Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

New 560mm weather sealed?

Mike-P
Posted 11/02/2012 - 18:14 Link
Pic on the other Pentax forum of the 560mm rear mount.

Notice the red ring.

Comment Image
Fletcher8
Posted 11/02/2012 - 18:59 Link
Could be, we will just have to wait and see I guess.
Fletcher8.
DaveHolmes
Posted 11/02/2012 - 19:31 Link
Is the K-01 weathersealed as the K5/K7/K20/K10/K200 are?
........................................................................
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/
Gwyn
Posted 11/02/2012 - 19:33 Link
DaveHolmes wrote:
Is the K-01 weathersealed as the K5/K7/K20/K10/K200 are?

No it isn't.
fatspider
Posted 11/02/2012 - 22:01 Link
That lens looks depressingly expensive
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link
K10D
Posted 12/02/2012 - 00:34 Link
The cry for long lenses is followed by a cry over a " higher than wanted" price.

Is there a reason why a Pentax long lens should cost less than a similar lens from another top brand?

Seriously, no snipe intended to anyone here, it follows that there is a market price for such lenses and if you want one, you pay the going rate.

Preferably the going rate outside of the UK which is always cheaper?

But then again, Pentax may sell it for a lot less than the competition and make everyone happy.

Best regards
Inspiration is rarer than a plate glass camera.....
George Lazarette
Posted 12/02/2012 - 01:43 Link
Actually, the market depends very much on the price. It's my view that lens manufacturers often over-price items which they deem (rightly or often wrongly) to be of little interest to the wider public.

And, of course, the high price puts off all but a few buyers, and apparently confirms the view that the market for the item in question is indeed very small.

But had the item been priced more reasonably, it might have sold in huge numbers, and been a lot more profitable as a result.

If this 560mm were to be priced at £300, I am sure it would sell in vast numbers, and yield a handsome return. But it won't be, of course. It'll be priced at £2,000, and very few people will buy one.

C'est la vie.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Aero
Posted 12/02/2012 - 01:51 Link
Elasticity of demand, as econonomics bores use to say. Lower the price, you sell more and make more money. It's all about finding the right balance.
sterretje
Posted 12/02/2012 - 13:12 Link
Yep, everybody wants a Porsche for the price of a Polo

George Lazarette wrote:

But had the item been priced more reasonably, it might have sold in huge numbers, and been a lot more profitable as a result.

If this 560mm were to be priced at £300, I am sure it would sell in vast numbers, and yield a handsome return. But it won't be, of course. It'll be priced at £2,000, and very few people will buy one.

Sorry to be a bit cynical; I guess you how have insight in the development and production costs of lenses to make the statement. I don't think that GBP300 will cover the production costs, not even if they produce 10 million of them in a single run (which is, by the way, not possible).

To be honest, if it goes for around GBP2000, I think it's a steal. Not one that I easily can afford, but still .... a steal.

Nikon 500/4 goes for GBP6200, Sigma 500/4.5 goes for GBP4000 and Nikon 600/4 for GBP7300; all prices from the SRS website. Could not find prices for Canon equivalents. So we sacrifice a stop (or less) and the price gets down to GBP2000 (1/3 of the Nikon 500/4); sounds like an excellent deal to me.
Pentax K10D + Vivitar 55/2.8 macro + Super Takumar 55/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 85/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 135/3.5 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 200/4 + Super Takumar 300/4
Pentax K100D + DA18-55ALII + DA55-300
Pentax K5 + FA31Ltd + M50/1.7 + DFA100WR + M120/2.8 (+ DA18-55WR at occasion)
Frogfish
Posted 12/02/2012 - 13:36 Link
sterretje wrote:
Could not find prices for Canon equivalents. So we sacrifice a stop (or less) and the price gets down to GBP2000 (1/3 of the Nikon 500/4); sounds like an excellent deal to me.

The Canon's are all around the same price as the Nikons.

For one stop (f4/4.5 to f5.6) not only does the price drop dramatically but of course the reason for that is that it is a much smaller and lighter lens too.
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
vrapan
Posted 12/02/2012 - 13:37 Link
George Lazarette wrote:
Actually, the market depends very much on the price. It's my view that lens manufacturers often over-price items which they deem (rightly or often wrongly) to be of little interest to the wider public.

And, of course, the high price puts off all but a few buyers, and apparently confirms the view that the market for the item in question is indeed very small.

But had the item been priced more reasonably, it might have sold in huge numbers, and been a lot more profitable as a result.

If this 560mm were to be priced at £300, I am sure it would sell in vast numbers, and yield a handsome return. But it won't be, of course. It'll be priced at £2,000, and very few people will buy one.

