Certain FF Considerations (The Lenses and Cost)

[mxx]

One problem is of course that a site like DPR is actually a gadget site, where the equipment is the be all and end all, not the photographic results.

 

[MightyMike]

One problem is of course that a site like DPR is actually a gadget site, where the equipment is the be all and end all, not the photographic results.

And that is exactly why when faced with a blind challenge on which camera took what photo the majority here will get it wrong every time. A great camera does not a great photographer make. Gadgets in the hands of fools makes them no less a fool.

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

If I was to build a FF kit using Pentax I would consider the DFA 150-450 along with the new 1.4 tc when needing the extra reach. From what I have witnessed with other OEM lenses in the 100-400 and 80-400 there is not that much reach advantage with the new sigma sport and I think the gap we will see between the new pentax 150-450 would be about equal to the new sigma when viewed at the same FOV.

If the new FF is 36 mp a simple cropped to 24mp will give you an additional reach of 1.25X giving you the FOV of 560m , the difference you will see between a 500mm on a 24mp cropped apsc is only going to be visible under ideal lighting. When one has the light you can using the 1.4 tc narrowing the advantage of the 500mm on a cropped camera even less if you need to match your system you already have. Using a 36mp FF & 150-450 give you a well-rounded wildlife kit in my mind one lens that can cover APSC from 100-400 with zero cropping and when cropped by 1.25 to a 24mp 560mm all while still using nothing smaller than a APS-H sensor. If pentax uses the new 42 mp sensor I don’t think we are going to see any large improvements that is going to render that sensor obsolete anytime soon. If you look at the additional cost of the FF body over a cropped body over the lifetime of use 15,0000-250,000 images its under 1 cent per photo.

Only you can decide if having the versatile of a 100-560 in wildlife photography is worth $0.01 per photograph over that life time of that body.

If you miss the cropped camera I am sure your old K3 can tide you over and more than likely is worth more to you than what you could sell it for on the used market anyhow.

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

One problem is of course that a site like DPR is actually a gadget site, where the equipment is the be all and end all, not the photographic results.

And that is exactly why when faced with a blind challenge on which camera took what photo the majority here will get it wrong every time. A great camera does not a great photographer make. Gadgets in the hands of fools makes them no less a fool.

 

[joseluismx]

I have it easy. I bought the 31mm L some 5 years ago. That's the lens that's gonna be glued on my FF.

 

[MightyMike]

If I was to build a FF kit using Pentax I would consider the DFA 150-450 along with the new 1.4 tc when needing the extra reach. From what I have witnessed with other OEM lenses in the 100-400 and 80-400 there is not that much reach advantage with the new sigma sport and I think the gap we will see between the new pentax 150-450 would be about equal to the new sigma when viewed at the same FOV.

If the new FF is 36 mp a simple cropped to 24mp will give you an additional reach of 1.25X giving you the FOV of 560m , the difference you will see between a 500mm on a 24mp cropped apsc is only going to be visible under ideal lighting. When one has the light you can using the 1.4 tc narrowing the advantage of the 500mm on a cropped camera even less if you need to match your system you already have. Using a 36mp FF & 150-450 give you a well-rounded wildlife kit in my mind one lens that can cover APSC from 100-400 with zero cropping and when cropped by 1.25 to a 24mp 560mm all while still using nothing smaller than a APS-H sensor. If pentax uses the new 42 mp sensor I don’t think we are going to see any large improvements that is going to render that sensor obsolete anytime soon. If you look at the additional cost of the FF body over a cropped body over the lifetime of use 15,0000-250,000 images its under 1 cent per photo.

Only you can decide if having the versatile of a 100-560 in wildlife photography is worth $0.01 per photograph over that life time of that body.

If you miss the cropped camera I am sure your old K3 can tide you over and more than likely is worth more to you than what you could sell it for on the used market anyhow.

 

[MightyMike]

One problem is of course that a site like DPR is actually a gadget site, where the equipment is the be all and end all, not the photographic results.

And that is exactly why when faced with a blind challenge on which camera took what photo the majority here will get it wrong every time. A great camera does not a great photographer make. Gadgets in the hands of fools makes them no less a fool.

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Not sure why I'd take a bigger loss of range and quality and light.

I have a Sigma 100-300mm F4 already that is superb and pairs with the Sigma 1.4x quite well. Thats 150-450mm F5.6 equiv. or 210-630mm F8.0 with the TC. I also have the Sigma 500mm F4.5 which i pair with the 1.4x regularly. Thats 750mm F6.3 or 1050mm F9.0 equiv.

