560

Are there any other members out there interested in this new lens?

When I was first starting out taking my nature shots I was told that I had bought a poor camera for the task. Canon or Nikon are always named as the best for the job because of the options in glass etc.

I am facing a really tough decision at the moment whether to stick it out for the 560 with my K-x or change to Canon and get there fantastic 400mm 5.6 lens.

Does anyone have any doubts about this new lens and will it be affordable for someone who is finding it harder every month!

QC

All depends on price and IQ really.

I have the 400mm for my 50D and it really is an excellent lens but 400mm is still borderline for nature shots a lot of the time. 500mm is certainly better (if you can use a 1.4x on it then that will be a bonus) but I have a feeling it's not going to be as cheap as some people think.

Hopefully I'm wrong though.

Yes, I am interested....but I am astonished about the Canon and Nikon glass snobbery, in either range affordable longer glass is not a given....£1000 or so gives you 300mm f4 for P&C&N, and 400 f5.6 for Canon, if you want longer or faster you are looking at north of £4000....Comparing a Nikkor or Pentax 300mm - I know which one's sharper and it's the one with SDM

This is an age old argument, so C&N may have more lenses, but be totally honest how many of us could afford half of them even the Pentax 560 (when it arrives) will probably be beyond many peoples budgets.

Canon 400mm £1160? plus entry level body £360? that would buy you the Pentax DA*300mm and a Pentax 1.7 converter (if you can find one) giving you the option of both 300mm and 510mm lenses, and if you were planning on something more than an entry level Canon body then you could probably also upgrade the K-x to the K30 for the same amount

Is it not just the bodies that are better suited, faster focus etc? I don't know, I've only tried with Pentax. However, unless I'm out with a Pentax meet, I'm usually outnumbered in a hide.

I've sat alongside togs with all makes of camera Barrie and heard many a groan or cuss because the AF failed to lock on and they missed a shot, C&N may have faster focus but it's not perfect, and I have seen a stunning shot of a Kingfisher taken with a bridge camera incorporating the optical zoom function which proves you don't have to spend a fortune to get a good shot, patience and knowing your subject are half the battle with wildlife photography.

I can not disagree with "you don't have to spend a fortune to get a good shot, patience and knowing your subject are half the battle with wildlife photography." But the suggestion is, having gone to all that trouble, other marques cross the finish line first.

I'm waiting to see the price. I'm not sure that there's any point in comparing the lens price to other brands as those tend to be FF and everything I've seen so far refers to the DA 560 (no FA, no *) so I'd be disappointed if it weren't significantly cheaper than other similar focal lenth lenses.

Yes, but I'm trying to make the point that compared to Pentax at the price point we're used to other makes do not offer anything better....I have the Nikkor 300 and Pentax 300mm f4 lenses, yes the Nikkor is faster to achieve focus but the DA* is sharper - to get better you have to spend, spend, spend...

Back to the original topic, I am quite disturbed about the 'fact' that the K-x is a poor camera for nature photography, many people on here will tell you that a K-x with a 55-300 lens is a superb combination. Why change when so called 'experts' inform you that because you have a Pentax you have a poor camera...

This is all a matter of perspective and not attempting to compare apples with pears. You cannot compare a Ford Model T to a Porsche 911 Carrera!

As it happens, I bought a K-x in mint condition on ebay for £230 and paired it up with another mint buy bought on ebay, a £20 Tamron 300mm F5.6 Adaptamatic that is 40 years old. I have taken some pretty good wildlife shots with this combination that cost me £250. Can I compare these shots with any taken on a full frame Canon and a £6000 600mm lens? Probably not, but for £250 they are pretty darn good and I am happy with them. As mentioned above, the K-x and 55-300 is also a decent combination (K-5 with this lens is much better though).

It all depends on what you can spend (or what you are happy to spend).

Regards
David

That raises another interesting point.
If it is not a FF lens then all the speculation on the other Pentax forum saying we will have a FF body in the next 12 months is totally wrong.

I would suspect it will be a FF compatible lens though .. the designation has not been officially released yet.

The lens roadmap shows it as a DA Mike, although as you say we won't really know until it's released.

They would be mad to restrict their largest focal length prime to the crop market only.

Saying that, nothing would surprise me with Pentax.

The DA35mm f2.4, DA*200mm f2.8 and DA*300mm f4 are FF compatible, so the DA rating is a bit meaningless! I would guess that something that long would end up FF compatible.

Anyone who could design a 560mm f/5.6 lens that only covers
APS-C isn't a "lens designer" he's a "Magician"