Yes he's the one, the Q King ! In fact both of them as Baronla is good too.

Woah I missed that CD. Did someone seriously compare a 300mm to a 500/560mm ?

I bought a Q (but no Q lenses !) specifically for this purpose. I'm afraid as a birder it just doesn't work as the camera shake induced blur when hand-held just destroys the image. I tested it with a Zeiss 85/1.4 and the Tamron 90/2.8 to give 467.5 / 495mm, amongst other lenses. Didn't even bother to try it on the DA*300mm (2,650mm) !

There is one poster in particular on the other forum who has some superb shots at very long range but steadying the combination is not easy and it has to be used on a solid tripod and with a x3 optical screen magnifier.

Not a viable option for birding but produces superb moon and macro shots.

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.

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

I had a look at their bags today. Really really great padding, support and still airflow. Inside same same as all the other top brands, but the pricing was too rich for me, £250 for the Skyborne 49, it's US$249 in the USA !

Well the only thing I can think of re. TCs is that Pentax are happy with a 560/5.6 and x1.4 TC (which they have yet to announce ) = 784/7.9

vs.

500/4.5 plus x1.7 TC = 850/7.65

In that case I'd agree there is nothing in it reach or aperture wise and maybe Pentax figure the IQ might be just that little better with a x1.4 than with a x1.7 (though Nikon/Canon's are excellent).

Quick Search :

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens US$11,000 (ca. £7,000+)
Nikon 500mm f4 ED VR AF-S £5,865
Sigma 500/4.5 £3,780 (on Amazon UK - note not £4,799)

And you are missing one massive point with the 'one stop' comment, it's not about the ISO at all. People buy these lenses mainly for birding (and mostly on tripods so the weight is, for many, irrelevant) and you can not put a x1.7 TC on an f5.6 lens and retain AF - at least with any reliability). You can on an f4 or f4.5 lens because they stay under the f8 limit for these long lenses.

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.

Don't Sony have a specified lead time for other manufacturers to use their sensors ? And Nikon have a jump on everyone else ?

I thought it was Nikon could incorporate their new sensors 6 months after Sony introduce them in a model, followed by everyone else (inc. Pentax) another 6 months later ?