Now 750mm or even 1050mm would be silly to try to reproduce on FF but i prefer not to give up length if possible.

A 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 will be a little better than my 100-300mm F4+1.4x TC but not significantly and therefore becomes redundant, adding a 1.4x to the 150-450 runs me into F8.0 territory to get reach where i could be shooting F8.0 on the Sigma 150-600 S and get likely better quality as there is no TC involved. I also get much more flexibility with the Sigma in range without having to pop on and off a TC.

I can see myself giving up 750mm F6.3 equiv. for 600mm F6.3 in order to obtain zoom flexibility while maintaining adequate image quality. I would be completely giving up the 1050mm as i would not care to put a TC on the Sigma however i could always drop to crop mode for 900mm effective when its required.

I can see myself using a combination Sigma 100-300mm F4 and 1.4x and a Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 (either take the first lens out with the TC option or the second lens, or both lenses and leave the TC at home, 3rd option being leave the 100-300mm F4 at home and take out the 70-200mm F2.8 as the second lens)

The 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 though a very good lens just isn't flexible enough to justify selling the Sigma 500mm F4.5 or I'd have done it already. It also overlaps too much with the 100-300mm F4 and 1.4x TC which is a combination i have no intention of selling anytime soon.

If i'm going to give up 750mm+ it won't be for 450mm or 210-630mm F6.3-8.0 I'll take the 150-600mm F5.0-6.3. 600mm vs. 630mm is no big difference, F6.3 vs. F8.0 is rather quite a bit of difference... 2/3rds of a stop or the ability to stop down 2/3rds for better results without the loss of light. not to mention a 1.4x added into the mix does reduce quality on top of that too.

Maybe we won't see eye to eye on this matter but the 150-450 is just not enticing enough for me to justify selling the 500mm F4.5

But your willing to sell it over the sigma 150-600 makes no sense ?

BTW 36mp to 24mp is 1.22x

--
Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/[email protected]&thumbnails=

Its debatable but from what I have seen with the Sigma 150-600S as it is has a hard time giving any reach advantage over what people have been getting with the nikkor 200-500 and I am sure that the DFA 150-450 is at the least equal to the nikkor 200-500 cropped to the same FOV . What I am getting at is I don’t expect to see any real improvement going with the sigma 150-600 sport over the 150-450 with regard to reach and being that the pentax is now cheaper than the sigma it would be a better investment. Of course the 150-450 on FF would not replace the sigma 500 APSC but it would be in my mind a direct competitor to the sigma 150-600 on FF the lens you are looking at for FF. I would also bet you that you would get far better results with the 150-450 and the pentax 1.4 than you would with the 150-600 with either the sigma 1.4 or 1.4 pentax, not to mention full function of the lens data for sr with the 150-450 and better AF.

Here is some tests done on the 150-600 and the 200-500

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/sharpness.shtml

Even when compared to the canon 100-400 I would go with the canon

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

throughout the zoom range the 150-600 is not stellar the only real thing that the 150-600 has is a foggy 600mm range

If you are going to the sell the 500mm I would get the pentax over sigma. From what I have seen there is little difference from cropping the sport at 500mm to the 600mm FOV than shooting it at 600mm and under most shooting conditions you will seldom see it. It was the same with the bigma shooting it at 500mm gave no real reach advantage over shooting it at 400mm.

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

 

[Russell Evans]

Well said. I recently went M43 for a lot of my photography on grounds of size/weight and convenience for only a marginal loss in IQ, if any in many cases.

With a high resolution FF though, you have the ability to crop to APS-C, or even the M4/3, field of view equivalents. A US $1300, FF 24-70mm f2.8, becomes a 36-105mm with a APS-C crop, or a 48-140mm with a m4/3 crop. So you have 24-70mm, 71-105mm, and 106-140mm ability at f2.8. You would need both the US $900, 12-40mm f2.8, and the $1400, 40-150mm f2.8 to do that same in m4/3.

Very, very few images "require" FF at all.

I sort of expect Pentax to put most of its premium features into FF, and top end metal APS-C bodies to disappear, with the K-S2 line being the new of the line in APS-C, and a non WR, ABS, body being the bottom end. I would bet the low end, non WR, body ends up a k-mount mirrorless in a generation or two, to keep costs down.

