almost worth it

<p>This looks super tempting: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/px560.html">http://www.adorama.com/px560.html</a> . typically $5000, can get it for $3700!<br>

I'm going to Rocky Mountain Natl. Park in two weeks and Iceland next spring, and the longest lens I have is a 300 f5.6 with a 2X converter: Not good for distance. Does anyone have this lens and do you think it is worth the cost?</p>

 

<p>could it be you are distracted by the massive discount ?<br />But hey the 150-450 cost even less, and seems of a better quality<br />I use a sigma 50-500 which is cheaper still, and I'm pleased enough by it <br />:<br>

<img src="http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss151/dorus/sized_IMGP1981_zpsmi3gw9pk.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="941" /><br>

.</p>

<p>Don,</p>

<p>The other thing you will need to consider is how you will transport a lens of that size. I travel occasionally with the similarly sized 600mm f5.6 A. I love this lens, but it requires a large bag (like a Lowepro Nature Trekker), likely a gimble head, and a largish tripod (I use a large Manfrotto Carbon Fiber Tripod). It is pretty light weight for such a large lens. You then need to factor in extra baggage costs for the tripod. I personally haven't flown with my large lens since baggage costs have gotten so high.</p>

<p>Alternatively, as Dorus noted, the 150-450 and a Sirus carbon fiber tripod is manageable on a flight. Just food for thought. I'm sure it is a lovely lens. here is at least one review:<br>

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-560mm-f5.6.html</p>

<p>I at one time also had the the 50-500 bigma. A great lens, even hooked up to my K20D. I could only imagine how much better the performance with a K3</p>

<p>Can't imagine it would be much fun to carry that lens, or any large telephoto, while on vacation, unless you go specifically for photography. That lens, in particular, has zero versatility. My suggestion would be to spend a lot less and purchase one of the super-zoom digicams. I personally use a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 pretty much exclusively now (I like its larger digicam sensor), but there are other choices. Photos may not be quite up to par with the DSLR, but they ain't bad. Just an alternative to perhaps think about. Good luck in your decision.</p>

I think many of us wrestle with how to increase reach without too much sacrifice in portability and quality. I have

sometimes considered something like that FZ1000. It does look pretty good for an all-in-one package, but regarding

reach & quality it isn't that much smaller/lighter/cheaper than, say a K-S2 + a DA 55-300 which already offers a 450

equivalent without a TC. I imagine the APS-C sensor probably offers enough performance benefit vs. a 1" sensor to

make up for the ~1 1/3 stop slower max aperture (and only 1 stop if you stop at 400mm equivalent). No doubt that adding

a second lens to the kit for the short end makes the SLR bulkier and less convenient, plus the FZ is probably a lot better

for video. As someone who has tried some SLR kits of various size when on vacation I can see the attraction of the

FZ1000. I haven't yet tried to bring my DA*60-250/4 on vacation yet (tho I might if the trip was right), I think I'd have to

get used to that before trying anything larger. Those trips sound great, tho I personally would be more interested in the

150-450 tho even that weight and cost gives me pause.

Bill, I would like to hear more first-hand thoughts on the FZ1000 if you have the time.

<blockquote>

<p>"Does anyone have this lens and do you think it is worth the cost?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not have the 560mm f/5.6 Pentax lens but I have a similar lens (500mm f/4 Nikon).</p>

<p>Yes, it is worth the cost if you need the long lens. However, I would never again take this lens on vacation unless I had one or two people to help transport it and the tripod with gimbal head.</p>

<p>

<div></div>

<p>You all misinterpreted - I said almost worth it. The weight is a deterent, plus I ask how often I would use it? However, Dorus, the idea of the 150-450 lens is ideal for what I need, as I shoot primarily with my 70-300 Sigma, typically at the higher end.<br>

Thank you all for your input.</p>

<p>Don M</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>Sent you a couple emails. Let me know if you don't get them.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"This looks super tempting: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/px560.html">http://www.adorama.com/px560.html</a> . typically $5000, can get it for $3700!<br /> I'm going to Rocky Mountain Natl. Park in two weeks and Iceland next spring, and the longest lens I have is a 300 f5.6 with a 2X converter: Not good for distance. Does anyone have this lens and do you think it is worth the cost?"</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"You all misinterpreted - I said almost worth it. The weight is a deterent, plus I ask how often I would use it? However, Dorus, the idea of the 150-450 lens is ideal for what I need, as I shoot primarily with my 70-300 Sigma, typically at the higher end.<br /> Thank you all for your input."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not understand how you can accuse all who responded to your post as misinterpreting.</p>

<p>As one who attempted to provide you with input, I do not understand the following:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>In your original post, you only ask one question, "Does anyone have this lens and do you think it is worth the cost?" How you can say that I misinterpreted your question.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>The title of your original post is "almost worth it" but the text of your original post does not explain the meaning of the title.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Your original post says nothing about weight as a deterrent.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Your original post does not ask how often you would use the lens, plus, that is something only you could answer.</li>

</ul>