APS tele lenses! Where are they?

chris gunn · Feb 6, 2005

The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

Think of all the happy nature/bird photographers!

I understand that they have focused on wide angle lenses, as
they are necessary, but I'm surprised by the delay.
I'm certain there would be a big market for a small cheap, quality
300mm f2.8 APS lens.

And I want one!

--
cheers!

Gunn
CF data base:
http://www.propassion.nl/finepix/

ennacac · Feb 6, 2005

I have an old 1/2 frame Olympus Pen F and some lenses and they may work with the DS, as they did make an adapter for using the Pen F lenses on Pentax mounts. Olympus did make some long lenses for the Pen F up to 500mm and they were good quality lenses.

My Pen F

Tom

chris gunn said:
I understand that they have focused on wide angle lenses, as
they are necessary, but I'm surprised by the delay.
I'm certain there would be a big market for a small cheap, quality
300mm f2.8 APS lens.

Joele · Feb 6, 2005

I am sure it will happen eventually, I wouldn't mind a smaller (APS) version of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX, as it is somewhat too big and expensive for me to convince myself I need it in its current form.

chris gunn said:
The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

Think of all the happy nature/bird photographers!

I understand that they have focused on wide angle lenses, as
they are necessary, but I'm surprised by the delay.
I'm certain there would be a big market for a small cheap, quality
300mm f2.8 APS lens.

And I want one!

--
cheers!

Gunn
CF data base:
http://www.propassion.nl/finepix/

--
------------
Joel - *ist DS

Peter Fairweather · Feb 6, 2005

What if it all goes the way of APS film cameras. Not much of a market for them or their lenses today!

I'll hang on to my bulky Sigma 15-30 for the time being I think. Full frame is safer.
--
Peter

lewtwo · Feb 6, 2005

chris gunn said:
The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

If you take picture from the 500mm and crop it in software you could get a 1500mm lens --- not.

I know I am beating dead horse, but untill it is buried ....

When you use a long lens like a 500mm on the *ist you do not get an advantage of a 50% longer lens. You loose 50% of the frame. You would get the same effect if you take a pair of sissors to your 35mm film negative. Better yet just scan it in and crop it down in software.

Sigma does have a 300-800mm zoom and 800mm Tele but they are very dear. I believe Tamron tops out at 500mm. There is not much on the market over 500mm unless you ar looking at some really exspensive Nikon or Canon lens (I did see one Canon lens on Ebay that had been converted to a Pentax mount).

I will grant you that a APS 500mm (or better yet an 800mm) should be less exspensive to build if there is sufficent market.

Just out of curosity, I wonder what Super-Tele lens (500mm or greater) people are using with the *ist and what the results have been.

racehorse in the desert · Feb 6, 2005

I wouldn't look for them. We have wide angle lenses designed for the APS sized sensor because there were no other real options from Pentax for significantly wide angle. There are plenty of telephoto lenses that work well on the D and DS. I would believe that the market is too limited for long lenses specifically designed for APS sensors.
--
John Power
Racehorse in the desert

'Life is too short to miss out on photography.'

Greg Lovern · Feb 6, 2005

Where can I find information on this adapter? All I can find is an adapter for using M42 lenses on Pen bodies.

Thanks,

Greg

ennacac said:
I have an old 1/2 frame Olympus Pen F and some lenses and they may
work with the DS, as they did make an adapter for using the Pen F
lenses on Pentax mounts. Olympus did make some long lenses for the
Pen F up to 500mm and they were good quality lenses.

My Pen F

Tom

Godfrey · Feb 6, 2005

lewtwo said:
I know I am beating dead horse, but untill it is buried ....

When you use a long lens like a 500mm on the *ist you do not get an
advantage of a 50% longer lens. You loose 50% of the frame. You
would get the same effect if you take a pair of sissors to your
35mm film negative. Better yet just scan it in and crop it down in
software.

I don't understand your point. A 500mm lens which can cover 24x36mm format has to be a certain size to provide an appropriate image circle. It has a specific vertical and horizontal field of view on that format.

Move it to a 16x24mm format, and it will perform exactly the same, only the field of view is now tigher, the equivalent of a 750mm lens on 24x36mm format. The only thing that's changed is that you're not using the lens' full image circle, you're not "losing 50% of the frame".

The advantage to a lens optimized for a 16x24mm format would be that it might be smaller and lighter, and less expensive, to build a 500mm lens of the same speed which doesn't have to cover 24x36mm format.

The 16x24mm sensor format is proving pretty successful for a lot of people. I doubt it will disappear anytime soon. Perhaps we'll see long lenses optimized for the format, but they're less essential than sensor-optimized wide angles.

Godfrey

martym · Feb 6, 2005

chris gunn said:
The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

Think of all the happy nature/bird photographers!

I understand that they have focused on wide angle lenses, as
they are necessary, but I'm surprised by the delay.
I'm certain there would be a big market for a small cheap, quality
300mm f2.8 APS lens.