C'est la vie.

G

Your logic is flawed I am afraid. There is no certainty that enough people will buy it at a lower price to make it a profitable product. Elasticity of demand is a fairly simplistic yet surprisingly accurate way of describing what is going on when price of a product moves.

Considering how specialised very long prime is I am not surprised at the levels they are priced.
Mike-P
Posted 12/02/2012 - 13:48 Link
Frogfish wrote:
sterretje wrote:
Could not find prices for Canon equivalents. So we sacrifice a stop (or less) and the price gets down to GBP2000 (1/3 of the Nikon 500/4); sounds like an excellent deal to me.

The Canon's are all around the same price as the Nikons.

For one stop (f4/4.5 to f5.6) not only does the price drop dramatically but of course the reason for that is that it is a much smaller and lighter lens too.

Indeed so.

My Canon 400mm f5.6 is smaller and lighter than the Pentax 60-250mm and very sharp right from the word go. There is very little difference in retail cost either.

At the end of the day price is going to come down to performance capability. I don't think it is going to get anywhere near to the big Canon/Nikons, infact I'm pretty sure it won't be up to the older 250-600mm Pentax either.

All we can do is hope it's reasonably well built, has the SDM AF of the 18-135mm, is sharp from f5.6 (and takes a 1.4x TC well) and that it's sensibly priced.

Sorry .. just got in from work and was daydreaming there for a bit.
Frogfish
Posted 12/02/2012 - 15:41 Link
I hope that Falk Lumo doesn't mind me re-posting his thoughts here :

Ok, the plot thickens that we are seeing a 4" telescope design here. The length (very long for a tele lens but normal for a scope) being the fifth hint or so.

So, I'd like to contribute a bit more insight about what to expect of such designs.

Let me assume for the best which seems to be an optical 4 element Petzval design plus maybe an additional LFF (Large Field Flattener). A Pentax scope of similiar specification is the Pentax 100 SDUF or Pentax 105 SDP. In this PDF, you'll find a scientific measurement of the resolution of this Pentax scope (German!). The Petzval design dates back to physicist Jozef Maximilián Petzval and was first used in 1841.

The best direct comparative tests of such a scope design and an advanced 10+ element photo tele lens design I could find was conducted by Samir Kharusi from Oman who has an amazing pool of devices

In the first test, he compares 140mm optics (as opposed to 100mm) using what appears to me being the 21 MP Canon 1DsmkIII FF camera.

In the second test, he compares 60mm optics (as opposed to 100mm) using the 10 MP Canon 40D APSC camera.

Note that in the first test, he uses a Petzval design plus additional Large Field Flattener. Also, he clearly misses exact focus sometimes with the tele lens.

Direct sources are here (sorry these links won't work on copy/paste) :
-> televue_canon
-> TV-60is

From this and other sources I conclude that a good scope design has the same excellent optical performance in the center and at infinity focus compared to a more complex photo tele lens design. However, it's performance drops off when approaching the edges or a closer focus. OTOH, contrast and clarity in the center seems to even outperform the more expensive 10+ element tele lens designs.

So, I think I can summarize the pro and cons of the forthcoming 560/5.6 already:

SUMMARY

IMHO (based on preliminary information as of today) the Pentax DA 560/5.6 is a tele prime lens at a good price point (sub $2000) which rivals the optical performance of much more expensive glass, near the center and at infinity focus, good enough to be used with a tele converter and with good clarity and contrast. OTOH, the lens is very long (and possibly heavy) and the performance will degrade towards the edges of the image field which makes it better suited for APS-C than full frame although it most likely would cover a medium format image circle. Or all in one: Be Different .
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
Posted 12/02/2012 - 16:37 Link
Frogfish wrote:
I hope that Falk Lumo doesn't mind me re-posting his thoughts here

Please don't, I quite enjoy this forum without them.
cabstar
Posted 12/02/2012 - 17:04 Link
George Lazarette wrote:
Actually, the market depends very much on the price. It's my view that lens manufacturers often over-price items which they deem (rightly or often wrongly) to be of little interest to the wider public.

And, of course, the high price puts off all but a few buyers, and apparently confirms the view that the market for the item in question is indeed very small.

But had the item been priced more reasonably, it might have sold in huge numbers, and been a lot more profitable as a result.

If this 560mm were to be priced at £300, I am sure it would sell in vast numbers, and yield a handsome return. But it won't be, of course. It'll be priced at £2,000, and very few people will buy one.

C'est la vie.

G

Lets say they did list it for £300, what price would the DA*300mm be or the 200mm 2.8???

Your logic is completely flawed & does not take into account development costs, logistical costs or material costs...
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.