Photozone test of the DA*200/2.8

thibs · 02-17-2008, 02:15 AM

here it is...
Pentax SMC DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report
enjoy...

and · 02-17-2008, 02:54 AM

Notice: Photozone has a review of the DA* 200 2.8 up.

thibs · 02-17-2008, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by and

Notice: Photozone has a review of the DA* 200 2.8 up.

ouch didn't see it ...

RiceHigh · 02-17-2008, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by thibs

here it is...
Pentax SMC DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report
enjoy...

The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.

ogl · 02-17-2008, 08:54 AM

Rice, don't write silly things...
Very good resolution, lense is FF (surprise), copy of FA*200, optically very good as FA*200,
the optical formula is the same as FA*200.
PF is not the problem at all. FA77 has more.

jeffkrol · 02-17-2008, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.

Any lens short of "perfection" has a design flaw...................
These two issues do probably originate in the rather old base design of the lens dating back to 1993. The mechanical quality of the lens is absolutely exceptional thanks to high quality materials and seals against dust and moisture. The new ultrasonic AF drive (SDM) works like a breeze - it's both fast and almost silent. All-in-all a quite sound offer although a comparatively expensive one.

Anastigmat · 02-17-2008, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by ogl

Rice, don't write silly things...
Very good resolution, lense is FF (surprise), copy of FA*200, optically very good as FA*200,
the optical formula is the same as FA*200.
PF is not the problem at all. FA77 has more.

If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?

Anastigmat · 02-17-2008, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by jeffkrol

Any lens short of "perfection" has a design flaw...................
These two issues do probably originate in the rather old base design of the lens dating back to 1993. The mechanical quality of the lens is absolutely exceptional thanks to high quality materials and seals against dust and moisture. The new ultrasonic AF drive (SDM) works like a breeze - it's both fast and almost silent. All-in-all a quite sound offer although a comparatively expensive one.

The good news is that it is a full frame model (which means Pentax has not gone mad by converting all its lenses to the APS-C format). The bad news is that it is "comparatively expensive."

MikePerham · 02-17-2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Anastigmat

If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?

The reason we waited is more likely a production issue than because of R&D. The 16-50 and 50-135 were more important to get to market first. I hope we will see a DA*11-16 in the next round and I suspect that is already through R&D as Tokina has theirs out already.

Mike.

thibs · 02-17-2008, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Anastigmat

If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?

because there is no aperture ring they do not qualify as either FA or D-FA, would create one more designation?

Arpe · 02-17-2008, 04:30 PM

FAJ? DFAJ? Or is Pentax trying to hide from those.
I agree they should differentiate between FF compatible lenses and FF incompatible lenses.

lol101 · 02-17-2008, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.

A pity you can't join the "trash the DA200 feast" on DPR, you'd feel right at home...

The new DA*200/2.8 ED [IF] SDM reviewed ad PZ!: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

BTW, where are the 'slow SDM" complaints for this lens...? I thought it was a design issue?

ogl · 02-17-2008, 11:59 PM

Said that new sensor from K20D really makes lower PF with all lenses.
Even FA77 has 2 times lower PF on K20D. Although PF is not a problems at all.

As for rating figures of reviews...I hope that we are not robots or zombie to choose lens under
abstract figures of reviews. I find DA*200 is very good, not worse FA*200.

wlachan · 02-18-2008, 07:10 AM

I have not experienced PF with my FA*200/2.8 in practice on film or digital. But my FA*24/2 & FA77/1.8 have some pronounce PF in some situations on film, and a better CMOS might not help (can't be better than film right?).

eurostar · 02-18-2008, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Arpe

FAJ? DFAJ? Or is Pentax trying to hide from those.
I agree they should differentiate between FF compatible lenses and FF incompatible lenses.

Since it seems they plan to never produce a 24x36 sensor camera, it doesn't matter anymore.