Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-21-2015, 07:23 AM   #31
Pentaxian
zzeitg's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South Bohemia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,872
QuoteOriginally posted by asp1880 Quote
If they are DFA, Ricoh must announce a 35mm K-mount camera at the same time.

I think that FF is pretty much confirmed from different local Pentax reps. IMHO the only reason why we see only black tubus (new telezooms) without desciption is exactly this.

01-21-2015, 08:30 AM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by asp1880 Quote
I usually stay away from FF speculation, but ...


If they are DFA, Ricoh must announce a 35mm K-mount camera at the same time.


Regards,
--Anders.
Like for DFA100 macro?
01-21-2015, 08:56 AM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,326
QuoteOriginally posted by Conqueror Quote
the Tamron 70-200mm appeals VS the DA 200mm... but would have a bit of overlap (with the 100mm) and I dont know if I'd use it much at 70, its also not small or WR
I own the Tamron 70-200, but not the DA* 200. I do, however, own the DA* 300, which is generally considered at least as good, if not a little better, than the DA* 200. Compared to the DA* 300, the Tamron is a little less sharp, a little less contrasty, and doesn't render quite as well. In subtle ways, the DA* 300 produces better images --- although in terms of practical output, it sometimes require a sharp eye to notice the differences. In short, I would expect the performance of the Tamron to come very close, without quite equaling, that of the DA* 200.

The main disadvantage of the Tamron 70-200 is that it's heavy and it doesn't have the build quality/WR of Pentax star glass.

QuoteOriginally posted by Conqueror Quote
A 70-200mm.. might be worse at a the 200 end than the 70 end (?)
Actually, nowadays 70-200mm lenses demonstrate a large degree of consistency throughout their zoom range. It is generally assumed that the Tamron is not quite as good at 200mm f2.8 as it is at 70mm f2.8, but honestly, I'm having difficulty noticing any real difference in what I've shot with my copy of the lens. The only thing I see is that at 200mm wide open, the lens features a rather narrow DOF, so if your focus is just a little off, the resulting image can look soft. If you nail the focus, it's not a problem.

QuoteOriginally posted by Conqueror Quote
I'm used to primes... I've never had a prime >100mm though...
I like primes as well, and wish I could shoot exclusively with such lenses. But I find it challenging to remain at any specific focal range between 70 and 200. It can be difficult to "zoom with one's feet," in that range. And while I may wish to visit, say, 135mm or 180mm, those are not focal ranges I want to remain at for any length of time. So it's precisely in focal ranges where one does not shoot often where zooms can be most useful.
01-21-2015, 09:23 AM   #34
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,964
QuoteOriginally posted by Conqueror Quote
DA 200mm f2.8 - your view... and vs existing/upcoming lenses
-do you expect it will hold its ground against the upcoming "high magnification super telephoto lens" as seen on the roadmap
Just to bring things back to the OP.

Yes, it more than holds it's own with existing lenses, and will be considerably better than any announced up coming lenses. It's main competition right now would be the DA*60-250. And it holds it's own there. No consumer grade lens is going to be it's equal, goes without saying. The one that might give you pause would be the Upcoming 70-200 2.8, and that will be a lot heavier. Combined with an 1.4 and 1.7 TC and a DA 18-135 my guess is it would be perfect for almost any situation.

The only question is, is the DA*60-250 more perfect. It depends on how important 2.8 is to you.

01-21-2015, 09:41 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 491
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Just to bring things back to the OP...
... It depends on how important 2.8 is to you.
Different things in a lens matter the most to different people. Some value WR most, others the ability to zoom, others size/weight, and others, ultimate image quality.

As regards the latter, one needs to remember that a prime lens, by virtue of its having less elements and simpler lens design, usually has superior image quality than a comparable zoom.

This is not intended to put down zooms - they are very good too, and are sometimes the only practical solution in a given photographic situation. I use zooms too - in particular, the DA*50-135. And while it is indeed a lens which gives outstanding image quality, nevertheless when put side-by-side with a prime like the DA*200, one sees the difference. Not a big difference, but it is there, and for those for whom image quality matters the most, as mentioned above, then this is something to take note of.

What I'm saying is, the merit of the DA*200 does not merely reduce to the fact that it offers f2.8. At other stopped-down apertures, it continues to deliver that ultimate image quality and rendering which only a prime lens can, and if that is a concern, then one should take note accordingly.
01-21-2015, 10:46 AM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,964
QuoteOriginally posted by KDAFA Quote
Different things in a lens matter the most to different people. Some value WR most, others the ability to zoom, others size/weight, and others, ultimate image quality.

As regards the latter, one needs to remember that a prime lens, by virtue of its having less elements and simpler lens design, usually has superior image quality than a comparable zoom.

