[kbrede]

I don't have either lens, but the reviews I've read point to the DA*200 being superb wide open, whereas the DA*300 being a bit soft, so I'd question whether the 300 is better than the 200 optically.

I've never shot the 200 but I have absolutely no qualms shooting wide open with my 300. How sharp the 300 is wide open is what initially amazed me about the lens.

[kbrede]

For hand-held, I'd say 200 is a better choice. I suppose 300 is hand-holdable, but it's not easy, especially for any longish time period.

If you are using tripod though, I'd go with 300, I think it's a little more exceptional lens.

Also, you can add 1.7x AF to your 50135/2.8 and get approx. 200, if you want to try it out.

I don't find getting crisp shots difficult with the 300 hand held, but after a few hours of use, it does begin to wear on me. I shot with it for several hours at the Big 12 indoor track meet. The 200 would have fit better focal length wise, speed wise, and been more comfortable to use.

I would get a 300 for portraits of birds and timber wolves. I would get 200 (or shorter) for portraits of people, especially on apsc. I haven't used Pentax but I'm speaking from my experience with their counterparts in Minolta (in both apsc and full-frame). When you get so long, with people, you start to be physically separated from them in the shooting experience.

[Carson]

This photo: I've seen a huge lot of wedding photos, but this one is really beautiful. It's an old thread, so maybe my praise is wasted here now, but, man alive! The tear on her face; the near-silhouette of the figure framing the image: the photo is so beautifully achieved, without regard for millions that went before. Here is a good photographer with the right tool to do the job; a nice harmonic blend. Excellent.

[zapp]

I use the DA 300 mm for birds and tripod work, you can use it handheld. It is lacking a 1.4x converter in Pentax land. At the moment the longest lens in Pentax land.
The DA 200 is quite appealing as well. it matches the design of the 300 mm lens has an opening of 2.8 and can be used as walk around lens indoors and outdoors.
What really bugs me about the 2.8/200 is that Pentax should offer a 2.8/80-200 zoom. I assume that a FF camera will be announced with such zoom making the 2.8/200 obsolete - the real good 80-200 zoom are perfecet these days. So although I feel the gap between 100 and 300 mm prime lens and am not a friend of Sigma or Tamron larger aperture zooms, I am reluctant to buy the DA 200 - maybe for a couple more weeks :-) I know where to get one for a good price, so I could always sell later...

[Tord]

200 or 300... both are very long on a cropped sensor for portraits... but if that is what you want... I think the 200 would be better... 300 because verylong at 450, you are basically birding from accross the room to get ports.

Will you regret it... likely... I went from 500 mirror to 400... I get much better shots and can even crop further into the 400 than I ever could with the 500... but in the back of my mind I am still thinking... it is not 500... like that some how matters...

i think if you want a long lens... go 300... if you want a long port lens go 200...

just my 2 cents...

According to the test sites I've seen tests of these two lenses the DA*300 is a far better lens, just as Raybo says. Sharper full open, to begin with!

[Tord]

I have a DA* 300mm and like it a lot. I'd like to eventually get a DA* 200 as well, although I'm not too impressed with the photozone.de review on it. ]

Indeed, indeed! Not quite in the same league as the DA*300. I recently switched to Nikon (D600 + AF-S 80-400 VR Mark II - a truely amazing lens), but the DA*300 was on the wish list for a long time!

[Rondec]

According to the test sites I've seen tests of these two lenses the DA*300 is a far better lens, just as Raybo says. Sharper full open, to begin with!

I think the DA *200 is plenty sharp wide open. The biggest issue is with purple fringing, which is pretty easy to fix. The decision of one versus the other has to do with focal length. My wife shoots weddings and wanted something longer (but not 300mm), but smaller as well than the 70-200 f2.8 options that are out there.

Meerkat (shot at f2.8)

[LaurenOE]

I have both.
Because of the tripod ring and size/weight, they are different enough to warrant owning both.
Sometimes 300 is just too long.
200 is an excellent walk around lens.
Because both are WR they make a great team.

[Tord]

Tom, you are spot on with that comment! I first experienced the difficulty shooting the 300 with a 1.4 TC on a grass slope with a Manfrotto carb. fiber tripod, no spikes. The cityscape i was shooting was uniformly soft over the 20 - 30 shots i took. (these shots were all taken with 2 sec delays) Went back a few days later, forced the legs by hand into the slope, hung a heavy bag from the tripod, and the shots were magically sharp. As you say, my SMC 400 has the same problem. Later on, got a heavier aluminum tripod, giottos, with large spikes. much better to shoot from, but you can see the 300 and 400 lenses just sort of quiver around the tripod axis. There's a rotational momentum problem there that one just doesn't see with a smaller length lens.

I doubt that some of the reviewers of the 300 knew enough to properly test a longer lens. I have a friend in our camera club that had problems getting his new 600mm Nikon lens, ($10,000 by his report) to be sharp, i suspect for the same reasons.

I have a very sturdy carbon Gitzo, but that is not quite enough (no spikes), nor is my Berlebach 3032 (which has spikes), as that can vibrate at times. But with a nice sharp lens with built-in anti-shake, like a Nikon AF-S VR 80-400 Mark II, the problems is far smaller than with my K-5 and my 400/5.6. Sadly the amazing Nikon lens's VR only works with Nikon cameras (well there is an adapter for NEX, and MFT, I think, that can power the VR), but Pentax owners are out of luck!

I'd love a modern Pentax that could use modern Nikon lenses ;-)!

[tabl10s]

I have a DA* 300mm and like it a lot. I'd like to eventually get a DA* 200 as well, although I'm not too impressed with the photozone.de review on it.

A few recent portraits of feral cats:





My related blog posts:
Kittens Playing | photographybanzai.com
Feral Cat Expressions | photographybanzai.com

In the '60's, there was a show called "Daktari" with "Clarence The Cross-eyed Lion"

[DougLee]

I don't own the 300, so I won't comment on it except to say I have seen may wonderful shots that others have taken with it. I do own the 200 and I really love this lens, not too big, not too heavy. The IQ from this lens is outstanding. I also find the focal length very useful on APS-C and it is so sharp, even wide open one can crop to zoom if need be. About the only negatives I can come up with is the SDM focusing is not especially fast, and it does exibit pruble fringing at large apertures but this is easy to fix in post processing. Here is a shot taken at f2.8, pretty sharp IMO:

[crewl1]

That review is utter bullshit done by mental defects. Look at their cropped test shots. They don't seem to own a tripod.

No kidding, looks like motion blur plus out of focus!