DA*200 f2.8 for landscape - any experiences?

**Focusrite** · 08-08-2018, 11:08 PM

Hello all! I'm continuing to love using my K-1 for landscape, but I've always typically used the wider end of my lens selection for what I do. I'd be fibbing if I claimed to be either proficient or a big fan of telephoto landscape shots, but I am warming to the idea of using a longer focal length and am seeing more situations where I might use one. The DA*200 f2.8 is on my radar, and there is a reasonably good deal on one locally that I'm considering.

My typical kit is pretty much the D-FA 28-105, the three Samyang Ultra-Wide primes, and a few other primes tossed in along the way within the limits of the 28-105. I have found the upper limit on the 28-105 on a few occasions, especially if I want to do a panorama with a longer focal length. I do have an older Sigma APO 70-200 f2.8 ( which I picked up for peanuts as a fungus victim ), but its level of sharpness kinda disappoints me ( possibly a result of the subsequent repairs ) as well as when you change the focal point the focal length seems to slightly change as well ( the 28-105 seems to do this as well; do all zooms suffer with this? ) - this makes focus stacking harder with my limited skill-set. Hence, I'm considering getting a prime instead.

I am curious as to how sharp the DA*200 is across the frame on the K-1 ( not on a crop body! ), and whether anyone else has used it more or less exclusively for landscape work and enjoyed the experience and results. My expectation is that it should be excellent. I'm also considering a FA 135mm ( if I can find one in good condition for a reasonable price ). I have considered the D-FA 70-200, however the entry price gives me pause as does the weight ( I hike a lot ) and potential for focal shift. For me, sharpness may not be the be-all-end-all, but it is very important.

Any info, advice, alternative suggestions, or experiences would be appreciated, and feel free to post examples if you wish!

And if anyone has found themselves drifting from using wide angle to nearly exclusive use of telephoto lenses for landscape, I'd be interested in that as well.

LennyBloke · 08-08-2018, 11:36 PM - **1 Like**

Traditionally a 200mm would be considered a bit long for Landscapes, but IMO you can use any lens for any subject if it works for you.

I have a DA*200 that I am more than happy to use on the K1 and it is a real pleasure - I wouldn't say I take many Landscapes with it but there are some occasions where it is very useful to have in the bag, this mini set on Flickr DA* 200mm F2.8 | Flickr was taken at a local food market a few months ago - i think it shows how well it performs on full frame. Here's one of my favourites...

You've listed most of the reasons for and against getting one - the flexibility of a 70-200ish zoom, the weight, etc. - but my attitude nowadays is to try every lens I fancy. That way you'll either find yourself a "keeper" or if it doesn't suit then just sell it on

Medex · 08-08-2018, 11:46 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Focusrite

Hello all! I'm continuing to love using my K-1 for landscape, but I've always typically used the wider end of my lens selection for what I do. I'd be fibbing if I claimed to be either proficient or a big fan of telephoto landscape shots, but I am warming to the idea of using a longer focal length and am seeing more situations where I might use one. The DA*200 f2.8 is on my radar, and there is a reasonably good deal on one locally that I'm considering.

My typical kit is pretty much the D-FA 28-105, the three Samyang Ultra-Wide primes, and a few other primes tossed in along the way within the limits of the 28-105. I have found the upper limit on the 28-105 on a few occasions, especially if I want to do a panorama with a longer focal length. I do have an older Sigma APO 70-200 f2.8 ( which I picked up for peanuts as a fungus victim ), but its level of sharpness kinda disappoints me ( possibly a result of the subsequent repairs ) as well as when you change the focal point the focal length seems to slightly change as well ( the 28-105 seems to do this as well; do all zooms suffer with this? ) - this makes focus stacking harder with my limited skill-set. Hence, I'm considering getting a prime instead.

I am curious as to how sharp the DA*200 is across the frame on the K-1 ( not on a crop body! ), and whether anyone else has used it more or less exclusively for landscape work and enjoyed the experience and results. My expectation is that it should be excellent. I'm also considering a FA 135mm ( if I can find one in good condition for a reasonable price ). I have considered the D-FA 70-200, however the entry price gives me pause as does the weight ( I hike a lot ) and potential for focal shift. For me, sharpness may not be the be-all-end-all, but it is very important.

Any info, advice, alternative suggestions, or experiences would be appreciated, and feel free to post examples if you wish!

