DA 560mm


piotro

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 14:31
ilovesaabs wrote:

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.

60-250 is too short for many wildlife shooters or plane spotters, some sport and action ones as well, not to mention its AF is just slow (and I know it, I have this lens and had 55-300 as well).
300 is big longer, but still not enough, also it is level below in terms of IQ and speed.
So what ens do you take to get 400-500mm range on your Pentax and decent speed - maybe even enough to use TC ?

ilovesaabs wrote:

The Canon 100-400 and Nikkor 80-400 are both quite old...

Maybe old, but not a bad performers, if Pentax would have comparable lens (or even betteR), don't mind if it would be old, many of use use old Pentax lenses anyway, right? , then it would be different discussion, but they don't have it. Also sony 70-400SG is a very nice one.
Ok, 70-200 f/2.8 with TC - great (and Nikon and Canon 70-200/2.8 are wery good lenses), but, do we have in production good, SDM compatible Pentax TC?, lets ignore slow SDM focusing for this matter.

As for sobering, here you go:
Nikkor 500mm f/4 VR lens - 5300
Sigma 500mm f/4.5 - below 3000
--
http://piotr.zenfolio.com
Last Edited by piotro on 11/09/2012 - 14:39

Blythman

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 16:41
piotro wrote:
Sigma 500mm f/4.5 - below 3000

Very much doubt I could afford one, but where?

If Pentax would just work on their relationship with Sigma, and give me access to a 120-300 then I'd try to save up for one of those with a TC
Alan


PPG
Flickr

ronniemac

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 16:50
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.

Words of a wise man. I have to agree

fritzthedog

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 17:38
Frogfish wrote:


Aside from the fact that it is an f5.6 lens compared to the competition's (inc. Sigma) f4 or f4.5 lenses ?

I accept the Sigma is faster but the Pentax is longer and carries the Pentax badge - undoubtedly both points that Pentax would believe demands a price premium. I would also suggest that we know Pentax pricing can be shall we say a little esoteric? e.g Q at launch price perhaps getting on for double expectation or even 55-300 being (thankfully) significantly under priced based on performance
Frogfish wrote:

You obviously have not been following one of Pentax's 'unofficial' testers (meaning he has been given lenses by Pentax to test) :

It is in http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2011/04/...-f56-edif.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.

You are correct, I haven't been following this - indeed did not know about it. Having now read his article I can not quite work out whether the formula is only supposed to work out the price of this specific lens - in which case he has only used a sample set of 2 MRP prices of other lenses to work out his formula(?)this seems naive as there would be far too many unknowns as anybody (myself included) who has worked in pricing would tell you.

If on the other hand - the formula should work for all lenses - a quick calculation tells me that the 77 Ltd should be $176 (currently 829 at Park Cameras) so this can't be the case(?). Just out of interest - changed the 560 to F/4 - the formula makes the price $8,425

Frogfish wrote:

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.

You are slightly missing the point here - yes it was a "drole quip" but given that no such beast exists - speculation is pointless but undoubtedly there will be those who are speculating on the price
Frogfish wrote:

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.

Please do not misunderstand me here, what you are describing is normal and there will always be things we (myself most definitely included) would like that do not exist. Faster AF would certainly be at the top of my wish list - but I did not buy in to Pentax with an expectation of what I would really like becoming available later - I knew the rep for slow focus from the outset.
Frogfish wrote:

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).

I do understand your point, but at the same time, I do have to partially disagree - by your own words - you have grown in another direction - and you want Pentax to go in that direction with you. It is a perfectly understandable desire, but is it realistic? I look at all the great brands that have disappeared - sometimes as a direct result of trying to be everything to everybody and I am thankful that Pentax still exists. Perhaps if they had produced all of these things we all want - they would not have survived or perhaps they would be market leaders - who knows.

I was not trying to have a go at you Kevin and apologise if it sounded that way at all. I was really just in a light way trying to make the points that:

1. I genuinely could not imagine why anybody would expect the 560 to be $2000. In my head (rightly or wrongly) it had always been at least double that although the actual price is shocking

2. The whole lack of FF moan seems to have been going on for ever and whilst I should declare that for now - I have absolutely no FF desire - if I did, I would work out which camera system best suited me and go for it. I just do not see the point of continually bemoaning the fact that Pentax do not make one.

