Pentax DA 560/5.6 expected at Photokina

aurele · 09-07-2012, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Why?
That lens is:
- Sigma
- shorter
- old

I don't see the point about the brand : is the Pentax lens suppose to be better just because it's a Pentax ?

honestly, is 60mm (10% longer then) such a big deal, a huge difference ? Would you buy the 560 if you have the 500 ?
And i think, that if you have the choice between a 500/4.5 or a 560/5.6 but the latter is $1,000, you'd take the first and crop a very little bit your picture with a great pleasure !

Again, i don't see the point about "old", if you mean that because the Sigma is from around 2004, and thus, it's a bad lens because it's 8years old, then my point is that it's not a very valid argument : lots of old lens are very very good.
If your point is that you hope that the new 560 will be better than the old Sigma 500, because the Pentax is newer, that may be not the case, but anyway, it's only hope for now!

Kunzite · 09-07-2012, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by aurele

I don't see the point about the brand : is the Pentax lens suppose to be better just because it's a Pentax ?

No, but it's supposed to be more expensive

We were talking about prices, so let's expand a little bit the 3 points:
- a third party lens maker, with very few exceptions, would have to sell its products for less than the OEM. Sigma definitely fits here.
- the Sigma being shorter means it should be less expensive, even if we're only talking about 60mm. OTOH it's faster, which adds to the price. How to balance the two, I have no idea if it's even possible; we're also talking about different designs (even though some people here have the wrong idea that the Pentax will be a cheap, mediocre lens).
However, the Pentax being closer to 600mm than 500 IMO means it shouldn't cost less.
- the Sigma being launched how many years ago means the R&D expenses were probably recovered long time ago, and let's not forget what time does to street prices.

LamyTax · 09-07-2012, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

No, but it's supposed to be more expensive

We were talking about prices, so let's expand a little bit the 3 points:
- a third party lens maker, with very few exceptions, would have to sell its products for less than the OEM. Sigma definitely fits here.
- the Sigma being shorter means it should be less expensive, even if we're only talking about 60mm. OTOH it's faster, which adds to the price. How to balance the two, I have no idea if it's even possible; we're also talking about different designs (even though some people here have the wrong idea that the Pentax will be a cheap, mediocre lens).
However, the Pentax being closer to 600mm than 500 IMO means it shouldn't cost less.
- the Sigma being launched how many years ago means the R&D expenses were probably recovered long time ago, and let's not forget what time does to street prices.

The 560 is supposed to be a budget lens

.

Kunzite · 09-07-2012, 08:58 AM

Care to bet about that?

L.E. Wait... what kind of budget are we talking about? Hopefully not this kind:
http://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-most-expensive-lens

LamyTax · 09-07-2012, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Care to bet about that?

L.E. Wait... what kind of budget are we talking about? Hopefully not this kind:
The world's most expensive camera lens

Any Pentaxian should know that you never bet on Pentax

.

I've been given very specific information about the targeted price range, which is below the Sigma.

Kunzite · 09-07-2012, 09:13 AM

Hmm... inside info, nice. The bet still holds

LamyTax · 09-07-2012, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Hmm... inside, info, nice. The bet still holds

Oh and, of course, nobody knows about U.S. prices these days.
I wonder if the 31 limited will soon cost more than a Noctilux :P

Blue · 09-07-2012, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by LamyTax

Are you kidding? It's a lot cheaper than what you pay for other systems!

No I am not kidding. I think Pentax should have kept it in their catalog. Like I said there were plenty of people that did buy it. I couldn't at that point in time nor any other system either. It was a quasi special order unit and it wasn't like they had shelves full of them. While 13,000 is a lot of money, $8,500 is still a significant purchase. If I had it, I would certainly get an FA* 600/4.

LamyTax · 09-07-2012, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Blue

No I am not kidding. I think Pentax should have kept it in their catalog. Like I said there were plenty of people that did buy it. I couldn't at that point in time nor any other system either. It was a quasi special order unit and it wasn't like they had shelves full of them. While 13,000 is a lot of money, $8,500 is still a significant purchase. If I had it, I would certainly get an FA* 600/4.

Yes, of course, they never should have stopped production of it.
Now, for the average wildlife shooter, compare, what's less expensive to get into the trade?
Pentax, Canon, Nikon or Sony?

If Pentax plays their cards right, they could soon establish quite a market in that segment.

aurele · 09-07-2012, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by LamyTax

If Pentax plays their cards right, they could soon establish quite a market in that segment.

specialy when thinking that it's better to be APS-C for this !

