[skyoftexas]

I love the DA* 200mm lens. It had been on my "to get someday" list, but after I bought it, I wondered why I had waited so long.

[bibz]

On my radar at the moment too. 300's too long or not long enough, and bulky. I'd like one of these cool little things for tele stuff

[Driline]

Has anyone made the low offer?

I just made 2 offers for what they sold their last DA*200's for. $480 and $525 respectively. No Joy Seems like they don't want to go that low anymore.......

[Driline]

I took the K 200 2.5 lens out today for a 4th of July local town celebration. I just.....can't. After reviewing the pictures I took..... I can't justify dumping this lens for a DA*200. It's sharp...contrasty, and I'm nailing the focus with my new Pentax eyepiece.

[Driline]

Oh what the heck....one more photo My wife and niece in our pool.

[bossa]

I'm seriously entertaining the DA*200 over the new zoom, so this is excellent news!

My DA*200 is still a valued lens even though it suffers from Purple Fringing and LCA at large apertures.

Whilst the DA*200 is in fact the same optical formula as a FA*200 (FF lens) it does have the FOV and DOF on APS-C as a 300mm F4 on FF so it's not really an unusual FL, as some have suggested. The size difference is tangible however..

[UncleVanya]

My DA*200 is still a valued lens even though it suffers from Purple Fringing and LCA at large apertures.

Whilst the DA*200 is in fact the same optical formula as a FA*200 (FF lens) it does have the FOV and DOF on APS-C as a 300mm F4 on FF so it's not really an unusual FL, as some have suggested. The size difference is tangible however..

???? Every 200 is a 300 effectively on APS-c. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[bossa]

???? Every 200 is a 300 effectively on APS-c. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

A 200mm on APS-C has the same FOV (field of view) as a 300mm on Full Frame.
A 200mm F2.8 on APS-C has the same DOF (depth of field) @ f/2.8 as a 300mm F4 @ f/4 on Full Frame.

[Venom3300]

I took the K 200 2.5 lens out today for a 4th of July local town celebration. I just.....can't. After reviewing the pictures I took..... I can't justify dumping this lens for a DA*200. It's sharp...contrasty, and I'm nailing the focus with my new Pentax eyepiece.

If its getting the job done and you have fun with it, its hard to justify in my book.

What eye piece are you using to help nail focus? I would like to try it for my A 50 1.7 and M 100 F4 macro.

[Driline]

If its getting the job done and you have fun with it, its hard to justify in my book.

What eye piece are you using to help nail focus? I would like to try it for my A 50 1.7 and M 100 F4 macro.

Pentax O-ME53 eyecup at B&HPHOTO or adorama $37

[Pål Jensen]

A 200mm on APS-C has the same FOV (field of view) as a 300mm on Full Frame.
A 200mm F2.8 on APS-C has the same DOF (depth of field) @ f/2.8 as a 300mm F4 @ f/4 on Full Frame.

Not really. DOF is dependent on focusing distance and subject magnification as well so that a 200/2.8 lens will have shallower minimum DOF on APS than a 300/4 on FF, both wide open. A 300 and a 200mm lens will in real life never be truly DOF equivalent.
Anyway, 300/4 doesn't have the same max speed as a 200/2.8.

[bossa]

Not really. DOF is dependent on focusing distance and subject magnification as well so that a 200/2.8 lens will have shallower minimum DOF on APS than a 300/4 on FF, both wide open. A 300 and a 200mm lens will in real life never be truly DOF equivalent.
Anyway, 300/4 doesn't have the same max speed as a 200/2.8.

DOF according to my calculations is almost identical:
Image on Left: D7000 w/200mm F/2.8 lens
Image on Right D810 w/300mm F/4 lens

[Nicolas06]

DOF according to my calculations is almost identical:
Image on Left: D7000 w/200mm F/2.8 lens
Image on Right D810 w/300mm F/4 lens

+1... Because the ratio is 1.5x and not 1.4 it is more like f/4.2-f/4.3 than f/4 but for sure this is almost equivalent.

And if we speak of "magnification" we speak of tele to get reach, not macro lenses so their minimal focus distance is not that important in practice.

What really count as your illustration show is what the lenses will do with similar framing/subjects.

[Pål Jensen]

[/COLOR]

And if we speak of "magnification" we speak of tele to get reach, not macro lenses so their minimal focus distance is not that important in practice.
What really count as your illustration show is what the lenses will do with similar framing/subjects.

Tell that to the flower or insect photographer, or for that matter, the bird photographer that are known to use extension tubes when shooting small birds (on FF). Either lenses are DOF equivalent or they are not, You can not cherry pick at what focusing distances that fit your argument, and generalize from that some sort of universal rule. That is cheating. Lenses for different formats do not give similar framings either. Choosing only the framing that you favorite format can do as the only relevant, is meaningless. APS lenses need no more being equivalent to FF lenses than vice versa. And where are those macro lenses for FF than are equivalent to those on APS? Do not exist. And where are those Pentax 6X7 lenses "equivalent" to consumer lenses on FF? Do not exist either. In fact, "equivalent" lenses do not exist because it isn't about equivalence, but speed. It is obvious that lens manufacturers do not make lenses cross formats to be "quivalent". I wonder why?
And are there anyone who think the DOF wide open of a 300/2.8 lens is an advantage? For most people who use such lenses it is a problem in terms of DOF and try to work around it.
Still, at 2.8 lens is never going to be equivalent to a F:4 lens cause they give different exposure. F:2.8 is by definition equal to F:2.8. It is no more correct saying a 2.8 lens is equal to a F:4 lens than saying 2.8km is equal to 4km. Both are measurements after a standard and is not a matter for discussion.
Insisting that lenses should be equivalent by trading off the advantage of the larger format is a zero sum game and utterly meaningless. Who wants to use a Pentax 6X7 in order for it to be equal to a Pentax LX? Thats why the photographic industry and photographers don't care about it. The premise of the equivalentists is monumentally bananas; The whole point of different formats is NOT to be equivalent.
Now, theres nothing wrong wanting a lens for different format with wide open DOF at a certain focusing distance equal of that of another lens in another format, but it is no more valid than any other whim a photographer may have regarding lens properties. They are opinions, and subject and situation dependent opinions at that, and not rules or principles. The industry standard for lens aperture is written on every lens. It is not about opinions.


---------- Post added 07-19-15 at 02:32 AM ----------

DOF according to my calculations is almost identical:

I said minimum DOF. Not DOF at 20m. I wasn't aware that only DOF at 20m counts...

[UncleVanya]

We are way off the reservation...