If they ever do bring one out - to follow in Kris's sentiment - it will undoubtedly be too big or small too expensive, the wrong shape or the wrong colour. In other words - we are all different - some will like it some will not - who is to say you would like it if the brought one out?

The flip side (for me) is this.

In the past 12 months - I have bought:

K5 - love it
Q - love it (now there's a camera with a limited lens line up!!!!)
17-70 SDM - love it
35 Ltd - Love it

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

Still27

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 18:17
Northgrain wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="womble"]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.

I would have a good laugh reading this if I wasn't crying
Bill
K5+Bigma+BushHawk Shoulderpod.
K5+16-50DA* + 10-17DA Fisheye + 50-135DA* + Sigma 70mm Macro + DA35 2.4..
Slik Pro 700DX tripod.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixellie/

Frogfish

Link Posted 11/09/2012 - 20:25
Thank you for your detailed explanation Carl - as usual I jumped in with both feet

A couple of points though :

1. The D600 exists. In fact today I saw one respectable shop in Australia is now already accepting orders and expect to deliver within 14 days !

2. You are quite right about Pentax's pricing. Hopefully this will be the case here but most other manufacturers of 500mm lenses generally have street prices around US$1,000 less than their MRP on their websites.

3. Falk Lumo is amazing as far as his work re. technical aspects of photography goes. He specialises on papers on Pentax and Nikon equipment and production and design theory and although often far above my head, he is a fascinating read.

..... and a reply to your comment :

I genuinely could not imagine why anybody would expect the 560 to be $2000. In my head (rightly or wrongly) it had always been at least double that although the actual price is shocking.


4. Canon's superb 400/5.6 USM (an L lens no less !), ultra fast focusing, incredibly sharp and a brilliant BIF lens, sells for just US$1,300. So you can see how I am utterly flummoxed that Pentax can add 160mm and another US$5,000+ for a f5.6 lens !

5. Direction. I don't think it's too unrealistic either I've been banging this drum for a while now, I think that Pentax need to add a FF and proper birding lenses to their line-up to retain people willing to spend a lot of money on cameras & lenses that currently they are losing to Canon / Nikon.
Of course the reason I didn't want to move to another brand is that I find some/a lot of Pentax's lenses have absolutely no equivalent in terms of the combination of : size, IQ, quality and price (15mm / 43mm / 77mm and also the 31mm - though I don't own that I would buy it for a FF camera) and probably others too !

Cheers !
Kevin
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 - 20:27

Fletcher8

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 01:12
Expensive it may be, but I am sure I remember reading a lot of people wanting Pentax to make a lens such as this one, and as Womble stated you can't win.

Perhaps we should wait and consider the following points

How good will it be optically?
Will the price come down?
Will someone buy it together with a K5 m2 as it is new, then sell it on ebay 6 months later because Pentax has not released a FF body?

At least now there is the option to buy one if you have the money.
Fletcher8.
Last Edited by Fletcher8 on 12/09/2012 - 01:13

Frogfish

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 03:29
Fletcher8 wrote:
Expensive it may be, but I am sure I remember reading a lot of people wanting Pentax to make a lens such as this one, and as Womble stated you can't win.

At least now there is the option to buy one if you have the money.

Sorry Fletch can't agree.

There was always the option to buy one if you have that sort of money. Pre-owned 250-600, 500, 600, 800 and even the 1,200mm all come up once or twice a year if you keep an eye open for them - and are superb lenses.

If Pentax had come out with a f4 / f4.5 design optically similar to those of Nikon/Canon's then you could foresee this price. However they specifically made a point of stating it is a much simpler design with fewer elements ... and it's f5.6, therefore optically simpler, lighter and much cheaper to produce.
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

K10D

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 04:39
ilovesaabs wrote:


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

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.

So do we both qualify as lemmings as we both use Nikon kit?

As for greener grass, why are you using Nikon?

