SMC A 200/4
Posted 12/05/2004 - 11:47
Link
Hi,
I haven't used the A version of the 200/F4 but found this on Stan's (Under the K200/2.5!)
"The only other 200mm lens that I've had any experience with was a A 200/4, and there really was no contrast between either of the big 200's with the A 200/4, which seemed to have lower resolution and contrast. Although the A 200/4 was not a bad lens overall, it was just simply not a particularly strong performer (at least that was the story with the sample that I had).
Also, I should point out that the A 200/4 is a different lens from both the K and M 200/4's (of which I have no experience), so this statement should not be routinely applied to those lenses. Furthermore, I neglected to include the A* 200/4 Macro in [my] 200mm comparison, but that lens is almost in a class of its own, and it's almost unfair to compare other lenses with it - <g>."
You don't often see the A version. I suspect by the time the A were around many people used zooms for this range. As it is not one of the Takumars, I would have no hesitation in buying one (at the right price of course ) if I needed the A setting. On the other hand, in your intro you said you were using an MX so an M might be better. They are readily available at reasonable prices. If you do get the A let us know what you think.
Hope this is of some help
Kim
I haven't used the A version of the 200/F4 but found this on Stan's (Under the K200/2.5!)
"The only other 200mm lens that I've had any experience with was a A 200/4, and there really was no contrast between either of the big 200's with the A 200/4, which seemed to have lower resolution and contrast. Although the A 200/4 was not a bad lens overall, it was just simply not a particularly strong performer (at least that was the story with the sample that I had).
Also, I should point out that the A 200/4 is a different lens from both the K and M 200/4's (of which I have no experience), so this statement should not be routinely applied to those lenses. Furthermore, I neglected to include the A* 200/4 Macro in [my] 200mm comparison, but that lens is almost in a class of its own, and it's almost unfair to compare other lenses with it - <g>."
You don't often see the A version. I suspect by the time the A were around many people used zooms for this range. As it is not one of the Takumars, I would have no hesitation in buying one (at the right price of course ) if I needed the A setting. On the other hand, in your intro you said you were using an MX so an M might be better. They are readily available at reasonable prices. If you do get the A let us know what you think.
Hope this is of some help
Kim
Posted 12/05/2004 - 23:50
Link
Thanks Kim for your response.
I should read it more carefully.
Sure I'll get it if the price is right. But how much can be considered reasonable.
Like you said, this lens is quite rare on the market probably because at the time it was introduced, a lot of people prefer to buy zoom lenses. The rarity factor of this lens will boost the price in the second hand market. The economy of quantity will take its part in controlling the price, not only the performance.
For example, some opinions stated that SMC A 135/2.8 is considered poor in terms of sharpness and contrast. Even M 135/3.5 performs better, though slower. If those opinions are correct (I haven't tried any A 135/2.8 ), why the price of A 135/2.8 is much higher than M 135/3.5 ? At least here in Germany.
Your advice about M lens is very apreciated. In fact, M 200/4 is not errased from my hunting list eventhough I found this A 200/4. I also planning to get another M 50/1.4 to replace the one I have right now. Like so many people, "they don't make lenses like this anymore" is the reason.
Thanks.
mrz
I should read it more carefully.
Sure I'll get it if the price is right. But how much can be considered reasonable.
Like you said, this lens is quite rare on the market probably because at the time it was introduced, a lot of people prefer to buy zoom lenses. The rarity factor of this lens will boost the price in the second hand market. The economy of quantity will take its part in controlling the price, not only the performance.
For example, some opinions stated that SMC A 135/2.8 is considered poor in terms of sharpness and contrast. Even M 135/3.5 performs better, though slower. If those opinions are correct (I haven't tried any A 135/2.8 ), why the price of A 135/2.8 is much higher than M 135/3.5 ? At least here in Germany.
Your advice about M lens is very apreciated. In fact, M 200/4 is not errased from my hunting list eventhough I found this A 200/4. I also planning to get another M 50/1.4 to replace the one I have right now. Like so many people, "they don't make lenses like this anymore" is the reason.
Thanks.
mrz
Posted 13/05/2004 - 10:47
Link
Hi again,
I would be wary of some of the comments on Stan's. Some of the comments are very critical and based on pure optical performance. This doesn't always reflect how the lens behaves in everyday use. Of the 50mm's, many say the sharpest is the 1.7. I would agree that it's flat field performance is good and apart from the true macros, it is the " best" 50 for macro work especially on a bellows. However for normal 3D work in the real world, I think the 1.4 is better (especially the K version) and the 1.2 is unbeatable. Bright finder, easier focusing etc etc but at a cost
As to the 135's, I have tried many of them. My favorite is the 2.5 K. A fantastic lens and makes a superb 200 F3.5 AF with the 1.7 convertor. The M is small and compact but viewfinder is dark and unless you use one of the specialist screens, it quite often "blacks" out the split image. To me this is quite a poor point. No problems with the A2.8 in this area and I have no complaints with regards its performance. It is still a very good lens. A very big plus point is the A setting which makes it compatible with the crippled mount and makes full use of the advanced metering options. The other options in this area are the 120/2.8 - similiar focal length, great performance and faster. If 3.5 is fast enough, then the 150 gives that bit extra length. Both are cracking lenses especially the 120.
Further to the 200s, the A lens would give all the metering options but I recently got an old K F2.5. I was lucky on the price but it was not much more than an A. It is a bit of a beast but fantastic performance and works a dream as a 340mm F3.5 with the AF convertor. With the 2xS convertor it becomes a beter performing 400 than my vivitar and faster.
As to the prices, I give up. Much has to do with popular belief which can quite often be wrong. The old K1000 are very common, much more so than the KM and KX. Both of these are far better cameras, especially the KX and yet they attract much lower prices. They case for the Lenses can be similiar. The 40mm pancake was one of the "poorer" Pentax lenses and a budget option. Despite this, they still attract some silly prices though not quite as bad as before. On some of the others it is a bit more sensible. The 135/3.5 is as common as they come and is not one of the very best optically. The A is faster and was more expensive so I would expect to pay more. It is similiar with the 28s. The "best" was supposed to be the F3.5 but I would expect to pay more for the F2's!!!!
Have you thought about the UK eBay? I have certainly sent items to Germany, France and Holland with no problems including LX items. With Paypal its relatively easy.
All the best
Kim
I would be wary of some of the comments on Stan's. Some of the comments are very critical and based on pure optical performance. This doesn't always reflect how the lens behaves in everyday use. Of the 50mm's, many say the sharpest is the 1.7. I would agree that it's flat field performance is good and apart from the true macros, it is the " best" 50 for macro work especially on a bellows. However for normal 3D work in the real world, I think the 1.4 is better (especially the K version) and the 1.2 is unbeatable. Bright finder, easier focusing etc etc but at a cost
As to the 135's, I have tried many of them. My favorite is the 2.5 K. A fantastic lens and makes a superb 200 F3.5 AF with the 1.7 convertor. The M is small and compact but viewfinder is dark and unless you use one of the specialist screens, it quite often "blacks" out the split image. To me this is quite a poor point. No problems with the A2.8 in this area and I have no complaints with regards its performance. It is still a very good lens. A very big plus point is the A setting which makes it compatible with the crippled mount and makes full use of the advanced metering options. The other options in this area are the 120/2.8 - similiar focal length, great performance and faster. If 3.5 is fast enough, then the 150 gives that bit extra length. Both are cracking lenses especially the 120.
Further to the 200s, the A lens would give all the metering options but I recently got an old K F2.5. I was lucky on the price but it was not much more than an A. It is a bit of a beast but fantastic performance and works a dream as a 340mm F3.5 with the AF convertor. With the 2xS convertor it becomes a beter performing 400 than my vivitar and faster.
As to the prices, I give up. Much has to do with popular belief which can quite often be wrong. The old K1000 are very common, much more so than the KM and KX. Both of these are far better cameras, especially the KX and yet they attract much lower prices. They case for the Lenses can be similiar. The 40mm pancake was one of the "poorer" Pentax lenses and a budget option. Despite this, they still attract some silly prices though not quite as bad as before. On some of the others it is a bit more sensible. The 135/3.5 is as common as they come and is not one of the very best optically. The A is faster and was more expensive so I would expect to pay more. It is similiar with the 28s. The "best" was supposed to be the F3.5 but I would expect to pay more for the F2's!!!!
Have you thought about the UK eBay? I have certainly sent items to Germany, France and Holland with no problems including LX items. With Paypal its relatively easy.
All the best
Kim
Posted 14/05/2004 - 09:02
Link
Hi Kim,
You hit the point.
A lenses and one of the MZ series with advanced metering is my plan in the near future. That doesn't mean that I will ignore the FA lenses.
The new body will goe to my wife who start complaining about her P&S camera, although at the end, it's very obvious that I'm the person who will use it more.
Your comment is highly apreciated.
Thanks
mrz
You hit the point.
A lenses and one of the MZ series with advanced metering is my plan in the near future. That doesn't mean that I will ignore the FA lenses.
The new body will goe to my wife who start complaining about her P&S camera, although at the end, it's very obvious that I'm the person who will use it more.
Your comment is highly apreciated.
Thanks
mrz
Posted 24/05/2004 - 12:32
Link
Hi Again,
I don't know whether it helps, but I managed to pick up an A series 200/F4 last week. I can't do any scientific tests but the early results would indicate that there is very little in performance difference between it and the K/M versions. If you want the advanced meter options go for it, you won't be dissappointed. It also works very well with the 1.7 convertor despite the good book saying at least F2.8!!!.
I don't know whether it helps, but I managed to pick up an A series 200/F4 last week. I can't do any scientific tests but the early results would indicate that there is very little in performance difference between it and the K/M versions. If you want the advanced meter options go for it, you won't be dissappointed. It also works very well with the 1.7 convertor despite the good book saying at least F2.8!!!.
Posted 26/05/2004 - 10:04
Link
Thanks again Kim,
I will consider that. In the mean time, the first priority shifted to makro lens, for taking pictures of beads and jewelries. I'm not happy with the pictures taken with SMCA 50/1,7 + Makro Converter, even stopped down to f/11.
mrz
I will consider that. In the mean time, the first priority shifted to makro lens, for taking pictures of beads and jewelries. I'm not happy with the pictures taken with SMCA 50/1,7 + Makro Converter, even stopped down to f/11.
mrz
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
18 posts
22 years
München and Jakarta
Anybody have experience with this particular lens ? How is its performance ? Compare to M 200/4 ?
I have a chance to purchase it but I need to know it's optical performance.
I couldn't find any comment about it on Stan's Pentax Photography Site. On Bojidar website, I found that A 200/4 and M 200/4 have different optical formula.
Please tell me your opinion. Any comment would be highly apreciated.
mrz