LBA is complete: FA* 250-600/5.6 – first images of the lens

[ken_yee]

<p>LOL. I thought you told me it was too slow (fstop) to be useful when I almost bought one? ;-)</p>

 

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Well, just to complete the collection, here's <em>my </em> new arrival.</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>But the fact is, I'm more envious of your skill than your lenses, Marc.</p><div></div>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Dave H.<br>

Congratulations, that's another on my fantasy list. This thread is getting awfully steamy.<br>

How heavy is that? Please do post shots after your workout sessions :)</p>

<p>ME</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Thanks, Michael. I hope, in time, I can do it justice. I'd put aside the pay-out for my accrued sick-leave at retirement for "something special" so when this came up at KEH, I went for it.<br>

It's 13lbs or so--a bit heavier than the 1000mm but much more compact. For that reason, it's a little tricky to handle (think watermelon) but also less prone to vibration on the tripod than the (29") 1000mm. <br>

The weather has been pretty ghastly here--almost Northwest coastal ;~)--but I've been pleased with what little testing I've done.</p>

 

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>400mm 2.8</p>

<p>Congradulations!</p>

<p>Now you really need this:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm">http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm</a></p>

<p>and likely a P50 from this page:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-main.cfm">http://www.tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-main.cfm</a></p>

<p>and I'll assume you got some large capacity tripod legs? I made do with older set of aluminum legs, Bogen 3036, from my favorite local shop. If Gitzo carbon fibre tempts you there goes another $600 and up. 400mm 2.8 is a fun lens, but you need right supports. I found this out after I bought a 400mm 2.8 years ago.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Thanks, Lindy. I have the Manfrotto 393 gimbal head--it ain't a Wimberley, I guess but it's done ok with the 1000mm f8. I <strong><em>do</em> </strong> need sturdier legs though. I've been using a Manfrotto 055XB and get a lot of vibration with the 1000mm (it's so <strong><em>long</em> </strong> !) The 400mm is less vibration-prone but still...(or should I say, "<em>not</em> still"? ;~). I don't need carbon fiber. You're pleased with the 3036? I just found a used one at Amazon. </p>

 

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>I'm a wimberley fan. Had their 1st version, sold it after I sold my 400mm 2.8 when they announced upcoming version 2. It took me a three years to re-acquire it but this time I won't part with it. Nice improvements over version #1.</p>

<p>Indeed, I love 3036. I've paid $100 a set for them locally in like new minus type conditions. They have a handy built in crank up column which is... handy. Bogen made them for years and they've had minor imporvements. I think they all come with built in bubble level?</p>

<p>Your 1000mm is a toughie to stabilize, in being so long. I use to own a SMC-K Pentax 135-600mm f6.7 that drove me nuts due to its extreme inbalance and length. Its gone on to a better home now ;^)</p>

<p>Ideally you'll move the 1000mm to another home maybe and make due with the 400mm?</p>

<p>I had my 400mm 2.8 for about 3 years. Took it to yellowstone twice. Personally I found it too big to really enjoy to its fullest and that why I let it go. I've since gotten a couple 300mm 2.8 and they are fun fun fun. 5 to 6 pound lens versus 13 pounds is a big difference. But that added reach and clarity 400mm 2.8 offer is a joy too, if you don't mind the weight.</p>

<p>Have you located the 2 grey paint pentax made manual focus teleconverters for your 400mm? They should be a perfect pairing for it. OR, I'd assume the rare manual focus to autofocus fuction Pentax 1.7x would also be a winner for 400mm 2.8 too. The 1.7x mf>af TC works real well combined with my adaptall 2 300mm 2.8 and PK-A mount.</p>

[marclangille]

<p>Dave: congrats on the new acquisition! Just keep practicing good sir and results will follow! If any lens that's MF from Pentax on my list to consider, that 400/2.8 is it. As Lindy alluded, proper support is critical. I'm getting a Gitzo CF tripod simply to keep hiking and airline travel weights down. It will be the 3541XLS or 5541LS for me. They have ~40lb and 55lb max. support weight, which is the norm - for best stability, you want roughly double the leg capacity of the weight of the lens, head and camera body, etc. combined. Mine will weigh in around 19-20lbs so the 3541 is the min. I would want.</p>

