300mm f4 vs 200mm2.8+TC

Hi all
I am currently looking for a tele in the area 200mm - 300mm.
One option would be to go for the DA* 300mm f4.0. Alternatively I have been considering the DA* 200mm f2.8 and combine it with a very goog teleconverter (Pentax 1.4 or 1.7), which would give me more flexibility.
How would the IQ compare between the two?

Best regards
Ryan

I personally would go with the 200 f/2.8 + TC. A lot more useful. Faster glass and the option of longer FL when needed. A combination I have used for a good number of years.

Regards

the DA*200 F2.8 is absolutely amazing.

have not tried it with the teleconverter yet, because I haven't needed it .You might want to consider what range (and type of photography) you need the lens for, then it will be easier to assess if you need a 200 or 300.

Good luck

I believe the 300 is optically bit better. It's PF is much better controlled than on DA*200. If you want flexibility though, than the 200 + DC is better choice.

Actually the reviews said the very opposite. Being the DA*, the same optically as the FA* of the older generation, both these 200 score higher on MTF charts ...

(Will look for some data and try to post it later!)

Reviews
DA*200
DA*300

You can't really go wrong with both, although focal length is different of course.

Think they must have had a dodgy copy of the 300mm, can't say I've noticed any variation in sharpness from f/4 onwards, it's just superb all the way.

Dan

Not just a dodgy copy, but if they think it's too big to hand hold, a dodgy user as well.

yes, the 200 are indeed the same (FA* & DA* that is) optically. And the 300 is new design. But consensus on another forum is that 300 is one terrific lens. MTF is not all that matters. Having said that 200 is excellent too but apparently is much more prone to PF in high contrast situations then the 300.

I've never noticed purple fringing with my 300mm. Example here.

Dan

Exactly what I'm saying, on the other side, while trying DA*200 in shop, I didn't even have to really try hard and the PF was all over the place

Show them please

Peter, I'm sorry, but I've had this lens for 3 months now, and have not had one instance where PF was noticeable.

I haven't seen the comments on other forum, and you might not want to believe test charts (not sure which is more reliable..). My personal experience is a very positive one, and I think you should gain some experience with the lens in order to give such a judgment on it.

Not only, but to get back to the OP, the combination of 200 + TC is incredibly more flexible than a 300 mm prime, which will only be used for wildlife or similar. Not to mention the fact that the 200+TC is still an f4 combination, and therefore there should be very minimal loss when compared to the 300.

It's referred to here on the Photozone review (with a sample photo, not a test chart), but personal experience is always better than 3rd hand info.

Undoubtedly too, the lens + teleconverter will be a more flexible solution.

Dan

Dan then the DA*60-250 is a lot worst link so really it isn't that bad