LamyTax · 09-07-2012, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by aurele

specialy when thinking that it's better to be APS-C for this !

Certainly, although a D800 has the same pixel density as a 24mp APS-C sensor, plus the Nikon AF is second to none right now.
But, still... a D800 alone costs as much as a K3 + 300/4.

Blue · 09-07-2012, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by LamyTax

Yes, of course, they never should have stopped production of it.
Now, for the average wildlife shooter, compare, what's less expensive to get into the trade?
Pentax, Canon, Nikon or Sony?

If Pentax plays their cards right, they could soon establish quite a market in that segment.

If that FA* 250-600/5.6 and FA* 600/4 were still in the lineup, would clearly be. They should had seals to those two and Call them D FA 600/4 WRand D FA 250-600/5.6 WR and call it good. If I had the money for a Canon 600 L, I would still scrounge up a FA* 600 instead or maybe a Sigma prime.

Mistral75 · 09-09-2012, 11:32 AM

Full name is HD Pentax-DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW.

AW means All Weather (this is the branding of the recent 645 lenses). HD corresponds to a new coating: goodbye smc, sorry for you Takumars.

Source : Digicam Info ?????????????????????? - ????info

Blue · 09-09-2012, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

Full name is HD Pentax-DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW.

AW means All Weather (this is the branding of the recent 645 lenses). HD corresponds to a new coating: goodbye smc, sorry for you Takumars.

Source : Digicam Info ?????????????????????? - ????info

That doesn't necessarily mean Pentax is doing away with SMC on the rest of the lenses. It could have something to do with this particular telescope lens. HD may be a way to denote lenses that have Aero Bright added. It could also be a marketing gimmick.

Timothy · 09-09-2012, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

No, but it's supposed to be more expensive

We were talking about prices, so let's expand a little bit the 3 points:
- a third party lens maker, with very few exceptions, would have to sell its products for less than the OEM. Sigma definitely fits here.
- the Sigma being shorter means it should be less expensive, even if we're only talking about 60mm. OTOH it's faster, which adds to the price. How to balance the two, I have no idea if it's even possible; we're also talking about different designs (even though some people here have the wrong idea that the Pentax will be a cheap, mediocre lens).
However, the Pentax being closer to 600mm than 500 IMO means it shouldn't cost less.
- the Sigma being launched how many years ago means the R&D expenses were probably recovered long time ago, and let's not forget what time does to street prices.

I have very little interest in long lenses, let alone exotically long lenses so I've been following the rumours surrounding the 560 in the name of lazy curiosity, largely since it's nice to see a camera or lens maker do something new. But I was under the impression that the 560 is:

-very awkwardly shaped, and one would imagine balanced...
-lacking or limiting exotic elements...
-as fast as a garbage truck...

...all in the name of being cheap.

Though I acknowledge that there has been some frankly insane pricing decisions committed by Pentax in the last little while, it benefits them to have the cheapest extra-long option for novice birders, astrophotographers, and sports-shooters (or merely those on a budget). It does not benefit Pentax at all to have a single extreme telephoto option which is harder to transport, has a less advanced optical design, and is significantly slower than a comparably priced third party option (which is incidentally available in the other mounts as well). As I mentioned above, I don't follow the prices of long glass very closely, but I really do feel that for this lens to make any impact it needs to be under US $2000. In other words, at $4000 I yawn and read some reviews, at $1600 I start telling myself that I should really be taking more bird pictures. That's one market. The other is people who already knew they wanted to take bird pictures, and at $1600 they have some incentive to switch systems.

Also, with regard to the trade off between the focal length and aperture, I cannot imagine a possible world where 60mm of reach would cost as much in dollars as two thirds of a stop of light gathering. But if it were, Sigma has a 500mm f6.3 for around $1000 (and it comes with your choice of a free 150mm f5.0 or, for a few hundred more a 50mm f4.5).

Now I never said anything about mediocre, but it has to be cheap because, if not, well what the the hell is it? And who the hell is it for?

