DA 560mm


cabstar

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 10:54
1% wow even that U think will be well optimistic. Maybe 0.2%
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

womble

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 11:19
piotro wrote:
Womble, in this particular case you are wrong...

I'm not sure in what sense I am wrong? I didn't argue for or against a long telephoto v. a longer zoom, did I (which is what you seem to be implying)? Nor did I argue for a k-mount mirrorless v. a small one, or medium format v. "full frame". My comment was simply that for a certain segment of the world, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

If you go back through old threads you'll find people arguing passionately for Pentax to release a super telephoto and other people warning them that it would be an expensive, niche market product. Well, it has come to pass that Pentax have released an expensive super telephoto (although I doubt it'll stay at that price point very long) and the silence from that quarter is deafening.

The lens I really want is such an expensive niche market product that as much as I would like one I have no expectation Pentax will release one. Thankfully, Samyang have released something close, and that is where my pennies will go.

Best wishes, Kris.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website

mille19

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 11:45
I must admit I'm dissappointed at the £5999 RRP I was hoping Pentax were going to release a telephoto lens at a price people could afford.

The pricing of the DA 560mm isn't going to persuade any wildlife/sports photographers to buy into the Pentax system, if the pricing was more realistic they might have considered it.

Algernon

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 12:02
At that price they could have made a standard sized
lens 500mm or 600mm

I'll wait for the 425mm
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Frogfish

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 12:32
US$7,000 for the 560mm and only f5.6 !? Not in this lifetime. It needs to be spectacularly better than the Sigma 500mm (US$5,000) a f4.5 lens, and on a par with the utterly superb Nikon/Canon 500/4 and 600/4 lenses - and before it is even released we can tell it's not by it's f5.6 max. This is tragic.

This will send a legion of Pentax shooters to Canon / Nikon now that it is virtually certain there is a) no FF camera in the foreseeable future and b) the price of the 560mm is horrendously askew to the market conditions. I know of lots of posters over the forums I inhabit that have been waiting on the 560mm price - expected to be in the US$2,000 - 2,500 range and for a FF announcement.

I'm very happy I didn't wait and bought a Sigma 500/4.5 because Pentax are not offering me anything at all with this.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Last Edited by Frogfish on 11/09/2012 - 12:33

mille19

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 12:33
At that price you're looking at Pro prices, how many pro wildlife/sports photographers use Pentax ?

Frogfish

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 12:34
mille19 wrote:
At that price you're looking at Pro prices, how many pro wildlife/sports photographers use Pentax ?

Just look at the forums and photos posted - lots of amateurs. Including some pros. Though I don't know of many Pro bird shooters anywhere
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Last Edited by Frogfish on 11/09/2012 - 12:34

Stuey

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 12:40
womble wrote:
Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

We need a supertelephoto lens!

It'll be expensive...

The supertelephoto lens is too expensive, we need a long zoom...

It'll be expensive...

We need a mirrorless camera!

It's too small, why can't we have a k-mount one?

Wow that K mount mirrorless is big and boxy... we need a smaller mirrorless...

Pentax need s pro-spec camera.

Blimey, that 645D is expensive, Pentax should make a FF camera!

It'll be expensive...

Does the phrase "you cannot win" ever come to mind?

K.

Spot on - IMHO
K10D, K5 plus plenty of clueless enthusiasm.

My Flickr site link

fritzthedog

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 13:28
Back down here in the real world - I think the vast majority of us had already worked out that whatever the price turned out to be - it was always going to be way above our heads.

Think I will wait for the DA L version - plastic mount - no quick shift or hood - what do you think - should take it down to around £500?

As for a "legion of Pentax shooters" defecting to other brands because the 560 is not at their expected $2K price mark one would have to question their sanity on several levels starting with - what on earth made them ever think it was likely to be $2k - especially given that the Sigma 500 costs more than double that??

Applying the same price logic I suppose they were also hoping for an FF at half the price of a K5?

