| Author: | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: August, 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Posts: 5,294
6 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 16, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $550.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharp; short MFD; handles well for a 400 | | Cons: | Some CA | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
A good sharp super-tele that is easily hand-holdable, although of course with a 400mm lens a tripod is necessary to get the best results. While it's true you can't instantly change focus between near and far objects, the long focus throw and solid focus damping help to achieve precise focus, and are a good match for a MF super-tele.
The short minimum focus distance is excellent for those occasions when you can get really close to your subject. This is a slight crop:
High-contrast subjects can produce some purple fringing. Another mild crop:
A busy high-contrast background can result in nervous bokeh with bokeh CA -- here's a 100% crop from the above image, showing both purple fringing on the subject, and bokeh CA (green and purple background highlights):
I think that is something of a worst-case scenario, and in practice this is very manageable. Another example showing strong backlighting, first uncropped and then a 100% crop:
 | | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 431
7 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 22, 2010 | Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Build quality, sharpness and good contrast. | | Cons: | Slow focusing and some purple fringing. | |
This is a slow lens in term of focussing speed and the aperture.
Although, it does suffer from purple fringing, nevertheless, the image quality is rather good and sharp.
Weight is not too heavy and reasonable for a 400mm tele lens. Handheld is possible.
All the sample pics below were indeed taken without a tripod or monopod.
I agreed to Ben Edict's review of this lens. If speed, fast tracking of moving object is not the primary concern (possible but not easy), this lens can be a very good choice.
Samples from this lens:
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: December, 2008 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 276
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 21, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Good IQ, good bokeh | | Cons: | Heavy | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 6
Value: 10
| |
I got it at an auction, so the $100 is an equal share of the price of the lot it was in.
I really, really like this lens. For me, it is definitely a tripod or mono-pod lens. As others have said, it gives sharp results and good colors. I like the bokeh.
This is one lens that I will keep until one of us can't take pictures anymore...
Shot was F8, ISO 100, 1/90.
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: August, 2007 Location: Cambridge, United States Posts: 57
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 6, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Price for performance, build, contrast and colours, manual focus (good to learn on!) | | Cons: | Soft below f8, some purple fringing, manual focus (obviously) | |
I bought this lens paired with a 1.4x Pentax L converter (a magnificent piece of glass), principally for birding. The combination gives me great, fairly sharp, fairly slow, reach at a decent price.
I am pleased I bought it - I spent ages testing it and it was a close call based on sharpness, but with my tripod (Velbon CF 530 and Kirk Bh3 head - so a strong setup) I get images I like.
What I like:
It's a 400mm, and at f5.6 it's not terribly slow.
It's sharp from f8 onward, and can produce some seriously sharp images.
Manual focus means you have to work hard for good results. I like that in a lens because it means I practice good techniques (like checking focus before shooting).
The colours are beautiful (like so many Pentax lenses). I love how it renders green... a pretty important colour in wildlife photography.
It's well built and strong, all metal and glass.
What I dislike:
I wish it was a bit sharper wide open. But hey, don't we all.
There's purple fringing with strong backlighting. I don't really mind but it's something to think about.
Hit to miss ratio is pretty low, but that is down to technique as well as sharpness.
Manual focus!
The bottom line:
If you are patient and work hard this lens can deliver great results. Don't go tripod-less!
Some pics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dandekadt/4281634695/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dandekadt/4295246329/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dandekadt/3026528041/in/set-72157608593266273/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dandekadt/2994743961/in/set-72157608593266273/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dandekadt/3016294109/in/set-72157608593266273/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dandekadt/2994749137/in/set-72157608593266273/ | | | | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2009 Location: Temuco Posts: 13
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 9, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $470.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Real long lens, at accessible price | | Cons: | Very soft at 5.6 and 8 | |
On my search for something better than an 80-200mm zoom with 2x teleconverter for shooting birds, I finally decided on this lens. Indeed it's better than the above combination, as was to be expected, but at least the sample I got does not live up to the excellent reviews I have read before purchasing it.
My quality standards for any 35mm lens call for a resolution of at least 40 line pairs per mm, all over the frame. Below that level, slides look blurry when projected. This lens meets that standard, just barely, only at f/16. At f/11 it falls slightly short of this, but with some goodwill it's still acceptable. At f/8 and f/5.6, instead, it's totally unsharp. So, its rated 5.6 aperture is useful only for easier and more precise focusing, but cannot be used for actually shooting the picture - at least when good resolution is required.
At f/22 and further, of course diffraction becomes a problem, as with any lens. So, basically, use this lens always at f/16, or when there is very little light, f/11. The other aperture settings are basically decorative.
Given the very high cost of better quality long teles, I would still recommend this lens, but only to people to whom the above restrictions are acceptable.
| | | | | Moderator
Site Supporter Registered: June, 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Posts: 17,377
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 7, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $425.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp, good contrast, well made | | Cons: | long and heavy | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
This is one of my 2 favorite Pentax lens (that I own anyway). If I didn't own a Tokina A 400mm f5.6 that was a bit shorter and lighter, I may not have given this lens a 10 because it deserves a 9.3 rating imho. Now that I have a k200d, I need to do a side by side comparison of these two lenses. This lens is tough to master hand holding but long lenses require practice in general. This lens features the F.R.E.E. arrangement.
Edit: A sample image.
I think the person above me's overall rating of 5 is ridiculous for this lens.
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#/section=EXIF-LENS&subSection=570&sub...75&language=EN | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Posts: 3,309
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 4, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | high build quality, excellent sharpness and contrast | | Cons: | long, focusing slow | |
This lens is sharp and contrasty - in fact even more so, than the A* 4/300 I also use. So the optical parameters are really top notch. The build quality is typical for A-lenses: massive and made to last. Pentax for once decided to include the much needed tripod collar, though it should extend farther. As is, some tripod heads get in the way, if you use a camera + battery pack.
Despite the too basic tripod collar (which nevertheless is rigid enough), the only, but even more noticeable, drawback of the lens is its focusing mechanism. You have to turn the focusing collar nearly a full 360 degrees from infinty to the closest distance of 2.8 meters. That makes focusing slow.
If speed is not your primary concern, the lens is an excellent choice.
| | |
;)
;)
