Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-18-2010, 05:55 PM   #16
Site Supporter
hinman's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fremont, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,425
If you happen to have a Tamron adaptall-2 p/k or p/k-a adapter, you can think about this


I like this 200mm quite a bit due to its small size, built-in lens hood and MF is charmingly good with my copy.

Thanks,
Hin


Last edited by hinman; 05-19-2010 at 10:05 AM.
05-18-2010, 06:15 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: central Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by kacansas03 Quote
I have a hole at 200 mm focal length in my lens setup but I am happy with what I have up to 135 mm. I would really like a sharp, good IQ lens that is somewhat fast, say quicker than f5.6 for around what is left in my lens buying budget of $60 to 70 total with shipping. Yes this may sound impossible but I am willing to adapt any mount to my K mount or a M42 mount or anything else in between. I ask for opinions for I am not that good at choosing lenses that have good IQ. I do wish to use this lens outdoors in limited light such as evenings or under heavy cloud which is why a little more aperture speed would be a good thing. I am thinking a prime focal lens as opposed to the 55-200 kit zoom. That lens seems too dark for my tastes. It's ok in bright sun but I don't always have that available. I await your suggestions and questions. Alan
I would go with the M200/4, for a few extra dollars if necessary, and be done with all the worry. Very reliable performer, lots of them around. Perfectly usable at f/4.
05-18-2010, 07:54 PM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hinman Quote
If you happen to have a Tamron adaptall-2 p/k or p/k-a adapter, you can think about this


I like this 200mm quite a bit due to its small size, built-in lens hood and MF is charmingly good with my copy.

Thanks,
Hin
That is sweet. I do have both the PK and the PKA Adaptall 2 units along with the 140TC although I have yet to figure out the difference or how to take full advantage of the "A" lens. I am learning though.
05-18-2010, 11:25 PM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
Battling pheasants

I did not know that we had any pheasants in the area park but this evening I found 2 males really fighting it out. Never saw the female but she was probably around in the grass behind these guys.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K100D  Photo 
05-19-2010, 09:16 AM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
200 2.8

I think I might like to have a 200 f2.8 because low light performance could have been better. Either that or perhaps a 150 or 180 although I think they are more expensive even than a f2.8. I realize this is above the budget I first stated but now I feel I probably have the f4 to f5.6 are covered. It is that low light need that is bugging me. If I get a f2.8 that was intended for film I should be ok in all but night time or indoors and who uses a 200 mm indoors except maybe at a concert. I would bet there are a lot of opinions about 200 f2.8 lenses on this forum.
05-19-2010, 09:52 AM   #21
Site Supporter
hinman's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fremont, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,425
QuoteOriginally posted by hinman:
I got my copy for about $100 and I think it is worth more than what I paid for. I saw copy of Tamron 200mm f/3.5 adaptall-2 04B going as high as $200+ without an adapter. It is not frequently seen in ebay but it does show up from time to time. I was perhaps wrong on the SP label. My copy has the model of 04B. More information can be seen in the adaptall-2 site

Tamron Adaptall-2 200mm F/3.5 Model 04B -- adaptall-2 site

If you have a adaptall-2 200mm that is f/3.5, you are likely have the same copy as mine. I took test shots in indoor setting in this flickr set

Church with Pentax K-x white and Tamron sp 200mm f/3.5 adaptall-2 (04B) - a set on Flickr

The best about that 200mm is the compact size.

Thanks,
Hin
When I use the 200mm with my K-x, I am quite happy with the performance.
05-19-2010, 09:58 AM   #22
Site Supporter
hinman's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fremont, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,425
QuoteOriginally posted by kacansas03 Quote
I think I might like to have a 200 f2.8 because low light performance could have been better. Either that or perhaps a 150 or 180 although I think they are more expensive even than a f2.8. I realize this is above the budget I first stated but now I feel I probably have the f4 to f5.6 are covered. It is that low light need that is bugging me. If I get a f2.8 that was intended for film I should be ok in all but night time or indoors and who uses a 200 mm indoors except maybe at a concert. I would bet there are a lot of opinions about 200 f2.8 lenses on this forum.
f/3.5 is plenty for me to work with K-x. Yes the grain can be a problem. If you can live with high iso 3200, you can save some dough.



1/100 sec, f/3.5, 200mm, iso 6400, 0 Ev
K-x white in jpg with Tamron 200mm f/3.5 adaptall-2 04B




1/100 sec, f/4.5, 200mm, iso 125, 0 Ev (with K20D)
Close up is difficult with minimum focusing distance at about 1.7m
color and contrast quite good in normal use, sharpness can be better




Some casual shot (with K20D)




Thanks,
Hin

Last edited by hinman; 05-19-2010 at 10:49 AM.
05-21-2010, 06:58 PM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,076
200 4 for baseball

I am also looking for a SMC -M or -A 200 4 with a hood for junior baseball in the late afternoon.
I tried a zoom but no good toward the sun.
Last night I tried my -M 100 2.8 with a 2X rear converter and got excellent results. at 250th and equivalent f8 on 200 iso.
Next I am going to try a Takumar 135 2.5 with the rear converter, however the inbuilt hood does not give as much cover as the 100 2.8 .
Today I found a Makinon 200mm 4.5 and got it for $5 (!) plus shipping while I continue to look for an SMC.
The filter & hood for a 200mm is 52 mm so I hope I can get one with original hood.
The 100 2.8 uses a 49 mm hood. Incidentally, this hood is usable on all lenses down to 28mm on DSLR , but not on film format.