And if anyone has found themselves drifting from using wide angle to nearly exclusive use of telephoto lenses for landscape, I'd be interested in that as well.

I tried 141/1.9 projection lens at f3.2 for bokehrama type landscape. You can see it here:
Belmontas Garden Pano by Medex G - Photo 269282713 / 500px
99 stitched frames, captured with Pentax K-1, a little cropped in postprocess. About 115 grade field of view.
If the reason you want to make gigapixel panoramas is printing on the wall (selling your work), then it is worth the time needed for postprocessing. You should use very capable PC too.

The very similar scene in infrared mode, captured with Pentax K-5 and Pentax 15-30/2.8 at 30 mm: 49 frames as I rememeber.
Belmontas Pano infrared by Medex G - Photo 269283619 / 500px

The only reason for me to shoot telephoto landscape panoramas is smaller DOF and blur effect in foreground and background.

**othar** · 08-09-2018, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Focusrite

I do have an older Sigma APO 70-200 f2.8 ( which I picked up for peanuts as a fungus victim ), but its level of sharpness kinda disappoints me ( possibly a result of the subsequent repairs ) as well as when you change the focal point the focal length seems to slightly change as well ( the 28-105 seems to do this as well; do all zooms suffer with this? ) - this makes focus stacking harder with my limited skill-set. Hence, I'm considering getting a prime instead.

I am curious as to how sharp the DA*200 is across the frame on the K-1 ( not on a crop body! ), and whether anyone else has used it more or less exclusively for landscape work and enjoyed the experience and results. My expectation is that it should be excellent. I'm also considering a FA 135mm ( if I can find one in good condition for a reasonable price ).

What you are experiencing with your Sigma lens is focus breathing and it also can happen with prime lenses. The focal lenght is determined when the lens is set to infinity, when you focus closer the focal lenght usually gets shorter too.
I think internal focusing lenses are more prone to this behavior than lenses that extend external when focused, on the other hand is WR easier with IF lenses.

When I am mountaineering I usually take my Cosina Cosinon-T 3.5/135mm lens with me as my longest lens (I use a K-3 so this would be in the ballpark of the 200mm in your case). For landscapes per se this lens is usually too long for my needs but that depends on the area you are and your intended subjects. I use it mostly to photograph chamois or other animals on the way (for those occasions this lens is on the short end, but it's also a compromise with size and weight of the lens and the 3.5/135 is small enough to get a permanent spot in the backpack) and when I am hiking in a group I like this lens for taking pictures of the others because with the longer reach I get more natural pictures and not the usuall smiling into the camera. Of course it helps when you are one of the faster hikers in the group for those pictures.

Last edited by othar; 08-09-2018 at 12:27 AM.

Billk · 08-09-2018, 01:58 AM - **1 Like**

I have found my DA*200mm F2.8 more useful since moving to the K1. I think it is great for landscape details, still life and head-and-should portraits..

One of our (Australia's ) great landscape photographers, Peter Dombrovskis, moved towards landscape details later in his career. Check out his work. If you like it, I think you will like shooting with the K1/ DA*200mm combo.

jawsy · 08-09-2018, 02:18 AM

The issue you run into is environmental. If you're after conventional landscape perspectives the length is too long. You end up with an image that whilst technically able to be sharp, isn't because your landscape details are affected by atmospheric haze, etc because you're further away. As Billk suggests though, if your game is 'landscape details', then go for it.

... and don't forget you won't achieve front to back focus unless the nearest object is a couple of hundred metres away. The comment posted about bokeh reminded me.

phoebus · 08-09-2018, 02:26 AM

The DA*200 is pretty sharp across the frame, especially stopped down a bit. I really like it on the K1, but it can suffer from purple fringing with bright edges just outside the focussed zone. I really like the bokeh it produces - nice smooth transitions. Another option you might want to try is one of the macros. I have a Sigma 105 f2.8 and that is really sharp, but no AW and screw drive focus.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

**twilhelm** · 08-09-2018, 04:58 AM

If you want a long lens for the K-1, you really can't go wrong with the DA*200. Longer lenses are better for isolation, but the DA*200 is great edge to edge, yes, there is a little purple fringing to deal with now and then, but it's easy to correct. When I pack a K-1 kit, my DA*200 always has a place in the bag.

noelpolar · 08-09-2018, 05:22 AM - **7 Likes**

Whilst I can't comment on the 200.... I quite enjoy using long lenses to see scapie things with. However, for me, I reckon a modern zoom in that range would be more useful then just a fixed 200..... lots of things I see are across water, or some light breaks through and hits a tree etc.... fleeting moments that some flexability in reach or framing is advantagous for. The new DFA 70-200 could be worth 12 months more saving for..... (I hike with the DFA 150-450)

450mm

150mm

200mm

450mm

---------- Post added 09-08-18 at 10:38 PM ----------

Also FWIW.... my Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS HSM does a pretty good job.

