Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 9, 2012, 9:19 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I've seen people hope that it will be somewhere around $2000, since the Sigma 500 f4.5 is something like $3,000. As far as I know, there's no price set yet, just as I don't think they've announced a date when it will be actually for sale. I'll want the lens, but think the 1.4 TC on the lens map is more likely what I'll buy, hopefully it will be for sale next year like the lens map implied.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2012, 6:59 AM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

It would be a boon, but I suspect price tag for such a lens would be $3,000 if optical quality is good and focus is fast. Honestly, do you really want to buy such a long PRIME if the optical quality is NOT top-notch? In the past, Pentax best lenses have been no cheaper really than the competition OEM lenses. I think you need to brace for $3000-3500.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2012, 4:15 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
It would be a boon, but I suspect price tag for such a lens would be $3,000 if optical quality is good and focus is fast. Honestly, do you really want to buy such a long PRIME if the optical quality is NOT top-notch? In the past, Pentax best lenses have been no cheaper really than the competition OEM lenses. I think you need to brace for $3000-3500.
I agree with you John. The $ 3000 forecast price I had before...I found the source in Germany, which seems to be accurate in their information regarding Pentax. They have in the past anyways.

I do wish Pentax would come out with a competitive lens for the Canon 400 mm L, F 5.6.

A friend has one and takes excellent pictures consistently. He uses it hand held (7D body) and although it is not a lightweight lens (metal body, robust construction) it handles well, out in the field for ' us older guys' ... ...who maybe like me...I'm not as strong as I once was... during my long lost days of youth.

To me a 400 mm lens f5.6, would make sense for outdoor photographers...whether they be shooting birds or racing cars. It has a significant amount of extra reach over say the DA 300...is still...'carry-able' and not tripod dependent out in the field. At F 5.6 it will keep the costs down and shutter speeds should be more than good , during sunny daylight hours. True, even in these days of extremely fast and workable ISO it will still be a tad slow for pix at night time games, at outside arenas and in ill lit gyms...but that would require an F 2.8 at least, I would think.

F 2.8 and telephoto equals $$$$ and for my purposes as largely an outdoor photographer...F 5.6 and 400 mm @ the quality of an ' L '...would be perfect.

In Canada, last time I checked...I think the Canon 400 F 5.6 was around $ 1600 CAD. Excellent price for an excellent lens.

Last edited by lesmore49; Feb 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2012, 4:11 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Biro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 835
Default

Les, looking at the roadmap again I see they'e got something that looks like a DA 135-400 (or near 400) slated for 2013. As I mentioned earlier in this string, I've long wanted a 135-400 WR to go with the 18-135 WR. If this is it, it might be what we need... even if we want a 400mm prime.
Biro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2012, 9:43 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

I still want a good 70-200mm f/2.8 for my Pentax for sports shooting not even on the road map as far as I can tell. a 135mm - 400 would be a great bird-wildlife lens

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2012, 11:55 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
It would be a boon, but I suspect price tag for such a lens would be $3,000 if optical quality is good and focus is fast. Honestly, do you really want to buy such a long PRIME if the optical quality is NOT top-notch? In the past, Pentax best lenses have been no cheaper really than the competition OEM lenses. I think you need to brace for $3000-3500.
I agree with John here. At 560mm and f5.6, given a spherical lens element design, the front element needs to be around 100mm in diameter (f# = FL/D where D is the diameter of the objective element). Compare this to a 300mm f2.8 where the front element needs to be at least 107mm and a 400mm f5.6 where the front element needs to be only about 71.5mm. Even the Bigma at 500/6.3 only needs a 79.4mm front element. The area of a 400/f5.6 objective is about 1278mm˛ while the area of a 560/f5.6 will be almost twice that at 2500mm˛.

The larger glass elements are much more expensive to make. Since the area of the glass increases in direct proportion to the square of the radius, many more blanks are rejected for casting defects. Dies for grinding and polishing are considerably more expensive to produce, and need to be replaced more often when they wear. The lenses have to be assembled by the most experienced techs and have to be built to higher tolerances. The weight of the glass requires more robust construction to maintain these tolerances over time. These are reasons why fast telephoto lenses increase in price exponentially as they get longer.

The price of this lens is much more likely to be more comparable to the 300/2.8 than a 400/5.6. With the third party Sigma EX 300/2.8 APO DG at $3200, and OEM lenses traditionally considerably more expensive than 3rd party, even $3000 might be wishful thinking IMO. Hopefully I'll be wrong. . .