09-07-2012, 09:13 AM	#36
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Hmm... inside info, nice. The bet still holds Last edited by Kunzite; 09-07-2012 at 09:23 AM. Reason: removing extra comma

09-09-2012, 11:53 AM	#44
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Mistral75 Full name is HD Pentax-DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW. AW means All Weather (this is the branding of the recent 645 lenses). HD corresponds to a new coating: goodbye smc, sorry for you Takumars. Source : Digicam Info ?????????????????????? - ????info That doesn't necessarily mean Pentax is doing away with SMC on the rest of the lenses. It could have something to do with this particular telescope lens. HD may be a way to denote lenses that have Aero Bright added. It could also be a marketing gimmick. Last edited by Blue; 09-09-2012 at 11:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Pentax DA 560/5.6 will indeed be collapsible...I think...	Pål Jensen	Pentax News and Rumors	28	09-06-2012 11:48 AM
Pentax K-5 + YN 560 II X-Sync	striker_	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	2	08-03-2012 11:47 AM
Pentax 540 and Yongnuo 560 - if they flash together?	pich	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	3	10-29-2011 04:49 AM
yn-560 flash +pentax k-5	Purusam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	03-12-2011 05:02 PM
Pentax Expected at Las Vegas CES January 6-9 2011	bobell69	Pentax News and Rumors	26	01-12-2011 02:19 PM

09-07-2012, 08:38 AM	#31
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	Originally posted by Kunzite Why? That lens is: - Sigma - shorter - old I don't see the point about the brand : is the Pentax lens suppose to be better just because it's a Pentax ? honestly, is 60mm (10% longer then) such a big deal, a huge difference ? Would you buy the 560 if you have the 500 ? And i think, that if you have the choice between a 500/4.5 or a 560/5.6 but the latter is $1,000, you'd take the first and crop a very little bit your picture with a great pleasure ! Again, i don't see the point about "old", if you mean that because the Sigma is from around 2004, and thus, it's a bad lens because it's 8years old, then my point is that it's not a very valid argument : lots of old lens are very very good. If your point is that you hope that the new 560 will be better than the old Sigma 500, because the Pentax is newer, that may be not the case, but anyway, it's only hope for now!

09-07-2012, 08:56 AM	#32
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by aurele I don't see the point about the brand : is the Pentax lens suppose to be better just because it's a Pentax ? No, but it's supposed to be more expensive We were talking about prices, so let's expand a little bit the 3 points: - a third party lens maker, with very few exceptions, would have to sell its products for less than the OEM. Sigma definitely fits here. - the Sigma being shorter means it should be less expensive, even if we're only talking about 60mm. OTOH it's faster, which adds to the price. How to balance the two, I have no idea if it's even possible; we're also talking about different designs (even though some people here have the wrong idea that the Pentax will be a cheap, mediocre lens). However, the Pentax being closer to 600mm than 500 IMO means it shouldn't cost less. - the Sigma being launched how many years ago means the R&D expenses were probably recovered long time ago, and let's not forget what time does to street prices.

09-07-2012, 08:57 AM	#33
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by Kunzite No, but it's supposed to be more expensive We were talking about prices, so let's expand a little bit the 3 points: - a third party lens maker, with very few exceptions, would have to sell its products for less than the OEM. Sigma definitely fits here. - the Sigma being shorter means it should be less expensive, even if we're only talking about 60mm. OTOH it's faster, which adds to the price. How to balance the two, I have no idea if it's even possible; we're also talking about different designs (even though some people here have the wrong idea that the Pentax will be a cheap, mediocre lens). However, the Pentax being closer to 600mm than 500 IMO means it shouldn't cost less. - the Sigma being launched how many years ago means the R&D expenses were probably recovered long time ago, and let's not forget what time does to street prices. The 560 is supposed to be a budget lens .

09-07-2012, 08:58 AM	#34
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Care to bet about that? L.E. Wait... what kind of budget are we talking about? Hopefully not this kind: http://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-most-expensive-lens

09-07-2012, 09:02 AM	#35
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by Kunzite Care to bet about that? L.E. Wait... what kind of budget are we talking about? Hopefully not this kind: The world's most expensive camera lens Any Pentaxian should know that you never bet on Pentax . I've been given very specific information about the targeted price range, which is below the Sigma.

09-07-2012, 09:20 AM	#37
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by Kunzite Hmm... inside, info, nice. The bet still holds Oh and, of course, nobody knows about U.S. prices these days. I wonder if the 31 limited will soon cost more than a Noctilux :P

09-07-2012, 09:56 AM	#38
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by LamyTax Are you kidding? It's a lot cheaper than what you pay for other systems! No I am not kidding. I think Pentax should have kept it in their catalog. Like I said there were plenty of people that did buy it. I couldn't at that point in time nor any other system either. It was a quasi special order unit and it wasn't like they had shelves full of them. While 13,000 is a lot of money, $8,500 is still a significant purchase. If I had it, I would certainly get an FA* 600/4.