<p>Disclaimer... <em>I am a Wimberley Professional Services member, so take my comments at face value</em> - I used their products before they brought me on board. You may wish to consider the 60 day loaner program from Wimberley if you go that route - no charge if you return it within that time period...</p>

<p>I have a slightly blemished P50 as a spare (in otherwise excellent shape), but I am guessing you might need the P30/P40, since the foot on the FA* 300/2.8 may be of a similar size. The P50 is for very long feet, such as the Sigma 500/4.5 and the FA* 250-600/5.6. The P30 is more than twice the length of my FA* 300/2.8's foot (just over 2 inches long). Not all plates have a set of safety stops as part of the lens plate - you install screws (supplied) with the P40 and P50 plates. Looking at the 400/2.8 I am guessing it's a shorter foot and the P30 or P40 is the best option - could be wrong and you'll need to confirm. Basically the tripod collar location is similar to the FA* 300/2.8 so to better balance the lens it would be projecting forward to the front of the lens. Let me know if you need a pic for better explanation.</p>

<p>See this page for lens plate lengths: <a href="http://www.tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-specs.cfm">http://www.tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-specs.cfm</a></p>

<p>BTW, I'm going to be traveling to Bend, OR in December - where are you located? E-mail is fine too...<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Marc</p>

[marclangille]

<p>@ Michael: I agree with your comments about Jay. I know why he handled it so carefully too. It's quite a lens!<br>

@ Sudhakar/Frank: thank guys and I did say FA* LBA is complete, not LBA is complete... 8-)<br>

@ Jose: they won't know what happened! Thank you sir.</p>

<p> </p>

[marclangille]

<p>@ Andrew: what, no love for rubber bands? 8-) The story behind it is that's what the previous owner left in place because the knob twisted and released so he lost the filter and holder. Again, it's FA* LBA that is complete, nothing else about any other LBA. You are correct about the focus limiter - it's that ring with the distance markings on it. The power zoom is really fast - less than a second to go from 250 --> 600 either way. The AF is fine with decent light on a K20D, but I've not tested on a K7 yet. Just haven't had time to put it through it's paces for several reasons (including my car being in for repairs over the weekend).</p>

<p>@Bob and Laurentiu: thank you both and I promise to share images once time permits!</p>

<p>@Robert: thanks for looking and commenting. I live in the Ozarks - just a small area to cover! 8-) </p>

<p>@Dave: "Congratulations, Marc! I love lenses that come in trunks (just took delivery of one myself :~)<br>

I share the skepticism about the "end of lba" The important thing is that that lens is in very capable hands."<br>

Thank you Dave and it's a surprise to the local camera store folks too. It's only FA* LBA is complete though - just want to make sure folks understand that I did not say LBA in general!</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>I think Marc's right, p50 is likely too long.<br />P30 has the two nubs to prevent twisting, a handy feature.<br />Over the years I've added a complete set of p10-p50 either new or used. Sometimes one fits better than the others considering the lighter weight of a dslr hanging off the lens as opposed to a brass bodied film camera and its attached motordrive and then 6-10 AA's of course. Alot to consider for perfect counterbalance, & ease of use.</p>

<p>I just recalled you use manfrotto, so all this talk about wimberley plates is useless. You likely have just the one plate option with your 393, huh?:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554099-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_393_393_Heavy_Duty_Gimbal.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554099-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_393_393_Heavy_Duty_Gimbal.html</a></p>

[marclangille]

<p>Good point Lindy - missed that about the manfrotto head being used... mea culpa.</p>

[marclangille]