The whole concept of users 'defecting' does make me smile - I hope somewhere it involves climbing over heavily guarded walls and under barbed wire whilst being strafed by automatic rifle fire?

At the risk of being shot down in flames - Pentax is only a brand providing commodities. If one brand does not offer what you want and another does - buy that brand - that's normal behavior.

I just don't see any point buying in to a brand and them moaning about what they haven't got. Surely you buy in to a brand based on what they already deliver - not what you wished they would deliver?

Yes I know that this is an over simplification but personally I am more interested in enjoying my photography and striving to master what I do own and produce the best work I am able to with it than worrying about what might be if I had something else that I have never owned and perhaps does not even exist.

There may come a day when I am just so dammed good that I out grow my beloved Pentax gear - at which point it will be time to move on and celebrate my equally likely lottery win

A little more celebrating what we have would not go amiss guys.

Carl
No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more

Frogfish

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 13:49
fritzthedog wrote:

As for a "legion of Pentax shooters" defecting to other brands because the 560 is not at their expected $2K price mark one would have to question their sanity on several levels starting with - what on earth made them ever think it was likely to be $2k - especially given that the Sigma 500 costs more than double that??

'
Aside from the fact that it is an f5.6 lens compared to the competition's (inc. Sigma) f4 or f4.5 lenses and generally there is a substantial reduction in cost by dropping to f5.6 (just check out Pentax's own lenses)?

You obviously have not been following one of Pentax's 'unofficial' testers (meaning he is one of Pentax's Alpha Testers) :

It is in the blog http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/index.html

and the formula is

Price [MSRP in USD] = D[mm]^3.26 /1177 (typical error is +/- 25%, street price shouldn't be higher)
D is the diameter = focal length / f-stop number.

However, this formula is for highly corrected 10+ element lenses, not the expected fairly low complexity 560/5.6 with D=100. BTW, the formula yields 2800 USD. I expect the lens to come out cheaper though, around 2400 USD with 500 USD error margin. But this was before recent insane price hikes from various Japanese vendors.


fritzthedog wrote:
Applying the same price logic I suppose they were also hoping for an FF at half the price of a K5?

Ignoring the 'drole' quip - I guess you better ask Nikon what they are pricing their D600 at - it's not going to be stratospherically above the K5II. US$2,000 - 2,000 ? The K5II pricing is where it should be IMHO with FF camera prices having dropped dramatically relative to inflation.

fritzthedog wrote:
I just don't see any point buying in to a brand and them moaning about what they haven't got. Surely you buy in to a brand based on what they already deliver - not what you wished they would deliver?

Yes I know that this is an over simplification ...

It is, very. I know I am just one of many who bought into Pentax for one reason but then found, as have others, as our experience, photography and preferences develop we look to Pentax to provide solutions.

Having gone on to spend a substantial amount of money on their lenses and cameras I don't think it is unreasonable to expect/hope that they will eventually deliver whatever is missing (flash, FF, long lenses, faster AF, whatever) so that switching to another brand, with all the expense and the learning curve that entails, is not required.

It's not about having exceeded the capabilities of the system - that most certainly will never happen - but that having grown in another direction it's disappointing not to be able to go there with Pentax (birding lenses and digital FF in my case).
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Last Edited by Frogfish on 11/09/2012 - 14:04

johnriley

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 14:01
That's a lot of criticism about something unseen and untried, and it also ignores that it just might be a spectacular performer. There's the new coating, a dersign built on different principles and a modest aperture to keep weight down, presumably.

An RRP of £5999 means nothing, it will settle, but it's what we might well expect a professional lens of such a length to be.

It will be interesting to see if it becomes the wildlife photographer's must-have optic, and if it does then sales of Pentax DSLRs will start to move into professional circles in a bigger way.

Yes, Sigma lenses are cheaper, and they are available in Pentax K fit as well.
Best regards, John

Frogfish

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 14:15
johnriley wrote:
That's a lot of criticism about something unseen and untried, and it also ignores that it just might be a spectacular performer. There's the new coating, a dersign built on different principles and a modest aperture to keep weight down, presumably.