Thank you

Russell

 

[petreluk]

Well said. I recently went M43 for a lot of my photography on grounds of size/weight and convenience for only a marginal loss in IQ, if any in many cases.

With a high resolution FF though, you have the ability to crop to APS-C, or even the M4/3, field of view equivalents. A US $1300, FF 24-70mm f2.8, becomes a 36-105mm with a APS-C crop, or a 48-140mm with a m4/3 crop. So you have 24-70mm, 71-105mm, and 106-140mm ability at f2.8. You would need both the US $900, 12-40mm f2.8, and the $1400, 40-150mm f2.8 to do that same in m4/3.

Very, very few images "require" FF at all.

I sort of expect Pentax to put most of its premium features into FF, and top end metal APS-C bodies to disappear, with the K-S2 line being the new of the line in APS-C, and a non WR, ABS, body being the bottom end. I would bet the low end, non WR, body ends up a k-mount mirrorless in a generation or two, to keep costs down.

Thank you

Russell

I agree with all of that.

There is nothing wrong with any format in any way. But pleasure and sanity lie in getting what's appropriate and affordable in each of our individual cases. For example, I recently spent a fab long weekend abroad in Italy. Lugging round a set of FF gear would have been a nightmare, and risky in some parts of town too, and possibly not even allowed as cabin baggage on our el cheap airline tickets where carry-on stuff was limited.

I took well over 1000 pics but had an easy and enjoyable time of it using something relatively small and light. That to me is the essence of photography. FF would have spoiled the pleasure of the trip, especially for my partner, and generally got in the way.

If I get an FF it will be decidedly secondhand and likely used for only one or two things once or twice a month. I don't need it and am not missing out for anything else. What matters is that the results work, not the means of getting them.

 

[Holger Bargen]

Lets start off by making it clear I'm in no way rich,

Dear Mike! Your photos, you share with us here on dpreview, give a different message: you are gifted very richly.

I don't have a high paying job and I don't have much disposable income. About the only way I can keep my hobby afloat is because of my lack of other expenses many others have like family, a house and the related. For me each month is a struggle to grow my net worth, however aside from car payments I have the benefit of not having other bills or debts.

Well still giving it some thought, knowing that next year I have to buy another computer, I'll likely have a trip to Iceland, I know I'm not in a financial position to buy the FF. That is unless of course I get off my a$$ and get a better job, easier said than done. However I will jump on the FF if a) Its not a screw up LOL AND b) If the Sigma 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 Sports comes out in the Pentax mount.

Basically as I've said before the plan would be to sell the 500mm F4.5 for the 150-600 S and use the extra money to buy the FF I know I'll be giving up image quality, light and range (when used with the 1.4x TC) for a lot more flexibility and just adequate image quality for my tastes...

The only other lens I may care to buy at this time is the Samyang/Rokinon 135mm F2.0 and sell my Spiratone 135mm F1.8 for it however its an expensive upgrade at the moment (given my financial situation)...

As much as the 24-70mm F2.8 may be an excellent lens I find its range just too short and don't think i need F2.8 through the range. So I would likely rather use my Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.0 OS V1 in crop mode instead. I may keep one of my soon to be 3 FA 28-105mm F3.2-4.5 lenses if it performs decently, its very small and light weight not that weight has ever been a deciding factor for me except with the F*600mm F4.0.

The 15-30mm F2.8 would be a seriously great lens to own and a tough choice... That Sigma 8-16mm I have is a very nice lens too and would do just fine in crop mode.

I wouldn't sell my Rokinon 8mm F3.5 as that is just about the best fish-eye lens you can get, no need to trade to a lessor FF fish-eye lens

The Rokinon 16mm F2.0 has to prove itself, other than that it is rather sharp at F2.0, its no different than a 24mm F2.8 on FF and 24mm F2.8's are much smaller however may not be quite as good. Plus I have a 24mm F1.8 (may not be as great on FF as it is on APS-C) and I could consider buying if necessary Sigma's 24mm F1.4... still I think its too many redundancies. I will not give up the Sigma 24mm F1.8 for the Sigma 24mm F1.4 as the F1.8 has rendering that just isn't seen in most other lenses.

All other lenses i own are FF compatible even though they may be better in APS-C for certain rendering purposes.

I am also already well equiped for FF - but the question remain, if FF adds that much to our photography that the amount of money would mean to us, the change of the format would cost.

