[HawaiianOnline]

I would echo the sentiments of some of the other posters in that a long and fast lens is needed for this type of photography. A 500 f5.6 would be too slow to work well with a flash even with a Better Beamer. I would say that a 400 f2.8 or a 500 f4 would be great. I personally use the Sigma 300mm f2.8 with the Tamron 1.4X (for a 420mm appx f4) or the Pentax 1.7x AFTC (for a 510mm appx f5) and it works pretty well for Hawaiian forest birds and other wildlife.







And, it works well for surfing too...



I'd love to have a modernized version of the FA 600 f4...

[RonHendriks1966]

Wow you do exsist! For me personal 300mm is long enough at the time but I want a fast lens.

I read some different use for lenses and wishes, but I have the idea that they exceed at the time the options in the lenssurvey poll since you want more expensive lenses then I put in the survey.

Would a 400mm/f4 bring you enough? Even if there would only be a 1.4x TC and for near future no new 2.0x TC?

[HawaiianOnline]

Wow you do exsist! For me personal 300mm is long enough at the time but I want a fast lens.

I read some different use for lenses and wishes, but I have the idea that they exceed at the time the options in the lenssurvey poll since you want more expensive lenses then I put in the survey.

Would a 400mm/f4 bring you enough? Even if there would only be a 1.4x TC and for near future no new 2.0x TC?

The biggest problem is that there is no SDM TC, yet (I think, please correct me if I am wrong). If a 400 f4 were made and it were SDM, then it would become a manual focus 560 f5.6. Speed is good for wildlife especially for birds that like to forage in the bushes or understory of forests. Even with flash and a better beamer, speed helps, at least that's been my experience.

[goubejp]

As Pentax wildlife shooter I mainly use the following lenses :
FA*600f4 (sometimes with a sigma 1,4x converter)
DA*300
DA*200
Depends on how close I manage to be from the subject.
What is missing is a long tele that can be use handheld; a 400f4 would be great with an optional 1.4 X converter; the 600f4 is a great lens but very heavy; more than 7 kgs; f4 is useful only because is allows to focus with a teleconverter; otherwise the DOF is so narrow that I need to stop down at 8 to get enough DOF for close (ie 6 m to 10 m) subjects. Imagine that at f4 DOF at 10 meters is something around 4 cms.
Some examples
600f4 :

DA*200

600f4 again :

600f4 with sigma converter (slightly misfocussed; too windy!)

[yusuf]

I know a friend using A*300 for his wildlife photography.

[OrenMc]

Heres a shot taken at 2.8 from my Sigma. You decide if its sharp enough. Full res converted to jpeg only avalible at my flickr. Probably not the best example though.

[Digitalis]

Would a 400mm/f4 bring you enough? Even if there would only be a 1.4x TC and for near future no new 2.0x TC?

nope still too slow, there wouldn't be much difference between the the DA*300mm f/4 - in terms of focal length alone 300mm and 400mm isn't anything to write home about especially if both lenses are only f/4. But there is enough difference between a 300mm f/4 and a 400mm f/2.8 - especially if you take the use of teleconverters into consideration.

[OrenMc]

A question that is running in my mind. Who are those wildlife photographers using Pentax gear and what are you using? Are there any new lenses that you would want or need? Is DFA*500mm/f5.6 enough for future?

Are you speaking from an enthusiast standpoint or do you mean professional?

It really boils down to what your wallet will allow. A lot of folk give up on serious wildlife photography because of the expense.

You can get away with a shorter focal lenght but your going to miss a lot of shots. However, as its been said, there are work arounds. There are techniques such as blinds, learning your subjects behavior which might allow you to get closer, ect. This is purely from an enthusiast stand point.
I think if you want to go professional long fast glass is essential and 500/5.6 might not cut it even with those techniques applied.
__________________

[littledrawe]

Seems like most people think primes when they think extreme telephoto. I would like to see a

250-500mm f2.8-4 quality zoom
&
600mm f4

This would allow for a lot of flexibility and cater to a wide variety of shooting as well as using both of these with a 1.4X TC

[RioRico]

I would like to see a

250-500mm f2.8-4 quality zoom
&
600mm f4

On my first trip to Chichicastenango Guatemala, I was haggling (in my broken Spanish) with a Mayan woman over some craft items. Finally she asked, in a good Brooklyn accent, "So, how much you wanna pay?!?"

That's my question on these lenses: How much are you willing to pay? I look in the latest B&H catalog and see a Sigma 300-800/5.6 for ~US$8k. I see Canon and Nikon 600/4's, no prices listed, but I imagine they're in that neighborhood. I don't see any 250-500/2.8 from anyone. If Pentax made one, how would they price it, and would you (or enough others) pay that price?

As mentioned, there are workarounds to long lenses in wildlife shooting. Blinds, bait, remotes; knowing the critters; zoos, of course; and who was that guy who submerged himself in an African water hole for weeks, to get amazing close shots of lions etc? (Don't think about the bears' buddy who was eaten by his subjects.) Yeah, it depends on budget, and determination, and sanity.

