBay or the seller, but no one would return me the customs and all the other fees. We talking about lots of money possibly wasted.
I actually had plans for Pentax 560/5.6 . I could do payments on this one, and it's a new glass with warranty. Now , apparently it is not going to happen.

after I saw this I checked adorama and they have the 560 as a special order new. I have one and i really like it just thought I would pass that on

[hatsofe]

after I saw this I checked adorama and they have the 560 as a special order new. I have one and i really like it just thought I would pass that on

Thanks! I'll check it out.

[hatsofe]

If I ever sell my SMC A*400 f 2.8 I will keep you in mind. Purchased new in early 1988 for $4,200 with matching 1.4 XL converter. I still consider this lens to be the best Pentax has ever produced. Honestly all the long telephoto and zoom lenses Pentax made back then were very high quality and sharp. You will pay dearly for one these days as they are rare in usable condition. If Pentax had not produced the K-3III my lens would be for sale right now….and I would have switched to Canon…. The K-3 III has brought new life to all my lenses and cameras, my K-3, K-3 II’s now focus better than they did before I purchased the K-3 III , funny how that happens as somehow I learned with a new camera how to use my older cameras and lenses even better but not with AF-C. The K-3 III can do BIF, none of my other Pentax cameras can follow a moving subject properly, birds being the worst case scenario for me as I do not do people and pets…wildlife only. I did test the K-1, K- II and the KP for AF-C also, no better than my K-3’s in my opinion. Others may have a different opinion but such is life….

Yes, I read the reviews for this objective. It's highly praised.
I cannot comment on autofocus though , as I never use an autofocus in any of my cameras or lenses. I build pistol grips which enable me to focus manually pretty good and they provide very good continuous manual focus . Here is Pentax Kp with Pentax 150-450mm zoom on a pistol grip ; I use this combination for birds in flight; it has an excellent continuous manual focus.

[stihlmania]

Yes, I read the reviews for this objective. It's highly praised.
I cannot comment on autofocus though , as I never use an autofocus in any of my cameras or lenses. I build pistol grips which enable me to focus manually pretty good and they provide very good continuous manual focus . Here is Pentax Kp with Pentax 150-450mm zoom on a pistol grip ; I use this combination for birds in flight; it has an excellent continuous manual focus.

Nice set up, but I think you missed the fact that my A*400 Is manual focus and weights 13 lbs [ very , I mean very front heavy ] and the focus throw is about 340 degrees min to max, so it can be very precise for focus with digital but what I am looking for is true BIF focus following. I agree your interesting set up is functionalI but for BIF with a long manual focus throw your set up is where I am at already with AF 1.7, with a few minor differences .For Eagles and Hawks at a distance, I almost have true autofocus with some minor refocusing with the AF 1.7 unless they get too close.You really need to use a manual focus older Pentax prime to understand how different it is to use one. [Good luck finding someone who will help!, If you ever visit Texas send me a PM here, you can try my lens ] I have many images of large birds in flight with the A* 400 and my AF 1.7 with my monopod but mostly with my 2 gimbals. The lens is way too front heavy for where the tripod mount is located [ I have the longest tripod adaptors ever made just for this reason ] so using a monopod is like risking death to your prized lens, like having a bowling ball on a stick in your hand. Try it……Small birds in flight, being much closer, are next to impossible except when pre-focused with this prime [even with the AF 1.7] and that has worked well for 20 years or so. I get some good shots but miss way too many.. Watching Canon and Nikon AF400 f2.8 lenses in action is depressing at times…I have seen way too many of them out here, they can take excellent images, as can my A*400, just way more of them….that is what I have the most issue with, missing so many images as the chance happening of repeating the same likely encounter may be months or years off…and I ain’t getting any younger! Image is 1 of 4 hand held A*400 shots that I have tried with this lens…

[hatsofe]