I saw a comparison of a few German guys who compared the latest Canon FF and APS-C cameras. They foud that the advantage of a smaller DOF was just usefull for portraits showing the enitre portrait of the person - for portraits only showing the faces the difference was without any practical meaning. They also compared the use for sports photography - and found a minor difference - FF allowed just a minor number of stops more than APS-C - nothing that would justify a change of the system for a person that does not earn money with his photography. The difference overall was regared as minor - much less than a change from a low budget consumer camera to a camera from the professional league (but they did not take any photos with the K-S1 - for sure!) ...

*Personally I don't think people get that the FF lenses we've grown accustomed to on APS-C won't necessarily provide the same FOV/Rendering we like about them when on FF. Sure in some cases it might be better in FF but in other cases watch out, your favourite FF lens on APS-C may not keep that desirable affect when on FF.



--
Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/[email protected]&thumbnails=

 

[Model Mike]

I wasn't referring nor do i think the other guy was referring to sample variation with regards to the lenses being up to the task

Mike, I'm aware of that, just pointing out Pentax's so-so history of lens QC is a consideration, since to get any real benefit out of an FF body, one will need to invest in new high quality lenses.

As an aside, I'm sceptical as to whether an FF body can be of any benefit to APS-C users. A 24MP crop mode might offer incremental IQ benefits (depending on the quality of the pixel binning algorithm), but that's all. And it remains to be seen whether the crop view will fill the viewfinder window.

Other considerations include workflow - those who shoot FF and raw will be hit with considerably longer import and preview generation times in Lightroom.

This is all stuff which has already been discussed ad nauseam, but what it boils down to is that (a) people will buy into FF if they desire it, no need to justify it as a need (b) to get any real benefit will require a very considerable outlay, comparable to investment in a new system.

--
Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar

 

[MightyMike]

Not sure why I'd take a bigger loss of range and quality and light.

I have a Sigma 100-300mm F4 already that is superb and pairs with the Sigma 1.4x quite well. Thats 150-450mm F5.6 equiv. or 210-630mm F8.0 with the TC. I also have the Sigma 500mm F4.5 which i pair with the 1.4x regularly. Thats 750mm F6.3 or 1050mm F9.0 equiv.

Now 750mm or even 1050mm would be silly to try to reproduce on FF but i prefer not to give up length if possible.

A 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 will be a little better than my 100-300mm F4+1.4x TC but not significantly and therefore becomes redundant, adding a 1.4x to the 150-450 runs me into F8.0 territory to get reach where i could be shooting F8.0 on the Sigma 150-600 S and get likely better quality as there is no TC involved. I also get much more flexibility with the Sigma in range without having to pop on and off a TC.

I can see myself giving up 750mm F6.3 equiv. for 600mm F6.3 in order to obtain zoom flexibility while maintaining adequate image quality. I would be completely giving up the 1050mm as i would not care to put a TC on the Sigma however i could always drop to crop mode for 900mm effective when its required.

I can see myself using a combination Sigma 100-300mm F4 and 1.4x and a Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 (either take the first lens out with the TC option or the second lens, or both lenses and leave the TC at home, 3rd option being leave the 100-300mm F4 at home and take out the 70-200mm F2.8 as the second lens)

The 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 though a very good lens just isn't flexible enough to justify selling the Sigma 500mm F4.5 or I'd have done it already. It also overlaps too much with the 100-300mm F4 and 1.4x TC which is a combination i have no intention of selling anytime soon.

If i'm going to give up 750mm+ it won't be for 450mm or 210-630mm F6.3-8.0 I'll take the 150-600mm F5.0-6.3. 600mm vs. 630mm is no big difference, F6.3 vs. F8.0 is rather quite a bit of difference... 2/3rds of a stop or the ability to stop down 2/3rds for better results without the loss of light. not to mention a 1.4x added into the mix does reduce quality on top of that too.

Maybe we won't see eye to eye on this matter but the 150-450 is just not enticing enough for me to justify selling the 500mm F4.5

But your willing to sell it over the sigma 150-600 makes no sense ?

It makes more sense

BTW 36mp to 24mp is 1.22x

 

[Model Mike]

Russell Evans wrote:

I sort of expect Pentax to put most of its premium features into FF, and top end metal APS-C bodies to disappear, with the K-S2 line being the new of the line in APS-C, and a non WR, ABS, body being the bottom end. I would bet the low end, non WR, body ends up a k-mount mirrorless in a generation or two, to keep costs down.