09-07-2012, 10:06 AM	#39
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by Blue No I am not kidding. I think Pentax should have kept it in their catalog. Like I said there were plenty of people that did buy it. I couldn't at that point in time nor any other system either. It was a quasi special order unit and it wasn't like they had shelves full of them. While 13,000 is a lot of money, $8,500 is still a significant purchase. If I had it, I would certainly get an FA* 600/4. Yes, of course, they never should have stopped production of it. Now, for the average wildlife shooter, compare, what's less expensive to get into the trade? Pentax, Canon, Nikon or Sony? If Pentax plays their cards right, they could soon establish quite a market in that segment.

09-07-2012, 10:18 AM	#40
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	Originally posted by LamyTax If Pentax plays their cards right, they could soon establish quite a market in that segment. specialy when thinking that it's better to be APS-C for this !

09-07-2012, 10:23 AM	#41
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by aurele specialy when thinking that it's better to be APS-C for this ! Certainly, although a D800 has the same pixel density as a 24mp APS-C sensor, plus the Nikon AF is second to none right now. But, still... a D800 alone costs as much as a K3 + 300/4.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2012, 11:19 AM	#42
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by LamyTax Yes, of course, they never should have stopped production of it. Now, for the average wildlife shooter, compare, what's less expensive to get into the trade? Pentax, Canon, Nikon or Sony? If Pentax plays their cards right, they could soon establish quite a market in that segment. If that FA* 250-600/5.6 and FA* 600/4 were still in the lineup, would clearly be. They should had seals to those two and Call them D FA 600/4 WRand D FA 250-600/5.6 WR and call it good. If I had the money for a Canon 600 L, I would still scrounge up a FA* 600 instead or maybe a Sigma prime.

09-09-2012, 11:32 AM	#43
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,525	Full name is HD Pentax-DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW. AW means All Weather (this is the branding of the recent 645 lenses). HD corresponds to a new coating: goodbye smc, sorry for you Takumars. Source : Digicam Info ?????????????????????? - ????info

09-09-2012, 06:18 PM	#45
Timothy Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Central Canada Posts: 43	Originally posted by Kunzite No, but it's supposed to be more expensive We were talking about prices, so let's expand a little bit the 3 points: - a third party lens maker, with very few exceptions, would have to sell its products for less than the OEM. Sigma definitely fits here. - the Sigma being shorter means it should be less expensive, even if we're only talking about 60mm. OTOH it's faster, which adds to the price. How to balance the two, I have no idea if it's even possible; we're also talking about different designs (even though some people here have the wrong idea that the Pentax will be a cheap, mediocre lens). However, the Pentax being closer to 600mm than 500 IMO means it shouldn't cost less. - the Sigma being launched how many years ago means the R&D expenses were probably recovered long time ago, and let's not forget what time does to street prices. I have very little interest in long lenses, let alone exotically long lenses so I've been following the rumours surrounding the 560 in the name of lazy curiosity, largely since it's nice to see a camera or lens maker do something new. But I was under the impression that the 560 is: -very awkwardly shaped, and one would imagine balanced... -lacking or limiting exotic elements... -as fast as a garbage truck... ...all in the name of being cheap. Though I acknowledge that there has been some frankly insane pricing decisions committed by Pentax in the last little while, it benefits them to have the cheapest extra-long option for novice birders, astrophotographers, and sports-shooters (or merely those on a budget). It does not benefit Pentax at all to have a single extreme telephoto option which is harder to transport, has a less advanced optical design, and is significantly slower than a comparably priced third party option (which is incidentally available in the other mounts as well). As I mentioned above, I don't follow the prices of long glass very closely, but I really do feel that for this lens to make any impact it needs to be under US $2000. In other words, at $4000 I yawn and read some reviews, at $1600 I start telling myself that I should really be taking more bird pictures. That's one market. The other is people who already knew they wanted to take bird pictures, and at $1600 they have some incentive to switch systems. Also, with regard to the trade off between the focal length and aperture, I cannot imagine a possible world where 60mm of reach would cost as much in dollars as two thirds of a stop of light gathering. But if it were, Sigma has a 500mm f6.3 for around $1000 (and it comes with your choice of a free 150mm f5.0 or, for a few hundred more a 50mm f4.5). Now I never said anything about mediocre, but it has to be cheap because, if not, well what the the hell is it? And who the hell is it for?