Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Pentax FA* 400mm f/5.6 ED IF

GDN
Posted 05/08/2010 - 09:49 Link
Myself and a work collegue had loads of problems with Pixmania. Definately wouldn't go use them again.
Gary

Pentax K3

My Flickr
johnwhit
Posted 05/08/2010 - 09:58 Link
fritzthedog wrote:
Hi John

Unfortunately mine is the older 72mm thread non APO version - having said that - it really is not a bad lens and with the right light - I get some credible results with it - but it is not in the same league as the APO version - which I have had the opportunity to borrow off a friend.

regards
Carl

it's good to here it's not a bad lens, I tend to "go off on one" and suddenly thought after re-reading some of the thread, Sigma 400mm
If it's the later APO, you're unlikely to find anything better IQ wise without a change of camera make. I debated buying the Sigma 400 APO for quite some time, then Sigma brought out the 120-400 OS HSM and I was undecided which would be the better choice. Better IQ of the 400mm prime or the benefit of zoom, OS and Sigma's version of Quick Shift manual focus. Then I heard reports of reliability problems with the 120-400 and 150-500, so in the end I just decided to keep what I have and see what comes along........beter the devil you know.........

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.
Algernon
Posted 05/08/2010 - 10:03 Link
fritzthedog wrote:
Sorry also forgot to mention that I have an F 1.7 x AF converter and I was wondering whether the DA*300 would deliver anything like good results using this?

There's a few shots in this post taken with the 1.7x and Pentax 'A*' 300mm f/4. Not very good shots, but they do show on the 100% crop that very little sharpness is lost.

I wish I could compare the A* with the DA* to see if there is much difference not only in sharpness, but also angle covered. I've also the F* 300mm and the A* seems to bring things closer and is also smaller and easier to carry. Only big problem with the A* 300mm is it only focuses to 4m (3m with an extension tube).

I've also got the Pentax 1.4 x-S converter which works well with the 55-300mm. I've never really tried it on the 300mm primes. Having the two means 300, 420mm and 510mm are covered. The 1.4x also only loses 1 stop.

300 x 1.4 = 420mm
300 x 1.7 = 510mm
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

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

Algi
fritzthedog
Posted 05/08/2010 - 19:50 Link
Re comments on Pixmania - thanks for the feedback - looks like it is worth avoiding them! I must admit - 3 out of my last 4 lens puchases have been from a Hong Komg based outift - brilliant prices and service - problem is although they sell Pentax fit Sigma - they do not stock Pentax lenses - pity as their Sigma stock is massively cheaper than UK prices and have all arrived within 3 days of purchase
No matter how many lenses I have owned - I have always needed just one more
Mike-P
Posted 05/08/2010 - 21:30 Link
OK, found the pics.

These were all done at the same time and they were taken hand held as that is they way I always shoot. The comparison is not meant to be taken as anything other than what it is .. me messing about one afternoon for my own interest but it should give you an idea

As you can see, the Bigma is not actually 500mm .. looks about 440mm to me.


Pentax F* f4.5 with 1.7x TC

Comment Image


Bigma

Comment Image


Sigma 100-300mm f4 and Sigma 1.4x TC

Comment Image
Edited by Mike-P: 05/08/2010 - 21:32
Hyram
Posted 05/08/2010 - 21:40 Link
Thanks for the pics Mike.

I must get around to trying a TC on my DA* 300 sometime soon.
Hyram

Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T
Oggy
Posted 05/08/2010 - 22:22 Link
Crumbs Mike - I am surprised the Bigma didn't do better. This is the 150-500 on a Tamron 1.4x TC -

Comment Image
Mike-P
Posted 05/08/2010 - 22:32 Link
Oggy wrote:
Crumbs Mike - I am surprised the Bigma didn't do better. This is the 150-500 on a Tamron 1.4x TC -

Its quite possible there is some shake in there, as I said it was a quick and dirty comparison with no tripod just taken out of interest one afternoon when I was bored. There was no work done to the photos either, they are literally converted from raw to jpeg and resized .. once sharpened and given a bit of treatment through lightroom the Bigma shot looks much better.

