I have just published a test of the Pentax 67's 400mm f/4 ED(IF), including some examples from a wildlife shoot in Yellowstone National Park.

The report includes a comparison with the 600mm f/4 and also with the new 300mm f/4 ED(IF) used with a 1.4X Extender.

The lens review is found at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/p400ed.htm and the comparison test at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/3-4-6-comp.htm

I'll be pleased to answer any questions about these lenses that I can.

Michael The Luminous Landscape

-- Michael Reichmann (mreichmann@rogers.com), March 03, 2002

Answers

Nice test Michael. One additional point about rear filters, is that when using the DOF scale, your new hyperfocal distance must be based on the new infinity mark. It is helpful to put the "filter caused" infinity mark on the lens. The 400 ED works well with the conventional glass 1.4x converter because the most important part of the optical train for color prevention is up front. It is always the first few elements that are ED. There is so little color aberration by the time the image reaches the converter that the image remains nearly as good as if there were no converter. The 400 Takumar has much less longitudinal chromatic than the 600 and I have always felt that it was about the focal length limit of conventional glass. A 400 Takumar, 400 ED comparison would be interesting. Unfortunately, I can't afford the 400ED or 800ED.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), March 04, 2002.

Michael's test on the 600mm paints a picture of unacceptable chromatic aberration for this lens. After going through several of my slides from the 600, it is obvoius that fringe free shots can be had, especially when taken in diffuse light and stopped down quite a bit. Publishers that buy my work do not enlarge more than 4 or 5x so fringing is not a problem when shot as explained above.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), March 20, 2002.

To THOROUGHLY muddy the issue - what about the 500mm?

-- Rolf Strasheim (rolfs@thelunatech.com), March 04, 2002.