<p>@Les: thank you sir!</p>

<p>@Somanna: yes, I did think it appropriate to include the DA 50-200 - otherwise the reference of scale is more difficult to explain - dimensions/lengths don't have the same impact! Thanks for the kind words and the previous owner also shoots a EOS 1D MKII with a 500/4 so he's got a great setup. Evidently he's not used the lens for some time (no Pentax DSLR body for some time). He knew that I wanted 1st option on buying it since I missed out by a few days on buying it in 2007. Since we met last year, I know for both buyer and seller it makes a big difference in terms of trust, knowing what the lens can do, etc.</p>

<p>@Antoni/Garry: it's a aesthetically pleasing family I think and thank you. Please consider living vicariously through future images I might take with the lens. Much cheaper too!</p>

<p>@Sean/Yuri: thank you both and I'll post some test shots I took last year in the coming days!</p>

<p>@Robin: "<em>I hate the loud "Pentax" so prominently on them - very tacky I think.</em> "<em> </em> Fear not good sir, they are undressed! 8-)<strong> </strong></p>

<p>Here is my FA* 300/2.8 in working clothes, since I shoot primarily wildlife and the LensCoat really protects your investment and in hotter weather lessens the heat buildup on the metal barrel:<br /> <img src="http://www.marclangille.com/photos/422858217_SHmJR-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I don't care if the camo pattern Lens Coat is left on when photographing people - related events, but I might some day buy a plain color version instead.<br>

<br /> Regards,<br /> Marc</p>

 

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I hope you don't mind my hi-jacking the thread, Marc but I'm getting good feedback from you and Lindy here and want to follow up on a few things:<br>

1. I just grabbed that used 3036. I figure the legs are the obvious weak link in my current set-up. I'm not totally satisfied with the Manfrotto gimbal but it'll do for the time being. I'll think about the Wimberly down the road if/when my bank account recovers. Oh, and can I just say I wish the 400mm had a 2-screw collar?<br>

2. I have an AF 1.7 TC and love it: preliminary tests with the 400mm look good. I also just took delivery of an A 2X-L. Preliminary tests were not so good. Note that testing conditions here totally suck (dark, wet and breezy) and have for the past 4 days (which is to say, ever since the lens arrived :~(<br>

3. I haven't decided whether or not to sell the 1000mm. In part, that'll depend on the TC results--including a trial of the 2x-L on the 1000mm (whoopee!) I have to admit I'm rather fond of the "Black Dragon"--maybe because it makes me feel so "manly," if you know what I mean ;~)<br>

4. It occurs to me that I might, on occasion, want to use the 400mm with a monopod and that I'd feel more comfortable (in terms of potential hazard) mounting the lens directly to the 'pod (w/o head)--any thoughts? <br>

5. Bend, OR in December sounds great, Marc--I did a fishing float trip on the Deschutes several (well, ok, 15) years ago and love that river! I'm afraid I can't join you, though--I'm (happily) lba broke in Baltimore.</p>

 

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>I'd say be happy with 1.7x mf>af TC.</p>

<p>2x TC doesn't gain you much over 1.7x.</p>

<p>I Love Wimberley Version II. Best to buy it new as used they hammer 90c on the dollar. It is a costly addition but holds most of its purchase price if you treat it nice.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd ask for the 60 day trial on the wimberley full gimbal and see how it compares. They are real nice company, and you'll likely keep it as its such an exceptional head for big glass. You could sell the 1000mm to fund it at end of trial when they charge your credit card and then recover money from your 393 sale.</p>

<p>$625ish for head and plate is alot of coin, but its the perfect big lens head. Others exist, your 393, kirk king cobra, but the wimberley's really hold their value at ebay. P-30 plate with its antitwist nubs are what you need for a single mount hole, or some kinda of sticky 3m tape or something on your 393's plate. That lens is too big for just one attachment hole. Actually, I think its scary hanging 400mm 2.8 upsidedown by its one hole on your 393 setup. Is 400mm 2.8 attachment hole threaded or is it a heilcoil insert? If its an inserted heilicoil thread and it strips out you'll crash the lens to the ground. Bad investment, no return of funds, but hopefully an insured loss.</p>