Best regards

Frogfish

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 05:11
Woah I missed that CD. Did someone seriously compare a 300mm to a 500/560mm ?
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

Mike-P

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 17:23
My Canon 300mm f2.8L IS and 2x gives me a stabilised 600mm f5.6. I would be very surprised indeed if the Pentax 560mm was any better IQ wise as the Canon was built specifically with converters in mind apparently.

Anyway, according to this thread they will maybe sell 2 to users of this forum .. of which one was me (and my ceiling was around 3.5k)
No equipment list here but thanks for taking an interest. My Flickr

Don

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 18:09
Frogfish wrote:
Fletcher8 wrote:
Expensive it may be, but I am sure I remember reading a lot of people wanting Pentax to make a lens such as this one, and as Womble stated you can't win.

At least now there is the option to buy one if you have the money.

Sorry Fletch can't agree.

There was always the option to buy one if you have that sort of money. Pre-owned 250-600, 500, 600, 800 and even the 1,200mm all come up once or twice a year if you keep an eye open for them - and are superb lenses.

If Pentax had come out with a f4 / f4.5 design optically similar to those of Nikon/Canon's then you could foresee this price. However they specifically made a point of stating it is a much simpler design with fewer elements ... and it's f5.6, therefore optically simpler, lighter and much cheaper to produce.

are you comparing weather sealed lenses? Image stabilized?
seems to me this is not an indoor lens, and also collapses to a nice back packable size.... I think there would be many a shooter of different brands that might jump ship to pentax for a weather sealed camera and lens combo that truthfully would still ring in at less money than say this:
nikon 600
or this:
canon 500

I should think the Pentax is priced right, if the image quality is there..
sure a $3000.00 lens would have been amazing... but seven grand isn't a bad idea compared to the competition and market place..
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 12/09/2012 - 18:14

jane7l

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 18:28
Don wrote:

are you comparing weather sealed lenses? Image stabilized?
seems to me this is not an indoor lens, and also collapses to a nice back packable size.... I think there would be many a shooter of different brands that might jump ship to pentax for a weather sealed camera and lens combo that truthfully would still ring in at less money than say this:
nikon 600
or this:
canon 500

I should think the Pentax is priced right, if the image quality is there..
sure a $3000.00 lens would have been amazing... but seven grand isn't a bad idea compared to the competition and market place..

you are comparing a stop faster lenses with newest is design to a very simple lens design with no stabilisation. one stop faster lens usually brings about doubled price. and if you go just another half stop slower, you get zoom sigmas at around 1k price tag. da560 better be damn good to justify the price. even if it drops to a half of it.
pentax k7 + grip, mz-5n, da 15/4 ltd, revuenon 55/1.2, falcon 8/3.5 fisheye, leica m7, 50/2, 90/2.8, voigtlander 15/4.5, 35/2.5

Algernon

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 18:28
I didn't think it was waterproof and on the US forum
they said it didn't collapse like a telescope.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

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

Algi

Don

Link Posted 12/09/2012 - 18:46
jane7l wrote:
Don wrote:

are you comparing weather sealed lenses? Image stabilized?
seems to me this is not an indoor lens, and also collapses to a nice back packable size.... I think there would be many a shooter of different brands that might jump ship to pentax for a weather sealed camera and lens combo that truthfully would still ring in at less money than say this:
nikon 600
or this:
canon 500

I should think the Pentax is priced right, if the image quality is there..
sure a $3000.00 lens would have been amazing... but seven grand isn't a bad idea compared to the competition and market place..

you are comparing a stop faster lenses with newest is design to a very simple lens design with no stabilisation. one stop faster lens usually brings about doubled price. and if you go just another half stop slower, you get zoom sigmas at around 1k price tag. da560 better be damn good to justify the price. even if it drops to a half of it.

you're assuming simpler is simpler.. my understanding is a scramjet is simpler than a jet turbine... doesn't make it easier to design, easier to operate... but it is significantly faster in use...
seriously.. simplifying the design may in fact improve the image quality... and who cares about a stop lost at the lens stage when you're looking at the dynamic range, and better af of a k-5 mk II?
you gotta look at this as a camera lens package.... the combined system is a great value compared to the competition....
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.