I took this with it a couple of weeks ago so it's not all bad.

Comment Image
Edited by Mike-P: 05/08/2010 - 22:38
Algernon
Posted 06/08/2010 - 10:17 Link
Mike, you can get a variation with TC's, so it's unlikely that the Bigma will be that far out on focal length. The 1.4x and 1.7x are just very nominal figures. At 2m the Pentax 1.7x would be 1.3x on a 200mm lens and 2.7x at infinity. The Sigma 1.4x would be 1.3x and 1.8x (Source AP Test 9th April 1994).
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

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

Algi
Anvh
Posted 06/08/2010 - 11:04 Link
Algernon wrote:
Mike, you can get a variation with TC's, so it's unlikely that the Bigma will be that far out on focal length. The 1.4x and 1.7x are just very nominal figures. At 2m the Pentax 1.7x would be 1.3x on a 200mm lens and 2.7x at infinity. The Sigma 1.4x would be 1.3x and 1.8x (Source AP Test 9th April 1994).

Then the bigma is even more out if the actual value of the TC is smaller.
The last photo is with the sigma 100-300 so with 1.4x TC that's actually 1.3 that would be 390mm if the sigma 100-300 is actually 300mm
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Oggy
Posted 06/08/2010 - 12:55 Link
That's much more like I would expect Mike. The only reason I mentioned the TC is that it would further degrade the IQ in my picture.
Mike-P
Posted 06/08/2010 - 16:57 Link
Oggy wrote:
The only reason I mentioned the TC is that it would further degrade the IQ in my picture.

I presumed it was, I have never tried the Bigma with the 1.4x .. I always presumed it would be unuseable on the K10D but may give a shot on the K-7.

That is actually pretty reasonable, any PP work done to it?
Edited by Mike-P: 06/08/2010 - 16:58
Oggy
Posted 06/08/2010 - 18:00 Link
Sorry Mike I cannot remember whether there was any PP, I don't think so. I would not really regard it as usable in most contexts - it took about ten attempts to focus.

It was better than I expected though.
Algernon
Posted 07/08/2010 - 09:51 Link
Algernon wrote:
Mike, you can get a variation with TC's, so it's unlikely that the Bigma will be that far out on focal length. The 1.4x and 1.7x are just very nominal figures. At 2m the Pentax 1.7x would be 1.3x on a 200mm lens and 2.7x at infinity. The Sigma 1.4x would be 1.3x and 1.8x (Source AP Test 9th April 1994).

I've tested the F* 300mm f/4.5 with a tape measure hung vertically on a door and at 5.050m to the sensor/film plane (5.00m approx. to lens mount) it works out correct at 1.7x. I didn't test if the internal moveavble lens group on the TC made any difference.

I also tested the A* 300mm f/4 and as previous tests it gave a 10% bigger image than the F* 300mm f/4.5. In other words you would have to move forward with the F* to 4.5m to get the same image size as the A* at 5.0m.

It seems that whilst these lenses are 300mm at infinity they are different close up. I'm going to also test the 55-300mm later today.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

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

Algi
KZ
Posted 27/08/2010 - 19:07 Link
I think there is some misunderstanding with Pixmania. It is a big online company settled in France (and not overseas) and running business all over Europe (see: www.pixmania.com). I already have bought a few things from them without any problem. On the other hand they really have a rather bad reputation, but this is mostly because people do not read their sales/warranty conditions on their website before buying. What needs to know:

They do not provide you with the normal factory warranty. Instead they offer you their own seller warranty ( but usually for a longer period than the normal factory one). First it looks good, but the fact is that you need to send all the faulty product for warranty repairs to their service center to France on your own cost and risk. More than that, the process is extremely long, and the usually repair time is 1-2 months and they send back the product to you in a not insured package (again on your own risk). Summing up: practically you may forget warranty. If considering it the price is still good, it makes sense to consider their offer. One more thing: usually they deliver from Germany and France and it may happen that English language User Manual is not included. In these cases you need to load it from their website. Euro to UK power adapter may also be necessary, though usually it is provided.
Edited by KZ: 27/08/2010 - 19:07

Add Comment

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