[Mock]

I use Sigma 400 f/5.6 APO Macro, I love it for its minimum focus distance of only 1.5 metres. I've gotten many frame-filling shots of small birds because of that ability.

However, what I really want is a DA* 300mm 2.8, with a set of 1.4x and 2x matched SDM WR teleconverters. If it retains the FA* 300's MFD of 2 metres I would be in heaven.

If that never happens, then I may have to settle for Sigma 120-300 f/2.8...assuming it comes out in K mount.
I've already got my pennies saved for such a lens, but for this amount of money I'd rather have Pentax SMC coatings, SP coatings, and PROVEN weather-sealing.

[littledrawe]

I don't see any 250-500/2.8 from anyone.

Dare to be different . . . . . RIGHT!

How much are you willing to pay?

I'm not sure how much I am willing to pay ? But, I am pretty sure that there are no FA 250-600mm and FA600 f4 s collecting dust on store shelves anywhere!! I may not have the money right now but If these lenses were available readily and I didn't have to sell my soul or add 5 extra zeros to the end of my maximum bid on ebay I would start donating plasma and digging ditches to get one. In addition, it would make pentax a competitor in this market. There are professional photographers all over the world and at some point everyone of them had to pony up and put their money on the counter, why not have Pentax be an option for them instead of just Canon and Nikon.

I certainly hope the people in the Pentax front office aren't shying away from making a lens because they aren't sure how much they should charge people for it.

[Ron Kruger]

There is a misconception that long, expensive lenses are needed for professional wildlife photography. Some do use them, but most shoot shorter, faster lenses--especially those you see in Nat Geo. The professional part is in knowing how to get close.
There also is a misconception that pics from very long lenses with TCs are good enough for publication, just because they look good in the dummed down version posted on the internet or computer screen. These are different mediums with different requirements.
Generally, regardless the FL, faster is better for wildlife. Though the DA 300mm f-4 does a great job on backyard birds and in good light, it is too slow for the low-light conditions so common for real and shy wildlife, and it isn't just the loss of an f-stop (compared to the 200mm f-2.8). Longer lenses require higher shutter speeds as well. While I can get a tack-sharp image with the 200mm at f-2.8 with 200sec., I need 300sec. with the f-4. That's really equivilent to a two-stop difference. Add another 100mm, and you need 400th sec, and even if that 400mm is an f-4, you're still talking about a three-stop difference between it and the 200mm f-2.8. These are the reasons I settled upon the 200mm.
When the light is strong, either will work, but when it is fading (or overcast, or when the animal is standing in the shade, which is most common) the difference is considerable. Whenever you add a TC, the loss is compounded, in both f-stops and effective shutter speeds.
Now, you can get great shots in good light with these longer lenses, but when you approach wildlife from a pragmatic professional perspective (I sell one or two covers and many inside shots each month), longer lenses present too many restrictions and limitations. Usually, the lens has to be fast--and so do you--to consistently get shots that stand out from the rest.
Being professional is not so much in the equipment and the FL, but in the ability to get close.

[RonHendriks1966]

On the question, who is it for? Well everyone wanting a lens (long? fast? expensive?) for use with their Pentax camera for either professional or amateur use. Is it enough to get your hands on legacy glass, is current lens line sufficient, or is a (or are) new lens(es) wanted for use?

[HawaiianOnline]

Being professional is not so much in the equipment and the FL, but in the ability to get close.

I would agree with this. When I started using better camouflage, and practiced sitting quietly in a spot for a while, I noticed that the birds became more acclimated to my presence and got closer. It also helps to understand their habits.

On the question, who is it for? Well everyone wanting a lens (long? fast? expensive?) for use with their Pentax camera for either professional or amateur use. Is it enough to get your hands on legacy glass, is current lens line sufficient, or is a (or are) new lens(es) wanted for use?

For me, I also do a lot of surf photography, and the really long lenses excel at that, at least for most of the breaks on the North Shore. The 600 f4 would work great for most of them. I also shoot the big breaks at Waimea Bay from the north side, and this position is about 1700 feet or appx 518 meters away. The surf photo in my earlier image was done with a Sigma 300mm f2.8 and the Pentax 1.7X AFTC on a K7 and it was cropped down some. I forget exactly how much cropping, but it wasn't that much. The 600f4 would help me with open country birds like the Pueo (Hawaiian Short Eared Owl), and the I'o (Hawaiian Hawk). I've never been able to get close enough to either of these birds, and my trips to their habitats on Maui and Hawaii Island are too short to really get good observations of their habits and roost locations to plan strategy. Faster is better, especially for action shots.

Why do I do this? Because I enjoy it. I don't do this professionally, and I'm very fortunate to have a job that lets me fund this hobby. I would like Pentax to to make a new version of the 600 f4. The legacy glass is too hard to find.