[Conqueror]

DA 200mm f2.8 - your view... and vs existing/upcoming lenses

-what is your opinion of this lens?
-do you expect it will hold its ground against the upcoming "high magnification super telephoto lens" as seen on the roadmap

[Nicolas06]

If you really try to compare the super tele zoom the lenses are completely opposed in design. One is a prime with the max possible quality, quite wide apperture a pretty moderate focal length (200mm) and still relativelly small and light.

The super telezoom will be a zoom cover quite a different set of focal (120-400 or something) with a slow apperture range like f/4-5.6 or worse. If anything that exist is an indication if such zoom is not $3000+ it will be far inferior in quality to the DA*200 at 200mm and it will not be able to achieve the same apperture for sure.

The supertele will also be quite heavy/big and comes with a DC motor. It might support FF officially while the DA*200 does not.

What make more sense to compare is the DA*200 with the upcomming large diameter zoom, a sort of 70-200 f/2.8 (or something arround). It might support FF, it will be quite heavier/bigger and DC for sure. The picture quality would have less difference, apperture would be arround the same and if (I really said if) the lense has FF support and if (I again really say if) the lense as optical stabilisation it might be an interresting compromize. I would not bet for the optical quality to be better than the prime, in particular wide open.

Finally we speak of zoom... Lenses typically good if you cannot move or you have to reframe fast. If you really need that feature, a prime might be less interresting. And prime well are lighter/smaller/better quality.

[Conqueror]

I'm used to primes... I've never had a prime >100mm though...

Yeah you would expect the 200mm to stand its gorund over a zoom... many rate the 60-250 very highly though for instance

A 70-200mm.. might be worse at a the 200 end than the 70 end (?)

(120-400 or something) with a slow apperture range like f/4-5.6

yeah looks like it might be a 120-400mm....


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

[Nicolas06]

I'm used to primes... I've never had a prime >100mm though...

Yeah you would expect the 200mm to stand its gorund over a zoom... many rate the 60-250 very highly though for instance

A 70-200mm.. might be worse at a the 200 end than the 70 end (?)

I would expect the DA200 to stand out:

- first zooms tend to have "less" 200mm than a prime, in particular at min focussing distance.
-then usually a zoom is not perfect everywhere. The tamron is weaker at 200 than 70 and my 50-135 is weaker at 135 than 50.

The DA200 has less lens elements making it smaller, more resistant to flare and helping on the transmission. You can expect more contrast/micro contrast.

The biggest difference would be at f/2.8 through and might no be that visible in many occasions. Depend if you plan to crop a lot, put a TC on it or not... Prefer something smaller/lighter And well is you need the zoom capabilities.

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

with a 100mm prime and 200mm prime you clearly cover perfectly the 100-400mm range and if you have other prime bellow 100mm you cover without any issue the whole 70-200 range and more.

But really what count is the type of shooting you intend. At an event, you can't always move, place yourself as you want and many thinkgs might occurs that need to react fast. You might have bad weather too meaning changing lenses might not be the best idea. In theses case, I'd say a zoom is better. It is also usually less expensive than buying the 2-3 primes require to cover the range.

You can consider the DA*200 like a 200-400 zoom by cropping or using TC. It is near perfect à 200mm and good at 400mm. But if you need more than 400mm or less than 200mm, the prime will not cover it at all. The 70-200 might cover you from 70 to 400mm too, maybe with a bit less quality overall.

[Conqueror]

Do you think the Teleconverter is a good option then? Most of my shooting is landscape/buildings/night (static objects)

Adding the TC would make the 100 a 140... my next longest prime after that is the 55 ... haven't heard of many people using the TC on the 55

The 200 does look pretty decent... perhaps not held in quite a higher regard as the 300 though .. I have some particular shots in mind that I reckon I'll need something 200-300mm for

[asp1880]

The 200 does look pretty decent... perhaps not held in quite a higher regard as the 300 though .. I have some particular shots in mind that I reckon I'll need something 200-300mm for

I have the DA200 and I'm very pleased with it. Its biggest strength is the good contrast and colours. Sharpness is also good.
Its biggest weakness is the chromatic aberrations at f/2.8. If you want to shoot bright high-contrast stuff you'll want to stop down a little.


Do you need the f/2.8? If you don't you can also consider the 55-300, which has a good reputation, and it's lighter, cheaper and more versatile too.


Regards,
--Anders.

[Rondec]

The 200 is a very nice lens. I imagine the upcoming 70-200 will probably be similar at f4, but a little softer at f2.8 and 200mm. My experience with 70-200 zooms is that they are bigger than a 200mm prime.