Nice set up, but I think you missed the fact that my A*400 Is manual focus and weights 13 lbs [ very , I mean very front heavy ] and the focus throw is about 340 degrees min to max, so it can be very precise for focus with digital but what I am looking for is true BIF focus following. I agree your interesting set up is functionalI but for BIF with a long manual focus throw your set up is where I am at already with AF 1.7, with a few minor differences .For Eagles and Hawks at a distance, I almost have true autofocus with some minor refocusing with the AF 1.7 unless they get too close.You really need to use a manual focus older Pentax prime to understand how different it is to use one. [Good luck finding someone who will help!, If you ever visit Texas send me a PM here, you can try my lens ] I have many images of large birds in flight with the A* 400 and my AF 1.7 with my monopod but mostly with my 2 gimbals. The lens is way too front heavy for where the tripod mount is located [ I have the longest tripod adaptors ever made just for this reason ] so using a monopod is like risking death to your prized lens, like having a bowling ball on a stick in your hand. Try it……Small birds in flight, being much closer, are next to impossible except when pre-focused with this prime [even with the AF 1.7] and that has worked well for 20 years or so. I get some good shots but miss way too many.. Watching Canon and Nikon AF400 f2.8 lenses in action is depressing at times…I have seen way too many of them out here, they can take excellent images, as can my A*400, just way more of them….that is what I have the most issue with, missing so many images as the chance happening of repeating the same likely encounter may be months or years off…and I ain’t getting any younger! Image is 1 of 4 hand held A*400 shots that I have tried with this lens…

Dear stihlmania, I read the lens specs and it's a very heavy one! You're dealing with 7 - 7,5 kg weight of camera + lens. just carrying it around could be a nice exercise for a bodybuilder...
I'd say that it's very difficult , if not impossible to get that turkey sharp welding a long barrel lens (700mm) with a camera (total weight 7 kg) and using 1/200 sec shutter speed... Have you tried faster shutter speeds, like 1/2000 sec or 1/2500 sec or even shorter? This could help. I used to shoot with Dollonds 500/6.3 (Tokina made, 1970s) . It has very long focus throw and despite having only 3 lenses (achromatic doublet at the front and one single negative at the back) the weight of this thing is enormous, around 4kg, because the barrels are made of 3mm thick aluminium. Pretty soon I figured that handholding was not a good option in that case. By the way, Pentax 150-450mm/4.5-5.6 is quite heavy too and it has very long focus throw; its weight with APS-C camera and my pistol grip reaches 3.5kg. I made a rig (belts ) that allows me to carry the grip with most of its weight falling on my waist belt, while I can "draw'' it fast. Staying mobile and being able to respond quickly , I think is very important. A tripod and heavy camera slow one down and limit the access to many places in natural environment.
I think , for birds in flight you could get better focusing by using your 400mm alone , without the converter, with smaller aperture values (f6.3 - f8), higher ISO and short shutter speeds. learning a bird flying pattern also helps. They slow down in certain repeated situations and that's where you can nail them. I noticed , that you use a magnifying viewfinder.It's absolutely necessary, but why the 90 degrees one?
I "shoot" birds for sport and I enjoy the challenge.Of course, everybody draws his own boundary line : what is a necessity and what is just an extra gudget in pursuit of creativity. I see an autofocus and a burst rate as features that limit my creativity. Pentax cameras are very mighty and absolutely suitable for bird photography. Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't makes any new telephoto and hardly has any long telephoto at all in its modern lens lineup. I don't envy Canon and Nikon; their APS-C cameras suck (especially Canons), the image quality of their late models APS-Cs are not in par with Pentax KP an K3ii. I had an opportunity to use Nikon d7200. This one was no match for my K5iis. Canon definitely has few very impressive super tele photos and Nikon's 500mm prime is very good. But 200-600mm latest full frame Sony zoom really shines. I'd wish I could adapt it for Pentax.

[stihlmania]