05-21-2010, 07:20 PM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
I am also looking for a SMC -M or -A 200 4 with a hood for junior baseball in the late afternoon.
I tried a zoom but no good toward the sun.
Last night I tried my -M 100 2.8 with a 2X rear converter and got excellent results. at 250th and equivalent f8 on 200 iso.
Next I am going to try a Takumar 135 2.5 with the rear converter, however the inbuilt hood does not give as much cover as the 100 2.8 .
Today I found a Makinon 200mm 4.5 and got it for $5 (!) plus shipping while I continue to look for an SMC.
The filter & hood for a 200mm is 52 mm so I hope I can get one with original hood.
The 100 2.8 uses a 49 mm hood. Incidentally, this hood is usable on all lenses down to 28mm on DSLR , but not on film format.
Quick tip. If you want a Pentax lens you are doing fine but there are several out there that are 200 f2.8. Tokina built them in their name(rare, very rare), Vivitar, and Soligor which is the "common" one. Do not get the f3.5 version. The good m42 version has a 77 mm filter and the good K or many other mounts has a 72 mm filter. Search for these names and you should be able to learn a lot. It was talked about on DPReview very positively but one must watch out for the usual in an older lens, dust de-lamination of coatings, haze, fungus and all. Do not go for the expensive eBay ones since you can get it for $80 to $150 for an excellent one.
05-21-2010, 09:17 PM   #25
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,541
i don't have much to contribute here except that i bought both the M200/4 and the S-M-C Takumar 200/4 and spent some time doing side by side comparisons. the Tak was hands down a better lens than the M, IMO.
Now, i always keep that Tak200 in my bag to cover the long end.
it is a little outside of your budget but worth the extra money if you can swing it.
05-21-2010, 09:26 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Komine Vivitar 200/3.5's can be found really cheap and are quite good.
05-23-2010, 05:08 AM   #27
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,076
200 4 for baseball -done

Thanks very much for the advice of the above 3.
I now have the $5 Makinon 200 4.5 to go with the old Makinon Zoom I have.
That for general use and I expect it works OK on camera jpgs.

And for the Pentax collection I bought a K 200 4. It is bigger than the M 200 4 and a with 58 mm thread. Got for a little over the average price listed on this forum.

Old 200 2.8 were outside of my price range, better to buy a new one.
I looked closely at a surplus new ex kit DA 50 to 200. for about $160 - Fairly good reviews. But the kit one ( -L) has a plastic mount and .... waiting for full format anyway.
05-23-2010, 12:32 PM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
Thanks very much for the advice of the above 3.
I now have the $5 Makinon 200 4.5 to go with the old Makinon Zoom I have.
That for general use and I expect it works OK on camera jpgs.

And for the Pentax collection I bought a K 200 4. It is bigger than the M 200 4 and a with 58 mm thread. Got for a little over the average price listed on this forum.

Old 200 2.8 were outside of my price range, better to buy a new one.
I looked closely at a surplus new ex kit DA 50 to 200. for about $160 - Fairly good reviews. But the kit one ( -L) has a plastic mount and .... waiting for full format anyway.
I will not see my 200 f2.8, which was under $100, until June so I can only comment on the lenses I own. The best is a Tamron Adaptall 200 f3.5. This is an older lens '76 to '79 model CT-200 but it has good IQ wide open in low light. I did not think it would be but it has really surprised me. It is a full 35 mm film frame lens which may add to the lower light images, I don't know. This lens was less than $50 but may have been half that cost. The hard part is the adapter which can cost more than the lens. I was lucky there in that I had adapters already and easily found more at a good price, just lucky I guess. I will post a low light pic from the Tamron as soon as I get one processed from RAW. The other off brand did not do well at all wide open and isn't worth mention so I will be getting rid of that one.
05-24-2010, 06:33 AM   #29
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,011
I bought a Tak 200/4 in the Marketplace a year ago for $45 so the good deals are out there, it just takes a little patience and the will to wait.
05-24-2010, 11:24 AM   #30
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Photos: Albums
Posts: 650
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
I bought a Tak 200/4 in the Marketplace a year ago for $45 so the good deals are out there, it just takes a little patience and the will to wait.
Yes, they are out there! Now I am going to whine a little. What I really wanted was a 200 mm f1.8, Oh yeah that would be a low light wonder now! Anyway when my 200 f2.8 comes in from Canada in a week or 2 I will have to try it out and post some results even though I am not as good at photography as many on the board. I do not think people should assume that a digital camera assures perfect results, it still takes work and knowledge to make a good photo happen. So many on here and the whole forum have got the eye to do accomplish great things with their cameras. I'll just keep taking snapshots.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
iq, k-mount, lens, mm, mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any cheap 200mm fast cheap prime suggestions? tr13 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 03-08-2013 02:30 AM
Seen on ebay : A bloody cheap 80-200mm f2.8 TAMRON thomas81 Photographic Technique 1 01-14-2009 05:35 AM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats. pasipasi Post Your Photos! 12 08-28-2008 04:43 PM
Cheap 200mm Zoom Comparison FotoPete Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 04-23-2007 02:21 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top