Consider also that Nikon, Canon, and even Sigma benefit from virtually guaranteed sales to rental outfits around the world. Pentax is hardly represented in these, so can't count on sales to these companies like the other mfgs, so the pricing model they use needs to be different.

I'm not trying to be a party pooper here -- just trying to be realistic, knowing what I know about long fast glass.

Personally, though I like this announcement, I'll likely not be purchasing one of these lenses though I certainly fit the probable target market. For me, a professional grade 1.4x AF K mount TC would serve me better if it can perform even marginally better than my current Tamron or Sigma 1.4x AF TCs.

Scott

Last edited by snostorm; Feb 11, 2012 at 11:58 PM.
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2012, 5:10 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biro View Post
Les, looking at the roadmap again I see they'e got something that looks like a DA 135-400 (or near 400) slated for 2013. As I mentioned earlier in this string, I've long wanted a 135-400 WR to go with the 18-135 WR. If this is it, it might be what we need... even if we want a 400mm prime.
Biro,

I didn't see that in the roadmap but I only looked at the 'map' quickly.

Awhile ago I tried a Sigma ...either a 120-400 or a 135-400 zoom...can't recall the exact numbers. I just tried it a camera shop with a Canon body (they didn't have a Pentax mount in stock) and I liked it.

It was a bit heavy, large....but I think it would be workable. A Pentax 135-400 with WR...would be perfect when I think of it.

I've noticed some of my good Pentax zooms (10-17 FE, 12-24)..even though they are zooms...seem to meet prime standards.

Les
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 8:45 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

The more I think about this lens (and thank you JohnG for your input, very sensible), the more I talk myself out of it. The pictures make it look so huge, I can't imagine trying to carry it around. I did once see the Sigma 500 and the Bigma and thought both were a bit beyond my capabilities. I could be talked into a 150-400 as it was smaller and lighter, probably on the border of what I wouldn't mind using.

As JohnG pointed out - who wants a long lens that's not got good quality? I've always hesitated about the Bigma because I would want the long end of it and have sometimes thought pictures posted with it aren't as good as I would want - but there's lots of reasons why that might be. I think I'd rather get the TC when it comes out - smaller and lighter. I don't shoot birds all that often, so it makes little sense to spend all that money on a lens I'd only use maybe 10% of the time. I think I'd be better off getting something that's in the wide-to-normal range and weather sealed.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 11:27 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
The more I think about this lens (and thank you JohnG for your input, very sensible), the more I talk myself out of it. The pictures make it look so huge, I can't imagine trying to carry it around. That's what spouses are for although I must admit that my wife ceased carrying my camera equipment once we were married .I did once see the Sigma 500 and the Bigma and thought both were a bit beyond my capabilities. I could be talked into a 150-400 as it was smaller and lighter, probably on the border of what I wouldn't mind using.When I tried the Sigma 135 (or 120) - 400 it was still fairly sizable and heavy...but not at the Sigma 500 level. If I recall the zoom had a hand grip/ tripod mount that I found myself gravitating to naturally to use a a carrying handle of lens and camera body.

As JohnG pointed out - who wants a long lens that's not got good quality? I've always hesitated about the Bigma because I would want the long end of it and have sometimes thought pictures posted with it aren't as good as I would want - but there's lots of reasons why that might be. I think I'd rather get the TC when it comes out - smaller and lighter. I don't shoot birds all that often, so it makes little sense to spend all that money on a lens I'd only use maybe 10% of the time. I think I'd be better off getting something that's in the wide-to-normal range and weather sealed.


I am of the same mind. I recall seriously considering ordering in a Sigma 135-400, but in the end didn't because as you have said...sometimes I have thought the pictures posted with the Sigma, weren't as good as I would want.

Whereas the DA 300 pictures I have seen, are of the quality I would want and I understand (lens road map) Pentax will also be introducing another extender
, which would give the DA 300 that extra reach.

The thing that holds me back is my Pentax 55-300, although it is just a consumer lens...the picture quality is very good. I haven't had any experience with the DA 300, but my understanding is that the picture quality with this prime is significantly better than the 55-300 .
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2012, 11:34 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

While I haven't obviously seen the new Pentax 560/5.6 in person I can't see how it could be smaller than my Tamron 200-500/5.6 SP lens which is nearly 2' long and 10 pounds. Not really a lens you want to walk about with much. It's good that Pentax is offering a nice long lens but I can't see buying it. The TC is much more appealing because coupled with the 300/4 one could have a nice 400/5.6 (or nearly so) in a small package.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:35 AM.