Dear stihlmania, I read the lens specs and it's a very heavy one! You're dealing with 7 - 7,5 kg weight of camera + lens. just carrying it around could be a nice exercise for a bodybuilder...
I'd say that it's very difficult , if not impossible to get that turkey sharp welding a long barrel lens (700mm) with a camera (total weight 7 kg) and using 1/200 sec shutter speed... Have you tried faster shutter speeds, like 1/2000 sec or 1/2500 sec or even shorter? This could help. I used to shoot with Dollonds 500/6.3 (Tokina made, 1970s) . It has very long focus throw and despite having only 3 lenses (achromatic doublet at the front and one single negative at the back) the weight of this thing is enormous, around 4kg, because the barrels are made of 3mm thick aluminium. Pretty soon I figured that handholding was not a good option in that case. By the way, Pentax 150-450mm/4.5-5.6 is quite heavy too and it has very long focus throw; its weight with APS-C camera and my pistol grip reaches 3.5kg. I made a rig (belts ) that allows me to carry the grip with most of its weight falling on my waist belt, while I can "draw'' it fast. Staying mobile and being able to respond quickly , I think is very important. A tripod and heavy camera slow one down and limit the access to many places in natural environment.
I think , for birds in flight you could get better focusing by using your 400mm alone , without the converter, with smaller aperture values (f6.3 - f8), higher ISO and short shutter speeds. learning a bird flying pattern also helps. They slow down in certain repeated situations and that's where you can nail them. I noticed , that you use a magnifying viewfinder.It's absolutely necessary, but why the 90 degrees one?
I "shoot" birds for sport and I enjoy the challenge.Of course, everybody draws his own boundary line : what is a necessity and what is just an extra gudget in pursuit of creativity. I see an autofocus and a burst rate as features that limit my creativity. Pentax cameras are very mighty and absolutely suitable for bird photography. Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't makes any new telephoto and hardly has any long telephoto at all in its modern lens lineup. I don't envy Canon and Nikon; their APS-C cameras suck (especially Canons), the image quality of their late models APS-Cs are not in par with Pentax KP an K3ii. I had an opportunity to use Nikon d7200. This one was no match for my K5iis. Canon definitely has few very impressive super tele photos and Nikon's 500mm prime is very good. But 200-600mm latest full frame Sony zoom really shines. I'd wish I could adapt it for Pentax.

Hatsofe, only a few comments here…. I only used the 400 hand held when an opportunity arose with no chance of a decent setup. 4 times. In the 30 plus years I have owned the lens. If I ever do more I hope to improve my focus. My ex. bought into Canon 2 years ago, with 2 EOS 7D MK II’s, a Canon 100-400 EF (I think it’s an EF ) and a Sigma 150-600. She recently purchased a Canon 800 (used) . The expensive one….I have seen hundreds of her images and they are second to none in color and quality. She has been using Photoshop for 20 years, that may help but her gear takes first class images. My K-3 III compares very nicely against her 7D’s, my 400 with the AF 1.7 is just sharp as her 800, which is very sharp. Colors from both lenses are very close, with my 400 just a slight bit better. PP can finish to whatever one desires… BIF —- a toss up right now with the cameras with a slight nod to the 7D in many scenarios but not all. Hopefully I will improve my keeper rate with practice (which I am now happy with) , maybe 40%, way up from my previous 10%. Right now it’s in the 108 degree temp range every day so the 400 is mostly idle, in the a/c comfort of my home. High heat and high humidity means lots of chance for blurry images with a long lens so the 55-300 PLM and and DFA 70-200 are my daily lenses till it cools off…

[hatsofe]

'Canon 7d mk ii ' is better than 'mk i ', but just because the 'mk i' is very bad. I base my judgement on what I can see on Flickr. Poor oversaturated colours ( screaming green-yellow or red-orange cast, I call them "Canon colours") and low resolution images, that fall apart if being enlarged a bit. Apparently, the only cure is a double effort in Photoshop / LightRoom / whatever else. Nikon D500 with good glass works way better, but it is still not great. Canon 5D mk iii or mk 4 with their 400mm or 600mm primes are of different league, and so is Nikon D850 or even D810 with proper optics.
I'm not talking about their spaceships (like 1DX) ; those models don't even need a photographer - just tell them where to go ! ( The only thing : WHERE IS THE CREATIVE PART IN ALL THIS AUTOMATION ? ) . I have even better suggestion: drones. They can get so close to all these unyielding birds and take amazing shots without you leaving your living room.
And yet, I see many poor pictures taken by fully automated photographers.
Pentax KP image quality is often in par with full frame Nikon D750. Pentax K1 has an excellent image quality. On the other hand , Pentax doesn't have an access to all this good glass that other big three have. And it makes the difference.
All the pictures in the attachments are taken hand-held manual focus; the last one is taken with Pentax A 645 300/4 + 2X A 645 teleconverter on Pentax K5iis.

[clackers]

Anyway, I do understand Ricoh is not giving them the resources they need so they probably have to prioritize.

Well, that's it, Gordon.

Every company has to get its money back on products. And the market has crashed, camera and lens companies are selling a fraction of what they sold ten years ago. Olympus has had to leave the market, and there will be other casualties.

You are a serious birder, but very few photographers are, and you won't buy 3,000 copies of a DFA 200-600.

Did you know the DA 560 f5.6 has been discontinued?

The updated DA*16-50 f2.8 should sell though, because more customers benefit from it than wildlife photographers.

As a system it would pair very well with the DA*11-18.

[Gergich]

K5 is evergreen