And I want one!

--
cheers!

Gunn
CF data base:
http://www.propassion.nl/finepix/

Hi

The FA200/2.8 will become an equivilent 300/2.8 (except DOF) on the istD and it's $3500 cheaper than the 300. I been thinking about this lens myself when I get some cash

Marty

greentoe · Feb 6, 2005

chris gunn said:
The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

Think of all the happy nature/bird photographers!

I understand that they have focused on wide angle lenses, as
they are necessary, but I'm surprised by the delay.
I'm certain there would be a big market for a small cheap, quality
300mm f2.8 APS lens.

And I want one!

--
cheers!

Gunn
CF data base:
http://www.propassion.nl/finepix/

Franka T.L. · Feb 6, 2005

Unfortunately, unlike the shorter focal length, Good fast long tele will probably be just as expensive, bulky and heavy as the 35mm version. And being a Tele, the covergae is not that muich a issue. Take a look over at the Olympus 300/2.8 for the 4/3 ( which is even smaller than the APS-C ) and you will get an idea of so ...

The way I see it is Pentax need a major revamp on their middle / consumer end of the Lens lineup as most are quite aged and would benefit from a renewal. something along the line of the 80-320 or the 100-300 range as well as renewal of their 2.8 zoom in the standard and long range.

--
Franka

James O'Neill · Feb 7, 2005

chris gunn said:
The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

You're labouring under a misaprehension.

The mount and apprerture determine the diameter of the lens. The elements needed to give good results at the desired focal length set the length.

chris gunn · Feb 7, 2005

James O'Neill said:
chris gunn said:

The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

Click to expand...

You're labouring under a misaprehension.

The mount and apprerture determine the diameter of the lens. The
elements needed to give good results at the desired focal length
set the length.

Hello. I have an engineering degree, I understand basic physics.
I do not know what mistake you think I made.
Please be specific.

--
cheers!

Gunn
CF data base:
http://www.propassion.nl/finepix/

DagT · Feb 7, 2005

They'll probably never arrive. For a 300 2.8 the size of the front lens is mainly determined by the aperture, and the length from the focal length, although there may be a few adjustments there (but at the risk of more CA) and only to a small degree on the output pupil of the lens.

That is the case for any lens from about 50mm and up. The size advantage of the APS-lenses is mainly for lenses with retrofocus design, which is the wide angles. Just position the DA 14mm beside an A 15mm.

It is probably much cheaper to maintain one D-FA line of lenses for both FF and APS-sensors than it is try to save a few percent of the size and weight of tele lenses for DA.

veriwide · Feb 7, 2005

chris gunn said:
James O'Neill said:

chris gunn said:

The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

Click to expand...

You're labouring under a misaprehension.

The mount and apprerture determine the diameter of the lens. The
elements needed to give good results at the desired focal length
set the length.

Click to expand...

Hello. I have an engineering degree, I understand basic physics.
I do not know what mistake you think I made.
Please be specific.

--
cheers!

Gunn
CF data base:
http://www.propassion.nl/finepix/

If what you mean is that a 300f2.8 specifically designed for APS could be smaller than the same focal (300f2.8) designed for 24x36 because the former do not need to cover the whole 24x36 format, I would have been enclined to say you're right. I remember the size and weight of my 180mmf2.8 Zeiss for 6x6 and it was much bigger than my 200mmf2.8 Pentax.

But now that I think about it, I think that it's a mount issue (the Kiev/Pentacon mount is huge). Of course, somehow the size of the mount is related to the size of your "sensor" in this case. But the K mount is the same as it was before (and so is the sensor plane/mount distance). If Pentax made a specific smaller mount for the APS sensor (God forbid!), then they could probably redesign their lenses to be more compact at equal focal and max aperture specs.

To me, the real 'benefit' from the APS sensor size is that you need the speed and angle of view of a 300mm f2.8 (in 24x36), you just buy yourself a 200mm f2.8 and you're done: it's smaller, it's cheaper... but it's still a 200mm f2.8!

The 300 f2.8 Oly gives you the equivalent field of view of a 600mm f2.8 on teir cameras but it's still a 300mmf2.8 and is very similar in size and price to other 300mm f2.8 I know.

James O'Neill · Feb 7, 2005

chris gunn said:
James O'Neill said:

chris gunn said:

The Pentax DSLRs already have a nice advantage over film cams
for telephoto pics, due to the 1.5x crop factor.
Although it's nice being able to use the old lenses, the 300mm2.8
etc are very big and expensive. An APS 300 2.8 would be lighter
and cheaper. For the same size, we could get a... 500mmF2.8?
Which, with crop factor would be 750mm F2.8!

Click to expand...

You're labouring under a misaprehension.

The mount and apprerture determine the diameter of the lens. The
elements needed to give good results at the desired focal length
set the length.

Click to expand...

Hello. I have an engineering degree, I understand basic physics.
I do not know what mistake you think I made.
Please be specific.