I hope you're wrong. Leaving committed APS-C users without a semi-pro K5/3 body may cause them to jump ship rather than take the FF route. They are very different markets.

 

[MightyMike]

I wasn't referring nor do i think the other guy was referring to sample variation with regards to the lenses being up to the task

Mike, I'm aware of that, just pointing out Pentax's so-so history of lens QC is a consideration, since to get any real benefit out of an FF body, one will need to invest in new high quality lenses.

As an aside, I'm sceptical as to whether an FF body can be of any benefit to APS-C users. A 24MP crop mode might offer incremental IQ benefits (depending on the quality of the pixel binning algorithm), but that's all. And it remains to be seen whether the crop view will fill the viewfinder window.

I agree the improvement in that regard is incremental, the flexibility is however enhanced

Other considerations include workflow - those who shoot FF and raw will be hit with considerably longer import and preview generation times in Lightroom.

Part of the reason to get a better computer and only shoot at full res. when absolutely necessary

This is all stuff which has already been discussed ad nauseam, but what it boils down to is that (a) people will buy into FF if they desire it, no need to justify it as a need (b) to get any real benefit will require a very considerable outlay, comparable to investment in a new system.

 

[MightyMike]

Lets start off by making it clear I'm in no way rich,

Dear Mike! Your photos, you share with us here on dpreview, give a different message: you are gifted very richly.

I appreciate your compliment, thanks

I don't have a high paying job and I don't have much disposable income. About the only way I can keep my hobby afloat is because of my lack of other expenses many others have like family, a house and the related. For me each month is a struggle to grow my net worth, however aside from car payments I have the benefit of not having other bills or debts.

Well still giving it some thought, knowing that next year I have to buy another computer, I'll likely have a trip to Iceland, I know I'm not in a financial position to buy the FF. That is unless of course I get off my a$$ and get a better job, easier said than done. However I will jump on the FF if a) Its not a screw up LOL AND b) If the Sigma 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 Sports comes out in the Pentax mount.

Basically as I've said before the plan would be to sell the 500mm F4.5 for the 150-600 S and use the extra money to buy the FF I know I'll be giving up image quality, light and range (when used with the 1.4x TC) for a lot more flexibility and just adequate image quality for my tastes...

The only other lens I may care to buy at this time is the Samyang/Rokinon 135mm F2.0 and sell my Spiratone 135mm F1.8 for it however its an expensive upgrade at the moment (given my financial situation)...

As much as the 24-70mm F2.8 may be an excellent lens I find its range just too short and don't think i need F2.8 through the range. So I would likely rather use my Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.0 OS V1 in crop mode instead. I may keep one of my soon to be 3 FA 28-105mm F3.2-4.5 lenses if it performs decently, its very small and light weight not that weight has ever been a deciding factor for me except with the F*600mm F4.0.

The 15-30mm F2.8 would be a seriously great lens to own and a tough choice... That Sigma 8-16mm I have is a very nice lens too and would do just fine in crop mode.

I wouldn't sell my Rokinon 8mm F3.5 as that is just about the best fish-eye lens you can get, no need to trade to a lessor FF fish-eye lens

The Rokinon 16mm F2.0 has to prove itself, other than that it is rather sharp at F2.0, its no different than a 24mm F2.8 on FF and 24mm F2.8's are much smaller however may not be quite as good. Plus I have a 24mm F1.8 (may not be as great on FF as it is on APS-C) and I could consider buying if necessary Sigma's 24mm F1.4... still I think its too many redundancies. I will not give up the Sigma 24mm F1.8 for the Sigma 24mm F1.4 as the F1.8 has rendering that just isn't seen in most other lenses.

All other lenses i own are FF compatible even though they may be better in APS-C for certain rendering purposes.

I am also already well equiped for FF - but the question remain, if FF adds that much to our photography that the amount of money would mean to us, the change of the format would cost.

Its ads flexibility, nothing more.

I saw a comparison of a few German guys who compared the latest Canon FF and APS-C cameras. They foud that the advantage of a smaller DOF was just usefull for portraits showing the enitre portrait of the person - for portraits only showing the faces the difference was without any practical meaning.