<p>Having owned a 400mm 2.8 its not a lens I covet due only to its size, well you know its Enormous. I really dig 300mm 2.8's. Being 6'4" & an 1/8th of a ton its the perfect biggie lens for me to hand hold or gimbal. My Adaptall 2 weighs 5 pounds. My Nikon weighs 6 pounds.</p>

<p>I suspect if you get the wimberley you'll keep it. Hands on with that set up is eye opening. Good score on the affordable legs. As time goes by you may want a lighter set, but me, I'd miss that handy hand crank up and down column. The money you saved on legs, not starting out with shinny new carbon fibre gitzo will cover the wimberley head.</p>

<p>Camera gear is pricey, but if you treat it right it does retain much of its purchase price.</p>

[marclangille]

<p>Hi Dave, regarding the monopod question - I'd suggest a QR solution instead of directly screwing it in - perhaps buy the Wimberley C-10 QR plus lens plate: <br>

http://www.tripodhead.com/products/qr-clamps-main.cfm<br>

OR<br>

the RRS option (more expensive): http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=MH-01&eq=&Tp</p>

[wtlwdwgn]

<p>It just ain't fair. I have often dreamed of having either the 250-600 f/5.6 or 400 f/2.8 although my skinny self will need a Sherpa to carry them. Good for you guys. Marc, it'll be interesting to hear your comments on low light, e.g., dawn, sunset, or drab weather, performance and, of course, the images. There's a wildlife photog who shoots with it in Alaska from a canoe who was highlighted in <em>Outdoor Photographer</em> earlier this year.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Thanks so much to you both! I'll give the Wimberly a try--but only when I'll be in a position to decide I can't do without it (as, I gather, is highly likely.) I use the gimbal <em>under</em> slung, btw (see attached.) <em>Hanging</em> a lens from it seemed incredibly awkward and pretty stupid to me. And <strong>immense</strong> thanks for the heilcoil alert, Lindy--you may have saved me mega-grief! I took a look and it may indeed be an insert. I'll get a definitive opinion and be <em>very </em> cautious in the meantime.</p>

<p>I'll probably mention the Wimberley C-10 QR plus lens plate to Santa, Marc--perfect stocking stuffer!<br /> Thanks again!</p><div></div>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Cool. I never realized the 393 mounted lens two ways. Only seen the image from B&H ad I linked earlier. It should work ok as you don't have to hang it upside down. Its a very good price, thats for sure.</p>

<p>When I IMPULSE bought my 400mm 2.8 I had no clue my tripod would be underrated and 11 pound max rating head was under spec'd. I bet it took another 9 months for me to get the gimbal head and decent 3036 legs after wanting new gitzo.</p>

<p>Glad I could help. I bet you'll keep the 1000mm just like I bet Marc will keep all his FA pro lenses. Your 1000mm set up looks really sweet.</p>

[shaloot]

<p>Dave, as the young kids say these days "OMG!!!"</p>

<p>Can the 2 of you get together and put your line up for show? I really can't wait to see the stuff from these beauties...</p>

[marclangille]

<p>@Doug: Best of luck on this lens - exceptionally rare due to low volume production. Hey, not everyone wanted a lens costing $7400, right? 8-)</p>

<p>@Ken: I agree regarding the max. aperture, although in decent or better lighting, it's fine. The fastest 600's are only 1 stop faster, but I wanted a slightly lighter lens. I've tested the power zoom and it's really fast! Less than 1 second to go from 250-->600 or vice versa. Very nice, very smooth.</p>

<p>To me, it's the preferable lens due to it's FL: better framing, cropping, composition, since I don't wish to use it only for birding. Also easier to find a subject due to the wider FOV at 250mm without an external aid or looking outside the viewfinder.<em> Another major reason is the MFD: 11.5 feet, that's quite a bit lower than any other 600mm lens!!</em></p>

<p> </p>