Biggest weakness of the 200 is purple fringing, as asp1880 says. It is a very nice lens and I use mine when I need a longer focal length, which isn't terribly often. My wife sometimes uses it for weddings when she can't get close. She had rented a 70-200 f2.8 a couple of times but really didn't like the size/weight of those lenses, but deals well with the DA *200.

[KDAFA]

The 200 does look pretty decent... perhaps not held in quite a higher regard as the 300 though .. I have some particular shots in mind that I reckon I'll need something 200-300mm for

The DA*200 is a very good lens indeed!

If at all it's not as "well known" as the DA*300, that might be because many telephoto users are looking for a birding lens, in which case 300mm (or even longer) would typically be more suitable.

I don't do bird photography, but I do quite a bit of telephoto work, and have found the DA*200 to consistently yield impressively beautiful pictures.

Technical issues centre mainly around some purple fringing in high contrast scenes at wide apertures, which can be controlled by PP; and average AF speed (very good AF accuracy though, on K-3).

This lens readily delivers the classic Pentax colours, contrasts and micro-contrast - excellently rendered.

It also gives beautiful, smooth bokeh, and yields impressive resolution of detail. Specifically, results at f2.8 are well pleasing to the eye.

I also use the DA*50-135 - a lens I hold in VERY high regard. When compared against the 50-135, the 200 will initially seem "less contrasty". But that's only because the former is a lens known for its outstanding contrast. Whereas the 200 gives more "typical" contrast, more "delicate". But for the manner in which it renders fine details, and the overall image character/purity/quality, the 200 is a prime lens as opposed to a zoom, and delivers accordingly.

Superb build quality - all metal. Truly solid feel, with good weight and balance on K-3. Nice hood with rubberised edge, allowing you to temporarily stand the lens vertically (but with caution, lest your camera fall over).

All said, a lens that consistently produces very beautiful pictures.

[normhead]

I've been looking at the DA*200 since before Christmas , thinking it might be my next lens purchase.

Pros.

ƒ2.8.. That can be important.... there are many times I lose photo opportunites as it gets dark in the evening.

Lighter.... about a half pound to a pound lighter than a DA* 60-250 or anyone's 70-200 ƒ2.8. With the 18-135, 1.4 and 1.7 TC you have the absolute best lightweight hiking, portable combination. With the 1.4 TC on it's going to be 280mm at ƒ4, practically identical to the 300 ƒ4. But is still a 2.8 lens if you take the TC off. There is nothing you can do to make a DA*60-250 or DA*300, ƒ2.8.

Cons...
The DA*60-250 is better resolution at 200mm

From Photozone...
Unfortunately the DA* 200mm f/2.8 has quite a problem regarding purple fringing. Purple fringing is a blooming effect that occurs at extreme contrast transitions. The camera sensor has surely a few stakes in here but the effect is also dependent on the lens. Here's a 100% crop showing a particularly bad scenario. You will find others in the sample image section although with a lesser severity.

Not owning the lens, I have no idea how bad the fringing is, but, my A-400 fringes pretty badly from time to time, yet I get really good images with it most of the time. Fringing it would seem is not a full time issue. But, with my A-400 the fringing is definitely enlarged by the 1.7 TC. I'd definitely want to see some example images taken with the DA*200 before coming to any definitive conclusions about it's use with the 1.4, and with the camera I'm using. There is an element of fringing that is dependant on the sensor, so I'm not sure how relevant the 10 MP tests on Photozone are with a CCD sensor instead of a CMOS 24 MP sensor that I'm using. That type of thing I know nothing about, but, being interested in the lens, these are things I'm curious about.

The biggest draw back to me with this lens is it's focus speed. My hope would be to have a lens at that focal length that would be a bit faster focusing that whatever else I have, Unfortunately this lens isn't that lens.

So in conclusion, I'll probably buy the lens at some point, with a healthy understanding that it isn't everything I want. And I think that's the way you have to go at this lens. For me, I often carry the A-400 or DA*60-250 and never use them. As a lighter more compact lens, I see the DA*200 as a lens that will be more portable for those kinds of trips, but still able to deliver acceptable results if a situation comes up where I might need it. It would be awesome if it was the type of lens that sells your camera system, like the DA*60-250 is, but I don't get the impression it's that type of lens. Still, as I said, I get lots of great shots from my A-400, and the DA*200 ƒ2.8 is clearly superior to the A-400 in terms of CA and fringing, so how bad can it be?

[Rondec]

The 200mm is pretty strong at f4. My zoo lens (when my wife doesn't steal it -- then I end up with the 55-300).

[normhead]

The 200mm is pretty strong at f4. My zoo lens (when my wife doesn't steal it -- then I end up with the 55-300).

