DA*200 anyone?

Thank you Bob, still getting the DA*60-250 just for the 150 to 250mm range just seem silly.

Do you have some shots with the DA*200 and of the PF you are talking about, every lens suffer of that but how much is the question of course.
Also is it still a question at f/4 since that's the maximum the DA*60-250 can do. If I would be happy with the f/4 of the DA*60-250 I would also be happy to stop down the DA*200 that much

When I read reviews they are all really excited about the DA*200, that's one of the reasons that I'm interested in it.

Also the same with the DA*300 I believe, so far as I've seen.

Stefan,

There is no doubt that the DA*200 is a very good lens and beautifully made, but as other's have pointed out, the DA*60-250 zoom covers this range anyway and are just as sharp, if not sharper and just as nicely made. Sure, it may not have quite the bokeh, but is much more convenient as it covers a range of focal lengths.

If you look at the Photozone MTF results opf the DA*200, it actually is not as sharp as the FA*80-200 2.8 @ 200mm in the centre areas by a fair margin and the FA*80-200 isn't that far off the DA*200 at the edges. The DA*200 has *very* consistant MTF readings at the centre and edge where the figures for the centre and edge are almost identical.

Now, I know the FA*80-200 f2.8 isn't made any more, but I have one and can compare it to the DA*60-250 that I have just obtained and a seat of the pants analysis seems to indicate that the DA*60-250 is every bit as sharp as the FA*80-200. I would be hard pressed to find a reason to get a DA*200 over the DA*60-250 considering the convenience of the latter lens. The DA*200 realistically needs to be stopped down to f4 anyway and the DA*60-250 is sharp from f4, so there is no real advantage for speed of the DA*200.

I would also make the statement that if you require "only" a 200mm focal length, then your subject matter is not all that far away and my guess would also be that if it isn't that far away, then there are other subjects that may also be closer at other times and require a lens change. This means that a zoom is more practical in these situations.

When we go to longer focal lengths, zooms are less of a benefit as they really become large and cumbersome and slow, so prime tele's are the go, IMO.

Just my two cents worth.

Actually, the DA*300 f4 is a different optical design to that of the F*/FA*300 f4.5.

I haven't had the desire for a DA*200 for the same reason as Pete, I have the DA300 and the Sigma 180mm which suits my needs.

There is a DA*200 thats been listed on Gumtree here in Aus for the past month with no takers, at around 700quid i'm not sure how that price stands up to what you can get it for Stefan.

Thank you Lance.

I take every review with a pint of salt surely those on photozone, don't know why but they are never happy with a pentax lens.

I see your point wiht the FA*80-200 but that is a more expensive lens then the DA*200 and I really don't need the zoom i simply need a lens around 200mm nothing more nothing less.
I also love primes so lens switch is not an minus for me, I would be able to use it lovely besides the DA40, DFA100 and when doing portrait with the DA*50-135 I can see how it might be nice to have a 200mm f/2.8 for the really tight shots and I would want to have the f/2.8 there for the bokeh but f/4 would be neough as well.

Why do you need to stop down the DA*200, looks more then good enough wide open to me?
link link

And yes the bokeh looks good but the DA*60-250 is also very good at that so far as I've seen so that only makes the choice harder.

The range I'm mostly in is now covered with the DA*50-135 so I don't need a zoom for anything longer.

So is it worth to buy the 60-250 and only use that around the range of 200mm???
The price difference here is €300 (£250) for something that would probable not be better besides the zoom I don't need.

Yes you're quite right, sorry

€719 (£605) new

The Sigma macro is also very interesting, don't think I need the macro though but surely can be fun.

My view is that, even if you don't use it's macro capability, the fact that it is a good macro lens gives me confidence that it will perform well at 'normal' distances, and it does.

For that reason, I will not be buying a DA* 200mm 1:2.8 lens, 180mm 1:3.5 is close enough and I have the DA*60-250mm if I want DA* quality at 200mm.

Reading through this thread for the first time it looks very much to me as though you had made up your mind from the very beginning Stefan so buy your lens and enjoy it

I did think about the DA*200 when I bought the DA*16-50, DA*50-135 and DA*300 but decided that the latter two would be sufficient and that there would be very few occasions when I would need the DA*200 and could not make do with one of the others and a little cropping.

I was going to wait and get the SDM Teleconverter but it has disappeared from the roadmap so my old A2X-s will have to suffice.

Well a bit, I really don't need and want a zoom and like said the DA*60-250 overlaps the DA*50-135 too much in my view.
Just wanted to view other options and what people thought but everyone is convinced that the DA*60-250 is better while no one really compared the two I believe.
Lance came the closes in doing that but I'm simply not interested in the DA*60-250.

The Sigma 180 macro looks great but disagree a bit with Peter that if a Macro lens is good at macro that it will also be good at normal distance.
Besides that point I do believe it's a good lens the Sigma, only too bad that it doesn't have HSM
If it would have that it would be a serious contender but now, also with the same price tag it's questionable. The macro isn't needed so 200/2.8 vs 180/3.5 and Pentax vs Sigma... then Pentax wins for me.

I've also looked at the Sigma 100-300mm F4 but that one is too close to the price of the Pentax DA*60-250 so will get that one if the DA*200 is not worth it.

I really haven't heard something positive about the DA*200 from here yet so that makes you think more about the lens
I really should go to the shop and test one but shop condition are different then real life so that makes testing them hard.

Was waiting for that to and I'm still waiting, they have said that they will come at a later date so lets wait.

My post about the Sigma must have looked like a comment about macro lenses in general, it wasn't meant too, and it's true that many macro lenses are not good at normal distances (whatever that may be). What I meant to say is that the Sigma 180mm macro lens has a good enough IQ at 'normal' distances that I can't convince myself that I would want a DA* 200mm as well. I love the macro capability of the Sigma too much.

If there are no good reports of the DA* 200mm lens here, it's probably because not many members have it.

I thought so Peter bit read a bit weird, sorry for making my own conclusion.

Will try the Sigma as well in the shop if they have one, it looks like a fun lens.

I hope you are right about the DA*200 Peter.
First need some more money but just have a new girlfriend and you know how they are, they cost money

She did agreed to model for me so maybe I can make some money out of that, she doesn't need to know that right

It's been a long time since I had one of those. Are they weather sealed nowadays?