This is not intended to put down zooms - they are very good too, and are sometimes the only practical solution in a given photographic situation. I use zooms too - in particular, the DA*50-135. And while it is indeed a lens which gives outstanding image quality, nevertheless when put side-by-side with a prime like the DA*200, one sees the difference. Not a big difference, but it is there, and for those for whom image quality matters the most, as mentioned above, then this is something to take note of.

What I'm saying is, the merit of the DA*200 does not merely reduce to the fact that it offers f2.8. At other stopped-down apertures, it continues to deliver that ultimate image quality and rendering which only a prime lens can, and if that is a concern, then one should take note accordingly.
When comparing my DA*60-250 to a prime, you need to pixel peep and look really hard to see any difference at all. SO, yes I know what the difference is, and for most people, no, it's not worth taking the DA*60-250 off the camera to use a prime. Compared to the other lenses I own that cover 90mm the Tamron 90 and DA*60-250 are indistinguishable except for a teeny , tiny little bit of micro-contrast favouring the prime, based on a teeny, tiny difference in CA values, is my guess. I would not take my DA*60-250 off the camera for any prime, unless I needed 2.8. Based on what I've seen comparing images.

I suppose some will want the psychological lift of knowing the images can't be any better, but, based on my examples, it's not worth a lens change.
To date, no one has produced any practical example demonstrating why I should think otherwise.. but it's an open challenge. If anyone want to produce some images showing me why I should change from a DA* 60-250 to a prime... bring them on.

Nothing has produced more single sided, doctrinaire, unsupported opinions than prime versus zoom. People seem to be comfortable just throwing "primes are better" out there, as if it's some kind of indisputable fact. It was more true in the 70's, though even then the top zooms were rivalling primes. Some folks are just caught in a time warp.

Last edited by normhead; 01-21-2015 at 11:33 AM.
01-21-2015, 11:33 AM   #37
Veteran Member
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,631
Well, from what I've seen most of the Prime better than Zoom comes from what you mentioned (i.e. historical performance) but possibly because most zooms out there are probably kit or consumer grade zooms. Remembering that consumer grade is where I'd bet a majority of people are at, a consumer grade prime probably exceeds a consumer grade zoom in almost every instance... I say almost because I feel that my Tamron 17-50 outshines a lot of primes except perhaps the couple of limiteds I own in that zoom range.

And then you have the higher grade zooms, like the 60-250, 50-135, and 16-50 which from what I see subjectively equal their prime counterparts for all practical purposes (pixel peeping and nuances aside).

I actually just got a 60-250 because of reasons outlined here. I rarely shoot at any specific prime when I need over 100 mm, and the quality of the lens often looks the similar enough to the 200 mm or 300 mm primes, that I'm happy. That, and having a 135 that goes to f/2.5, I feel comfortable in not needing f/2.8 in any situation. The DOF is quite narrow at those focal lengths, so f/4 should be adequate.
01-21-2015, 01:08 PM - 1 Like   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
It depend of both zoom and prime you think of.

For example for me at f/2.8 I say for sure that FA50 is worse than DA50-135 that is worse than FA77.

And while DA50-135 is a good as one lense can get in term of contrast/sharpness at f/5.6, at the same apperture at 77mm, I prefer the rendering of the FA77. And I will far prefer to have the small/light FA77 in the bag than the fat and heavy 50-135.

Still the 50-135 is realy a great zoom with fantastic rendering it also get WR, silent focussing and as zoom is better choice for things like event where you can't really move when you want but still need to frame.

Zooms can get you very far and I would even say, most lenses can. Even through great lenses help getting better picture, this is far more the great light, the right angle/composition, the right time... That make the image. An iphone in the hand of a great photographer will do more interresting images than an average guy with the latest FF.

So as to know if the DA*200 is good enough, the answer is yes. If it is to know is corresponding sigma/tamron 70-200 are good enough too, this is yes too. As for 50-135 or the new upcoming large diameter zoom.

Still some things can also change you life as a photographer. Some pro lense have very good AF for example. Canikon gear comes to mind. It might not render better but it will get you the shoot much more easily. A wider apperture just allow to play more with deph of field, isos/speed and this is not something to ignore. Use correctly it will make your shoot stand out much more easily and lower a bit your dependancy on flash or ensure the background is far away.

If a lense don't need to manually correct optical deficiancy like a lack of contrast, punch or high CA level, you just gain time. And time is money for a pro... and boredom for everybody.

If a lense just give a more pleasing rendering overall in some circonstances at least, you'll want to use it to its strength. It might be an old manual lense that is crap 80% of the time but whose rendering is really interresting in 5% of cases. This would give your photos an edge and help them to standout - again.
g
If like with FA77 you have something that is reasonably great but realy exceptionnal in many circonstances, you'll want to benefit of it. Again an edge.