Ship it to me, so I can test it with my TC. I promise, I'll return it.
I know to would be much easier to ship the TC back and forth.... but I want to play with the 200 more than you want to play with the TC I bet...

[KDAFA]

I've been looking at the DA*200 since before Christmas , thinking it might be my next lens purchase.

Cons...
The DA*60-250 is better resolution at 200mm...

... Not owning the lens, I have no idea how bad the fringing is, but, my A-400 fringes pretty badly from time to time, yet I get really good images with it most of the time. Fringing it would seem is not a full time issue. But, with my A-400 the fringing is definitely enlarged by the 1.7 TC. I'd definitely want to see some example images taken with the DA*200 before coming to any definitive conclusions about it's use with the 1.4, and with the camera I'm using. There is an element of fringing that is dependant on the sensor, so I'm not sure how relevant the 10 MP tests on Photozone are with a CCD sensor instead of a CMOS 24 MP sensor that I'm using. That type of thing I know nothing about, but, being interested in the lens, these are things I'm curious about.

As regards lens resolution, I've not used the 60-250, but I can't say I've ever found the DA*200 lacking. In fact, the reverse has often been the case for me in practical use - I've frequently been surprised and quite impressed by the lens' ability to reproduce fine detail! Of course, individual expectations do vary. FWIW, I also use DA35 Ltd, FA43 Ltd, FA77 Ltd; and it is against that backdrop that I form my standard for lens resolution. To my eyes, the 200's resolution is OK. Not quite to the level of those admittedly very sharp lenses, but certainly good. The photos I'm getting don't seem to suffer from lack of resolution, even at f2.8. (I'm using K-3).

As regards purple fringing, it does occur on K-3 CMOS. I've no experience using the TC.

The REAL question however, is to what extent it appears when the lens is put to real-life use. This is hard to say for any given user because it much depends on individual usage style. For me, I've found it quite rare. Certainly it is NOWHERE near big enough a problem for me to not want to use the lens. To put it another way, this lens is giving me lots of very beautiful pictures! And besides, purple fringing can be controlled via PP.

[normhead]

As regards lens resolution, I've not used the 60-250, but I can't say I've ever found the DA*200 lacking. In fact, the reverse has often been the case for me in practical use - I've frequently been surprised and quite impressed by the lens' ability to reproduce fine detail! Of course, individual expectations do vary. FWIW, I also use DA35 Ltd, FA43 Ltd, FA77 Ltd; and it is against that backdrop that I form my standard for lens resolution. To my eyes, the 200's resolution is OK. Not quite to the level of those admittedly very sharp lenses, but certainly good. The photos I'm getting don't seem to suffer from lack of resolution, even at f2.8. (I'm using K-3).

As regards purple fringing, it does occur on K-3 CMOS. I've no experience using the TC.

The REAL question however, is to what extent it appears when the lens is put to real-life use. This is hard to say for any given user because it much depends on individual usage style. For me, I've found it quite rare. Certainly it is NOWHERE near big enough a problem for me to not want to use the lens. To put it another way, this lens is giving me lots of very beautiful pictures! And besides, purple fringing can be controlled via PP.

Which is why it's still top of my LBA list. Thanks for the reply.

The biggest question for me it, after I purchase it, will I be ready to part with my DA*60-250.

[Nicolas06]

For your problem of purple frigging Photozone says:

"Typical for purple fringing the problem is worst at wide-open aperture so in critical scenes it makes sense to stop down a little.".

If I look at a DA*200 review on Pentax forum, Stone G. has written a very detailled review of the DA*200. The link is here: http://www.gyes.eu/photo/reviews_tutorials/pentax_da200.htm

You can see the issue is almost gone by f/3.2 and completely gone at f/5.6.

On photozone, if we download the bokeh test shoots that exibit some purple frigging on the DA*200, we can see that at f/2.8 it is quite heavy on the metalic spheres at the bottom, still quite visible at f/4, but quite light at f/5.6. I think that by processing it by DxO you would not see it at f/4 or f/5.6.

As for your 60-250 it is said to have moderate CA, the generic form of purple fringing. But from mesurement, DA*200 has even less CA than DA60-250 at equivalent apperture.

To me this just mean that in critical cases on your both lenses, you should consider f/4 or f/5.6 instead of f/2.8 that is more prone to CA/purple fringing. With a TC, you should add a stop to f/5.6 or f/8. Still I see no evendance that the DA*200 is any worse at same apperture than the DA60-250. The numbers seems to say the later is worse at 250mm, in particular on borders.

Seems to me the biggest asset of 60-250 relative to this is you can't see how bat it would be a f/2.8 because it doesn't support the apperture.

[Rondec]

I shoot at the sun all the time with the 200 and it really isn't bad.