I'm certainly not in it for shallower DOF, there are few cases where i appreciate that end of photography but for the most part the DOF is fine at smaller apertures

They also compared the use for sports photography - and found a minor difference - FF allowed just a minor number of stops more than APS-C -

Yeah the difference should be 1 stop, however subtract 1 stop (after a fashion) in reach

nothing that would justify a change of the system for a person that does not earn money with his photography. The difference overall was regared as minor - much less than a change from a low budget consumer camera to a camera from the professional league (but they did not take any photos with the K-S1 - for sure!) ...

I agree, I'll go for it if the features are very desirable but APS-C works just fine for me as a format.

*Personally I don't think people get that the FF lenses we've grown accustomed to on APS-C won't necessarily provide the same FOV/Rendering we like about them when on FF. Sure in some cases it might be better in FF but in other cases watch out, your favourite FF lens on APS-C may not keep that desirable affect when on FF.

 

[MightyMike]

You've found a way to justify the Pentax 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 over the Sigma 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 S for yourself

On the other hand I've found a way to justify trading in the Sigma 500mm F4.5 for a Sigma 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 S and when evaluating the new Pentax 150-450mm it just doesn't suit me or my shooting preference as well.

We're different people, we have different requirements, different experiences and expectations

The Sigma 150-600 S works better for me than the Pentax 150-450 for my own reasons and don't think i didn't put serious thought into this, we're talking thousands of dollars from a guy who makes and has very little money. I probably put more thought into it then most.

 

[howieb101]

Well I think for anyone with existing lens the outlay really is just the camera body if they want to go minimum. Almost certainly any APS-C lens will have crop mode so those same lens can certainly tide the user over until they want to splash out on any dedicated full frame lens.

Also, much of the legacy glass from Tamron, Sigma and Pentax is already full frame. Yes, they might not be optimised for digital but they exist, are available and you might already have them.

For example, I bought the Sigma 24-60 F2.8 in anticipation of the full frame. I can use on both APS-C and full frame. The true F2.8 depth of field will be nice on full-frame.

If cost is a concern, live the lens you've got and gradually accumulate any full frame lens you are dying for.

To me, the upcoming full frame is definitely a nice to have. Do I need it - No. Would I like it - Yes. Will I get it - Yes (eventually).

A US$2,000+ sum of money is substantial. I can do quite a lot of things other than buy a new camera with that money but we all like our gadgets

Howie Be

 

[DHAPhotography]

If I was to build a FF kit using Pentax I would consider the DFA 150-450 along with the new 1.4 tc when needing the extra reach. From what I have witnessed with other OEM lenses in the 100-400 and 80-400 there is not that much reach advantage with the new sigma sport and I think the gap we will see between the new pentax 150-450 would be about equal to the new sigma when viewed at the same FOV.

If the new FF is 36 mp a simple cropped to 24mp will give you an additional reach of 1.25X giving you the FOV of 560m , the difference you will see between a 500mm on a 24mp cropped apsc is only going to be visible under ideal lighting. When one has the light you can using the 1.4 tc narrowing the advantage of the 500mm on a cropped camera even less if you need to match your system you already have. Using a 36mp FF & 150-450 give you a well-rounded wildlife kit in my mind one lens that can cover APSC from 100-400 with zero cropping and when cropped by 1.25 to a 24mp 560mm all while still using nothing smaller than a APS-H sensor. If pentax uses the new 42 mp sensor I don’t think we are going to see any large improvements that is going to render that sensor obsolete anytime soon. If you look at the additional cost of the FF body over a cropped body over the lifetime of use 15,0000-250,000 images its under 1 cent per photo.

Only you can decide if having the versatile of a 100-560 in wildlife photography is worth $0.01 per photograph over that life time of that body.

If you miss the cropped camera I am sure your old K3 can tide you over and more than likely is worth more to you than what you could sell it for on the used market anyhow.

 

[Zvonimir Tosic]

When in doubt what to do, then exercise patience. — Sun Tzu (paraphrased)

This is the first ever accomplished try into the digital FF land by Pentax.
It makes sense to observe and save money by being patient, and when there is a clearer view to what lenses will be available for the FF, when we see that Ricoh is really planning and not only playing by ear, then consider it.

To jump on a brand new FF, knowing there is a rebadged Tamron zoom, and maybe 70-200 zoom by Pentax, and not even a modern 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, reworked FA Limiteds, etc. lenses yet, is like buying a car and only then considering whether tyres are available to purchase for that car.

--
Madamina, il catalogo è questo; Delle belle che amò il padron mio; un catalogo egli è che ho fatt'io; Osservate, leggete con me.