I agree with normhead that the ultimate sharpness is not that usefull as soon you can really crop if needed and still get sharp enough images. I agree overall that when comparing good lenses, there no huge differences and money could be better invested in flashes, tripod, trips, courses on photograhy... Or whatever else not linked to photography.

Still the max apperture does count a lot. f/2 or f/2.8 is not at all the same as f/4. Still if the rendering is overall better this still count. Still if you enjoy your gear, you'll take better photos... Still if the gear is small and light you'll tend to have it more often at hand and will move more, react faster.

There many things to consider and many things you only figure out yourself or maybe never. One will not really try all possible lenses extensively for example.

In the end would the DA200 be great? For sure. the new large diameter zoom? Yeah sure too. sigma or tamron 70-200 ? Great 60-250 great too. Be sure to choose what best match what you like, what you need and be happy with it.

01-21-2015, 01:10 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 440
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
When comparing my DA*60-250 to a prime, you need to pixel peep and look really hard to see any difference at all.
Yes I've its very impressive for a zoom... it must be noticeably bigger/heavier than a DA* 200 or 300 though?

---------- Post added 01-21-15 at 08:17 PM ----------

I'm also contemplating the 55-300mm HD WR even though I have the old 55-300mm ... the WR of the DA* or HD lens is useful

Though I have some shots in mind where I wonder if the 200mm would really shine in comparison... sun rise/sun set stuff

Theres no doubt the 55-300 is a brilliant size/weight though

Last edited by Conqueror; 01-21-2015 at 01:17 PM.
01-21-2015, 01:26 PM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by Conqueror Quote
Yes I've its very impressive for a zoom... it must be noticeably bigger/heavier than a DA* 200 or 300 though?

---------- Post added 01-21-15 at 08:17 PM ----------

I'm also contemplating the 55-300mm HD WR even though I have the old 55-300mm ... the WR of the DA* or HD lens is useful

Though I have some shots in mind where I wonder if the 200mm would really shine in comparison... sun rise/sun set stuff

Theres no doubt the 55-300 is a brilliant size/weight though
The 55-300 is unexpensive, lighter, smaller. But the quality difference is very visible this time.
01-21-2015, 03:03 PM   #41
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,964
QuoteQuote:
Yes I've its very impressive for a zoom... it must be noticeably bigger/heavier than a DA* 200 or 300 though?
That is the issue that could see me stop using my DA*60-250 on longer hikes and canoe trips.

QuoteQuote:
Still the max apperture does count a lot. f/2 or f/2.8 is not at all the same as f/4. Still if the rendering is overall better this still count. Still if you enjoy your gear, you'll take better photos... Still if the gear is small and light you'll tend to have it more often at hand and will move more, react faster.
Exactly....I've been "living with" ƒ4 for a while, I'm just a lot more comfortable using my Sigma 70 ƒ2.8 much of the time. That little bit of extra light makes a difference sometimes. Enough to make me consider buying a DA*200 ƒ2.8, even though my 60-250 covers the focal length, same as it covers the vocal length of the Sigma 70 macro.

Last edited by normhead; 01-21-2015 at 07:48 PM.
01-21-2015, 06:14 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 491
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
When comparing my DA*60-250 to a prime, you need to pixel peep and look really hard to see any difference at all. SO, yes I know what the difference is, and for most people, no, it's not worth taking the DA*60-250 off the camera to use a prime. Compared to the other lenses I own that cover 90mm the Tamron 90 and DA*60-250 are indistinguishable except for a teeny , tiny little bit of micro-contrast favouring the prime, based on a teeny, tiny difference in CA values, is my guess. I would not take my DA*60-250 off the camera for any prime, unless I needed 2.8. Based on what I've seen comparing images.

I suppose some will want the psychological lift of knowing the images can't be any better, but, based on my examples, it's not worth a lens change.
To date, no one has produced any practical example demonstrating why I should think otherwise.. but it's an open challenge. If anyone want to produce some images showing me why I should change from a DA* 60-250 to a prime... bring them on.

Nothing has produced more single sided, doctrinaire, unsupported opinions than prime versus zoom. People seem to be comfortable just throwing "primes are better" out there, as if it's some kind of indisputable fact. It was more true in the 70's, though even then the top zooms were rivalling primes. Some folks are just caught in a time warp.
It seems that the spirit of what I was trying to get across in my post might have been overlooked somewhat.

It was stated that I too use zooms. I use the 50-135. I also used to use the 16-50, but the dreaded SDM failure has happened. And sometimes I use my wife's compact ultrazoom, when a photo opportunity arises and I don't have my DSLR with me (yeah, I know, shame on me! ).

I wasn't at all suggesting that one should put aside their zooms in favour of primes - if so, I would have to sell off my treasured 50-135!

And I did write clearly that it is not my intention to put down zooms, which are also very good.

