[normhead]

I've been looking to add another telephoto to the collection. The 200 ƒ2.8 is of interest. Long story short, I'd like it to be a prime. I have a DA* 60-250 ƒ4, the wife is looking for something.

With the 60-250, our 1.7 converter definitely slows down the AF in morning or evening light, so I'm guessing that will be a property of all ƒ4 lenses, lessening my interest in the 300 ƒ4. The 200 ƒ2.8 with the 1.7 should be quite a lot better, and not much slower than the 300 ƒ4.

I haven't seen any output from the 200 and 1.7. In fact 200 images seem to be somewhat rare altogether. I'm not sure if that's because all the cavemen here prefer to lug around the heavier zooms that cover 70-200.

So, I'm wondering if anyone has tried the DA* 200 ƒ2.8 with the FA TC 1.7 and has any sample images.
I've seen complaints about purple fringing with this lens, but it seems to be something that is only in some copies, not in others. But I also know, you can't use the 1.7 TC with a lens with purple fringing. It seems to make the fringing even worse than just straight magnification would anticipate. . So, I'm really looking for someone with a good copy of the lens that isn't prone to purple fringing, and the results when using the TC.

(Please don't bother with the TCs degrade your image and zooms are more effective than primes type arguments. We've had extensive experience with both issues, and we know what we're doing. I have the DA* 60-250, the next lens is going to be a prime, and is going to be as light as we can get away with, and is going to be AF, we do birds and other wildlife, using MF will cost us images. And I shot MF for 30 years, so don't be saying "give it a try.")

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-29-2013 at 09:40 AM.

[mdodrill]

I am also interested in the 200/2.8 with TC. If you get it, please post your results.

[Stone G.]

According to a Pentax brochure that I have, the AF Adapter 1.7X works with the A* 200mm f/2.8ED lens and the A* 300mm f/2.8ED(IF) lens. That tells me, it 'should' in all likelihood work with the DA* 200mm of similar optical design.


I used the same reasoning when I dared purcahse the rear converter A 2X-S for my DA*200 lens. Although not exactly what you are asking for, you can see some results here:


Pentax Rear Converter A 2X-S and scm Pentax DA* 200mm f/2.8

[delavega]

I have been using this lens for more than an year, I don't have any good images of 200 + 1.7 to show on the forum. You are already aware of purple fringing, it is an issue but not so much as compared to the performance of its sluggish auto focus motor. If you are after a fast focusing lens then DA* 200 is a wrong choice.

When used with 1.7x converter it works as expected. I have got katzeye installed in my K5iis and focusing is not an issue with this combo. It becomes a f4.5 lens by default when mounted with the converter.

What's holding me off selling this lens is its stunning image quality, I will try to take some flower shots with tc and post them later. Hope this helps.

[normhead]

Thanks for those.

[mtngal]

I tried the DA*200, a lens I really love, with the 1.7 AFA. The combination front-focused with the K5, while the DA*300 and 1.7 AFA did not, so I didn't want to change the micro-focusing. I didn't think to use manual focus to fine-tune it (I use the standard focus screen), sometimes I found it hard to judge when the focus was just a bit off. I haven't tried that combination with the K3 yet. Now that I think of it, I really should check the focusing on the DA*200 and the K3, my lens had a tendency to front focus a bit with the K5, don't know if it will be more accurate with the K3. Good excuse for getting the lens out tomorrow.

I really love the DA*200 - I wanted a fast lens that was between 135 and 300, and it was lighter than the various 70-200 f2.8 lenses that were out then. I don't use it all that much, but usually love the shots I've taken with it and wouldn't consider selling it. If your focus is on something very close, then switch to infinity it sometimes struggles to focus at all - the bokeh is creamy so if your background doesn't have a really sharp contrast, the camera sometimes gives up before it finds the focus. I usually focus on something at an intermediate distance then go to the distant object, to help the camera figure it out.

[normhead]

For us, it's 300 ƒ4 or 200 ƒ2.8, so it sounds like the 300 might be the better choice, especially since with the 1.7 that gets us out to 510mm. You guys aren't making this any easier. So, in what percentage of your images do you see purple fringing, and is it correctable with software?

[Stone G.]

So, in what percentage of your images do you see purple fringing, and is it correctable with software?

Hmmm....when do I actually see PF? I can of course only speak for my own copy of the DA* 200mm:



I don't really see any PF here (click on image to see a larger version) - but then, If I pixel-peep I can surely find some:



PF with the DA* 200 is usually very well constrained within a few pixel widths and yes, it can be easily removed (at least to my satisfaction) in software. Essentially, it is only when I use my DA*200 wide open against a difficult object where many parts will be out of focus (such as branches and leaves against a bright sky) that coloured fringes around slightly out of focus areas will become more prominent.

And in quite a few cases I cannot see any PF at all, such as this 100%, unprocessed crop demonstrates:



That said, I didn't buy my DA* 200mm for birding but for more allround uses. And it is just compact enough for me to carry easily in a small shoulder back. However, if birding is your main objective, the DA* 300mm might have a few other advantages.

Indeed, the task of choosing 'just-the-right' lens has never been an easy one.......

[normhead]

Thanks for the images, we have longer lenses for birding.. we're mostly looking for a lighter telephoto, something lighter than the DA 60-250 for hiking, and more manageable. Although since we have the 18-135, maybe 200 isn't enough difference. Using the TC we should be able to get by with this lens if we can get acceptable IQ with the TC. I'm still a little concerned with the IQ, partly because of the relatively low score this lens got on Photozone compared with my 60-250.

Anyway, I'm going to put this off for a while. At the moment I'm leaning towards the 300. Thanks for all the help.

[delavega]

normhead, below is the link with some images taken with this combo. All raw files, hope this helps.

Cheers,

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fm9rd0gkbfvu2ah/gtP7ie_gKi/DA%20200%20and%201.7

[normhead]

normhead, below is the link with some images taken with this combo. All raw files, hope this helps.

Cheers,

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fm9rd0gkbfvu2ah/gtP7ie_gKi/DA%20200%20and%201.7

Those actually look pretty decent..... I could work with those.