Why no love for the 200mm?

pinholecam · 05-22-2011, 07:35 PM

I do think that its a lens that isn't here nor there on APS-C. A bit big and heavy compared to more usable focal lengths (24-85mm, even 135mm) as a "take and go" lens; Rather long for portraits and not long enough for birds/animals.

It does produce nice photos and the FA*200 is really nice. Incidentally, I just got my hands on a FA*80-200, don't think I've warmed up to its weight yet

Some photos taken with it during the Pentaxian montly outing last Sat.

think I should start using it more.

pjthiel · 05-23-2011, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by axl

If I got penny every time I said that about lens, I wouldn't have to sell all the lenses I had to sell to get where I am....
I never saw myself selling 43 & 77 ltds, K50/1.2, DA40, K55/1.8, DA*50-135, M85/2, F50/1.7, FA*300/4.5, Sigma 10-20....
yet I'm without them... at the end it's not the platonic relationship with unused lenses but the urge to get the most practical solution for one's needs that usually prevails....

I wish I had the cash to keep all of the above

I think I am just "too new" to all of this to have those feelings yet. I get plenty of buying signals all day long -- LBA kicks in early. Perhaps it's just not taken hold strongly enough for me to have to start selling my lenses to fund the habit

Balog · 05-23-2011, 08:19 AM

I'm always surprised there aren't more 200mm macros. It seems like the extra range would be highly desirable...

Pentaxor · 05-23-2011, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Balog

I'm always surprised there aren't more 200mm macros. It seems like the extra range would be highly desirable...

200mm would make more sense for macro use.

RioRico · 05-23-2011, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

200mm would make more sense for macro use.

A Raynox DCR-150 (focal distance: 6.5-8in / 165-205mm) or DCR-250 (about 5in / 125mm) puts a 200mm lens into the macro realm without long extension. Long macros without such supplemental optics need long extension, and/or expensive tele elements which probably don't help field flatness. The Raynoxi aren't quite flat either.

Notice that lensmakers produce a fair number of 90-105mm macro lenses and very few 150-200's. My Sakar 500/8 mirror focuses down to ~1.7m for ~1:1.25 magnification, which is pretty damn macro. And it is much shorter and lighter than any 200mm macro lens. For long macro, go mirror!

Laurentiu Cristofor · 05-23-2011, 10:08 PM

There are usually 180mm macros - Tamron and Sigma both have one, but they don't make them for Pentax mount - bummer!

Pentaxor · 05-23-2011, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

There are usually 180mm macros - Tamron and Sigma both have one, but they don't make them for Pentax mount - bummer!

don't worry, we'll have the Sigma 150 macro soon. much better than the 180mm .

fwiw, I'll get one now if it were available.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Love my 35mm and 200mm	MetaD	Pentax Medium Format	1	07-17-2010 09:39 PM
No Love for the DA*200mm?	bwield	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	65	05-12-2010 10:22 AM
I love the Kiron 80-200mm/f4.5 Macro!	macdaddy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-28-2008 11:22 AM

05-22-2011, 07:35 PM	#16
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	I do think that its a lens that isn't here nor there on APS-C. A bit big and heavy compared to more usable focal lengths (24-85mm, even 135mm) as a "take and go" lens; Rather long for portraits and not long enough for birds/animals. It does produce nice photos and the FA200 is really nice. Incidentally, I just got my hands on a FA80-200, don't think I've warmed up to its weight yet Some photos taken with it during the Pentaxian montly outing last Sat. think I should start using it more.

05-23-2011, 07:40 AM	#17
pjthiel Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: East Bay, CA Posts: 102	Originally posted by axl If I got penny every time I said that about lens, I wouldn't have to sell all the lenses I had to sell to get where I am.... I never saw myself selling 43 & 77 ltds, K50/1.2, DA40, K55/1.8, DA50-135, M85/2, F50/1.7, FA300/4.5, Sigma 10-20.... yet I'm without them... at the end it's not the platonic relationship with unused lenses but the urge to get the most practical solution for one's needs that usually prevails.... I wish I had the cash to keep all of the above I think I am just "too new" to all of this to have those feelings yet. I get plenty of buying signals all day long -- LBA kicks in early. Perhaps it's just not taken hold strongly enough for me to have to start selling my lenses to fund the habit

05-23-2011, 08:19 AM	#18
Balog Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 103	I'm always surprised there aren't more 200mm macros. It seems like the extra range would be highly desirable...

05-23-2011, 08:31 AM	#19
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Balog I'm always surprised there aren't more 200mm macros. It seems like the extra range would be highly desirable... 200mm would make more sense for macro use.

05-23-2011, 12:02 PM	#20
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Pentaxor 200mm would make more sense for macro use. A Raynox DCR-150 (focal distance: 6.5-8in / 165-205mm) or DCR-250 (about 5in / 125mm) puts a 200mm lens into the macro realm without long extension. Long macros without such supplemental optics need long extension, and/or expensive tele elements which probably don't help field flatness. The Raynoxi aren't quite flat either. Notice that lensmakers produce a fair number of 90-105mm macro lenses and very few 150-200's. My Sakar 500/8 mirror focuses down to ~1.7m for ~1:1.25 magnification, which is pretty damn macro. And it is much shorter and lighter than any 200mm macro lens. For long macro, go mirror!

05-23-2011, 10:08 PM	#21
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	There are usually 180mm macros - Tamron and Sigma both have one, but they don't make them for Pentax mount - bummer!

05-23-2011, 11:26 PM	#22
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor There are usually 180mm macros - Tamron and Sigma both have one, but they don't make them for Pentax mount - bummer! don't worry, we'll have the Sigma 150 macro soon. much better than the 180mm . fwiw, I'll get one now if it were available.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search