An RRP of £5999 means nothing, it will settle, but it's what we might well expect a professional lens of such a length to be.

It will be interesting to see if it becomes the wildlife photographer's must-have optic, and if it does then sales of Pentax DSLRs will start to move into professional circles in a bigger way.

Yes, Sigma lenses are cheaper, and they are available in Pentax K fit as well.

It will need to settle a long way John. And you are ignoring the fact it is f5.6 when all the competition is at f4 or f4.5 at similar, or substantially lower, prices. Pros aren't going to switch to Pentax to buy a 560/5.6 when they can have a 500/600 f4/4.5. In fact it isn't even really about that anyway, it's about customer retention within your current customer base.

How much price difference is there between a 300/2.8 and 300/4 ?
How about Canon's 400/5.6 and their 500/4 ? So doesn't a f5.6 not cost substantially less than a F4 lens to manufacture due to the technical difficulties in designing and producing an f4 of that quality ?

It will need to be a superb performer at that price (and I've absolutely no doubt it will be) but the competition are already there so in that regard the f5.6 (which we knew about in advance and which most people were OK with if the price was commensurate) at this price is unfathomable.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0

ilovesaabs

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 14:18
piotro wrote:
Womble, in this particular case you are wrong. Should Pentax actually had full lens portfolio then it would be a great addition, but as they lack for so many years in good, long telephoto zoom (something longer and better IQ than anyway great 55-300) and instead of sort this out they add something that probably 1% of Pentax users are going to buy, it just doesn't make a sense.
Myself and as far I know some number of Pentax users would seriously consider 80-400, 100-400 or so lens, that would be comparable to similar offering from Nikon, Canon, Sony. I don't think many of us will seriously consider paying that much for such a lens. Lets get back on the ground, which Pentax users are they trying to please with such a product?, ones that keep talking that all that is needed is manual focus? (they will not buy this lens anyway), those that could considering moving to Pentax, but will not as they don't find lens they may need here?, 1% others that may have this cash to spend?.

When you do look at the opposition it makes for sobering reading.

If I need a medium telephoto for the Pentax I have the DA55-300 or the DA*60-250, I have the 300 for longer.

The DA*300 is sharper than the equivalent Nikkor (I have both)

The Canon 100-400 and Nikkor 80-400 are both quite old...The advice I was given when looking for the Nikkor was 'Don't bother, get the 70-200 plus TC-E II/III, much better, kerching for Nikon and the dealers...Canon's new 70-300 'L' is over £1K and is f5.6, the Nikkor 70-300 is well regarded, as is the new 28-300 but they are not cheap....Longer means deeper pockets...

I would like the Sigma 100-300 resurrected and a Pentax iteration of the Tokina 80-400 as well....but for the overwhelming majority of my photography my Pentax glass meets my needs - I have no need for any more, 'WANT' is a different matter.

So, before we all think it's the end of the world that there is no K-3 and the DA560 costs the same as a small car, the lemmings going to other brands will find the grass isn't greener on the other side.
AKA Welshwizard/PWynneJ
Assorted Pentax/Nikon/Mamiya stuff

piotro

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 14:21
womble wrote:
I'm not sure in what sense I am wrong? I didn't argue for or against a long telephoto v. a longer zoom, did I (which is what you seem to be implying)?

There was a small mindshortcut on my side. What I was saying is that I don't believe "you cannot win" is the case (as you suggested). As this Pentax products it stands now seems to be aiming at less than 1% of Pentax population. If it would be at least 10% then I could say - yeas, some people will like it like that some not - fine, but if it is targeting such a minority of us then I prefer they used time and money to develop something more useful for us.
--
http://piotr.zenfolio.com

DrOrloff

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 14:27
DA*300 and tc will do the job for me and the other 99.9999%. I think it's great as I think Pentax have to come up with FF options for lenses like these. It shows real commitment to the future.

It doesn't really matter to me what the price is. I won't be able to afford one.
You can see some of my photos here if you are so inclined
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.