Do you think a 300 f/2.8 would have a smaller diameter, or a smaller length? Why ? I've said why they would be the same regardless of the size of the image circle.

Someone else has cited the Olympus 300 f/2.8 for 4/3 image circle.
Dimension: 129mm (D) x 281mm (L) Weight: 3290g
Compared with the Pentax for and image circle twice as wide
Max. Diameter: 123.00 Max. Length : 247.00 Weight: 2,495.00

Sigma and Tamron also make 300mm f/2.8 lenses for 35mm which are
119mm X 214mm / 2400g and 120 x 214 mm / 2800g respectively

On B&H the Olympus goes for $7K, the Pentax for $4k5.

Not many of us have that sort of lens budget.

Mac Hood · Feb 7, 2005

Perhaps nobody is estimating the advantage that beyond to being able
to use a 200mm for 300mm, has more depth of field to a 300mm
and only taking advantage of the part the lens centers
uses the part better than it and not has fallen of light to the
edges, photographically me seems more important arguments that weight
and price. With the shorter focal the advantage of having practically
nearly optical to fixed fire is had, for example a 28mm it becomes
42 and to f8 it is all to fire from a meter to the infinite.
Welcome APS, best if with 12mpx, but this is another story, sure in future.

Sorry for my bad english

Ciao
Marcello

edhannon · Feb 7, 2005

DagT said:
They'll probably never arrive. For a 300 2.8 the size of the front
lens is mainly determined by the aperture, and the length from the
focal length, although there may be a few adjustments there (but at
the risk of more CA) and only to a small degree on the output pupil
of the lens.

Good point. F-stop equals focal length divided by arperture. This is true for large format, medium format, 35mm, APS, etc. A 300mm lens needs the same size arperture no matter what size the sensor/film is.

A 300 needs an arperture size of 107.1mm to achieve minumum f-stop of 2.8. As you point out, the glass needs to be bigger - but with you I doubt there is much leway.

Ed

manual_focus · Feb 7, 2005

The advantage of the DSLR for telephotos is in the higher ISO one can get by with. Being able to shoot at ISO 400 and 800 means you can get by with an f4 lens and not pay for an f2.8.

edhannon said:
DagT said:

They'll probably never arrive. For a 300 2.8 the size of the front
lens is mainly determined by the aperture, and the length from the
focal length, although there may be a few adjustments there (but at
the risk of more CA) and only to a small degree on the output pupil
of the lens.

Click to expand...

Good point. F-stop equals focal length divided by arperture. This
is true for large format, medium format, 35mm, APS, etc. A 300mm
lens needs the same size arperture no matter what size the
sensor/film is.

A 300 needs an arperture size of 107.1mm to achieve minumum f-stop
of 2.8. As you point out, the glass needs to be bigger - but with
you I doubt there is much leway.

Ed

lewtwo · Feb 7, 2005

Godfrey said:
lewtwo said:

I know I am beating dead horse, but untill it is buried ....

When you use a long lens like a 500mm on the *ist you do not get an
advantage of a 50% longer lens. You loose 50% of the frame. You
would get the same effect if you take a pair of sissors to your
35mm film negative. Better yet just scan it in and crop it down in
software.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your point. A 500mm lens which can cover 24x36mm
format has to be a certain size to provide an appropriate image
circle. It has a specific vertical and horizontal field of view on
that format.

Move it to a 16x24mm format, and it will perform exactly the same,
only the field of view is now tigher, the equivalent of a 750mm
lens on 24x36mm format. The only thing that's changed is that
you're not using the lens' full image circle, you're not "losing
50% of the frame".

You are 100% correct. However in comparing the two formats the 16x24 is 50% smaller (by sq mm). The magnification factor of the optics remains the same. One is simply using less of the available "image". The same thing can be accomplished in software via cropping. If we are only considering the final output we can easly make an image from a 500mm lens via cropping that would be the same size as one from a 2000mm lens. Like I said ... it is dead horse. We all paid a lot of money for a camera with a APS size sensor.

As I am sitting here a peverted idea just came to me: I wonder if I could take an old Nikon 995, remove the lens and graft on a K-Mount. Think of that tinly sensor sitting behind a real 800mm lens.

Godfrey said:
The advantage to a lens optimized for a 16x24mm format would be
that it might be smaller and lighter, and less expensive, to build
a 500mm lens of the same speed which doesn't have to cover 24x36mm
format.

As someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread: With tele lens the cost is heavyly controled by the large piece(s) of glass at the front of the lens. A smaller image circle would not reduce their size for a given aperture focal length in a long lens.

Godfrey said:
The 16x24mm sensor format is proving pretty successful for a lot of
people. I doubt it will disappear anytime soon. Perhaps we'll see
long lenses optimized for the format, but they're less essential
than sensor-optimized wide angles.

Agreeded.

Godfrey said:
Godfrey

APS tele lenses! Where are they?

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts