All Forum Comments
Comment by Lance B posted on Hello from Sydney, Australia at 24/06/2009 - 02:21
Thank you for the info, Peter.
Comment by Lance B posted on Passion Fruit flower at 23/06/2009 - 07:37
All brilliant photo examples of what is also a brilliant lens, Bob. I like your cute little subject matter, too.
Comment by Lance B posted on DA* 50-135 wow wow wow wow wow wow!!!!!! at 23/06/2009 - 02:18
Anvh wrote:
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 agree that Photozone is not that impressed with Pentax lenses, why I do not know as they stack up very well against any lens. In fact, I think they rely on the measured data too much when they make their judgement, rather than actual image results.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 would say that the Photozone results are just an indicator and not to be taken as gospel. Generally, their MTF results seem to marry up with my impressions of a lenses sharpness when you compare one Pentax lens to another. I only used Photozone as a reference or guide, not as the be all and end all.
Quote:
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.
With these reasons in mind, then the DA*200 would be an obvious choice for you. 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.
Quote:
Why do you need to stop down the DA*200, looks more then good enough wide open to me?
link link
There is NO DOUBT that the image results are EXCELLENT from the DA*200 and this is exactly what I was talking about with the test results from Photozone, in that we can rely too heavily on measured results rather than actual image results and I can be guilty of that as the next person. Why do you need to stop down the DA*200, looks more then good enough wide open to me?
link link
Quote:
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.
You may have answered your question. 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.
Quote:
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.
Of course, this is a question only you can answer and I do not envy that choice. 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.
Comment by Lance B posted on DA*200 anyone? at 23/06/2009 - 02:14
Congratulations. Nice shot!
Comment by Lance B posted on Stop and enjoy... at 23/06/2009 - 02:02
pschlute wrote:
Thanks Lance. I have always been more of a prime lens user, but sometimes you cant beat the convenience of a zoom, especially if you are visiting somewhere with non-photographer friends.
LOL. I know what you mean. My wife usually stands at the side with foot tapping.Thanks Lance. I have always been more of a prime lens user, but sometimes you cant beat the convenience of a zoom, especially if you are visiting somewhere with non-photographer friends.
Quote:
It was not without some trepidation that I ordered this lens, given the poor review on photozone and other documented quality control issues.
My early thoughts are that it is a very good lens. It seems very sharp even at 2.8; I like the colours; and have NOT seen the CA/PF it is supposed to suffer from.
In the real world, this just doesn't seem to be an issue. It was not without some trepidation that I ordered this lens, given the poor review on photozone and other documented quality control issues.
My early thoughts are that it is a very good lens. It seems very sharp even at 2.8; I like the colours; and have NOT seen the CA/PF it is supposed to suffer from.
Quote:
The bokeh is not the best, and that is evident from my second shot above. The AF can appear slow also, but is very accurate. I use a split-prism focus screen and dont find the need to adjust focus at all (unlike my 31mm Ltd for example where I dont use the AF at all).
The quality of the bokeh is camera to subject dependant, and aperture dependant and focal length dependant and background dependant. Get all those tight and the lens does a great job, for a zoom.
[quote]I have only had the lens for 2 days, but early signs are that I will really find this lens very useful.
I like mine. The bokeh is not the best, and that is evident from my second shot above. The AF can appear slow also, but is very accurate. I use a split-prism focus screen and dont find the need to adjust focus at all (unlike my 31mm Ltd for example where I dont use the AF at all).
The quality of the bokeh is camera to subject dependant, and aperture dependant and focal length dependant and background dependant. Get all those tight and the lens does a great job, for a zoom.
[quote]I have only had the lens for 2 days, but early signs are that I will really find this lens very useful.
Stunning macros, Amin. Love the flowers and I had never heard of the term "stacking" before and I've seen a lot and done a lot of macros! Could you fill me in on the technique?
The handheld shot of the hoverfly is quite an amazing feat, too!
The handheld shot of the hoverfly is quite an amazing feat, too!
Comment by Lance B posted on Passion Fruit flower at 23/06/2009 - 01:56
There is no doubt about it, the DA*50-135 f2.8 is a fantastic lens. But enough with the praise, where's the pics?
Comment by Lance B posted on DA* 50-135 wow wow wow wow wow wow!!!!!! at 22/06/2009 - 14:44
Anvh wrote:
Actually, the DA*300 f4 is a different optical design to that of the F*/FA*300 f4.5.Mannesty wrote:
I believe that the DA* 200mm is a repackaged FA/FA* 200mm lens which accounts for it's weight.
Also the same with the DA*300 I believe, so far as I've seen.I believe that the DA* 200mm is a repackaged FA/FA* 200mm lens which accounts for it's weight.
Comment by Lance B posted on DA*200 anyone? at 22/06/2009 - 14:42
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.
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.
Comment by Lance B posted on DA*200 anyone? at 22/06/2009 - 14:40
Hello Lance, Welcome to the forum.