What I was conveying was that if IQ and rendering are one's greatest priority, and there being no other factors/constraints, one ought to take cognisance of the fact that primes tend to give the best results, but again I did say the margin isn't large.

For me, a lens' rendering is in fact not something I gauge by magnifying the picture, ie. pixel-peeping. In fact, I find that pixel-peeping makes it difficult for me to evaluate a lens' rendering character. I need to see the image as it is, non-magnified. And yes, I do see a difference between primes and comparable zooms. To me, that matters. And I would believe some others may share the same view.

But again, other priorities do come into play, eg WR, less lenses to carry hence a lighter bag, practicality, and so forth; and some judge that that incremental difference in IQ/rendering as not essential. Ultimately, one makes one's own assessment.

If I were covering an event, for example, I would likely choose a zoom for my gear bag, because it is much more practical in such a scenario of use. And I can well imagine that when hiking, a good zoom would make for a substantially more manageable work situation.

So ultimately, as I see it one judges with one's eyes, balancing against other factors, and decides accordingly. I don't believe that it is without reason that some people say they prefer the IQ/rendering of a prime. This is what their eyes see. If that essentially amounts to an unsupported opinion, without numerical/measurable "proof" so to speak, it bears noting that the same is true in the reverse. That is to say, stating that a zoom gives equally good IQ/rendering as a prime is also based on eye-judgement and amounts to an opinion. Further, image quality/rendering can often be a difficult thing to measure quantitatively.

So, in summary, nothing to prevent zooms and primes living happily side by side.
01-21-2015, 07:53 PM   #43
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,964
QuoteQuote:
This is what their eyes see. If that essentially amounts to an unsupported opinion, without numerical/measurable "proof" so to speak, it bears noting that the same is true in the reverse.
I came to the opinion after comparing images taken with my Tamron 90, DA*60-250, Sigma 70-300, and several other lenses. I then confirmed my opinion with my wife who was rating the images, blind, she didn't know which was which. We both came to the same conclusion. So I actually formed my opinion based on those tests, hardly unsupported. If someone else wants to do some testing I'll also take their opinion into account. But, for me, I've done a bit of work on this, I enjoy the opinions of others who have also done a bit of work. Unsupported opinions, not so much.

Nothing to me is more useless, than if someone takes picture at one place in one kind of light with one lens, then takes another image at another time and place with another lens and says, "I like this lens better". Or "I shoot with this lens all the time, and I like it." But they don't shoot all the time with the other lens they are talking about. Well guess what, the one they shoot with all the time produces more top quality images. So usually, when I come out with an opinion, it's because I've either down the work myself, or have found someone else who has. It sure is sweet to find someone else. Especially if it's digitalis.

Reading the site, I see a great number of lens preferences, no problem. It's when people start saying "this is better than that". I expect them to have given both lenses a fair chance, and had at least one other person verify their results.

Last edited by normhead; 01-21-2015 at 08:02 PM.
01-21-2015, 08:22 PM   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,588
The 200mm is one of those lenses I really have to think hard about before deciding if I want to purchase it. It's a beautiful lens no doubt and takes some very nice pictures, but the purple fringing thing(which is a real PITA to remove) does make you think twice. If I was shooting sports, or weddings then it would be a no-brainer, but 200mm becomes a whopping 300mm on a cropped sensor which is a little beyond my range for casual shooting. I doubt if I would ever use such an expensive lens very often.


As far as the new up-coming lenses, I'm hoping that Pentax/Richo shows that they are serious about competing with Canikon(or at least being an alternative to Canikon) by producing some high-quality semi-pro, or pro telephoto lenses. A 70-200 f4 or 2.8 with the same build standards as the Limited lenses would be a huge step in attracting more serious photographers. Even if the build is like the 100mm WR Macro I would be happy, but if they come out with another consumer f4.5/5.6 plastic lens, I doubt if I will take a second look.

Last edited by hjoseph7; 01-21-2015 at 08:37 PM.
01-21-2015, 09:39 PM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,066
You might consider shooting with a more economical DA L 55-300 locked (taped?) at 200mm for a while to explore the use and potential for that lens. If outdoors is your use the lesser lens speed won't make much difference for your purpose in assessing the usefulness of the DA*200.
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!
200mm, 55-300mm, colour, colours, da, da 200mm f2.8, da*, experience, f2.8, hd, k-mount, lenses, method, pentax, pentax lens, pm, post, shot, slr lens, vs, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD Macro VS SMC Pentax-DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM WVRICK Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 39 01-22-2014 05:46 PM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM vs Pentax FA* 80-200mm F2.8? vectrln Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 07-27-2011 07:41 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and Pentax DA 50-200mm f4-5.6 lenses DaddyO Sold Items 15 06-01-2009 10:22 AM
DA* 200mm f2.8 Get Out your Credit Cards LOL PentaxKangaroo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 02-15-2008 07:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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