**AstroDave** · 08-09-2018, 09:37 AM

noelpolar:

Love that 200mm shot!!!!!

---------- Post added 08-09-18 at 09:38 AM ----------

noelpolar:

Love that 200mm shot!!!!!

**UncleVanya** · 08-09-2018, 09:46 AM

Another dark horse to consider is the FA* 80-200. I haven't shot it on digital other than crop, but on crop, it was the equal of my DA* in every way and bested it by not purple fringing in high contrast situations that the DA* was unable to handle without the aberrations showing up.

**mirocal** · 08-09-2018, 10:46 AM

DA* 200/2.8 is a lightsome light pipe!
I got one together with K-1 just because I was out of options for a light tele lens that wouldn't burden me too much while climbing and hiking. There's still no such decent animal in Pentax line: the DFA 70-200/2.8 is ridiculously heavy and there's no signs of a light, sharp and weather sealed 70-200/4 at the horizon. The DA* 200/2.8 grew quickly on me and is now one of my favourite lenses, ranging from landscape to portraits, and supplements in backpack the FA 28-105/3.5-5.6 or FA 20-35/4 (another glaring hole in Pentax foundation!).

View Picture EXIF

Name: IMGP3937.jpg
Views: 381
Size: 174.6 KB

**UncleVanya** · 08-09-2018, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Another dark horse to consider is the FA* 80-200. I haven't shot it on digital other than crop, but on crop, it was the equal of my DA* in every way and bested it by not purple fringing in high contrast situations that the DA* was unable to handle without the aberrations showing up.

I forgot to mention it is a bit lighter than the DFA 70-200. But it is quite pricey - at least for a good one.

**StiffLegged** · 08-09-2018, 12:49 PM

Of course you can use a 200mm for landscape and panoramas, and if you don't want it then I might! Here's a panorama of a rare cloud inversion in Death Valley last winter. The photographer is offering prints at 60"x20" (should you feel inclined) and it was shot on an 80-200mm zoom.

Thomas Heaton | Landscape, Travel & Outdoor Photography

**BarryE** · 08-09-2018, 02:29 PM

Having used and sold a fair few 135mm on K3, for me the DA200 on FF is an obvious choice. For some reason I haven't bought one. I can't fathom why really. I mostly use primes. Maybe because it is a little large for me and there's the reported PF. Plus I do have 135 mm on K3. But I constantly come back to considering buying the 200mm. Maybe someday soon as this FL is great for isolating subjects & minimalist shots.

08-08-2018, 11:08 PM	#1
Focusrite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 206	*DA200 f2.8 for landscape - any experiences?** Hello all! I'm continuing to love using my K-1 for landscape, but I've always typically used the wider end of my lens selection for what I do. I'd be fibbing if I claimed to be either proficient or a big fan of telephoto landscape shots, but I am warming to the idea of using a longer focal length and am seeing more situations where I might use one. The DA200 f2.8 is on my radar, and there is a reasonably good deal on one locally that I'm considering. My typical kit is pretty much the D-FA 28-105, the three Samyang Ultra-Wide primes, and a few other primes tossed in along the way within the limits of the 28-105. I have found the upper limit on the 28-105 on a few occasions, especially if I want to do a panorama with a longer focal length. I do have an older Sigma APO 70-200 f2.8 ( which I picked up for peanuts as a fungus victim ), but its level of sharpness kinda disappoints me ( possibly a result of the subsequent repairs ) as well as when you change the focal point the focal length seems to slightly change as well ( the 28-105 seems to do this as well; do all zooms suffer with this? ) - this makes focus stacking harder with my limited skill-set. Hence, I'm considering getting a prime instead. I am curious as to how sharp the DA200 is across the frame on the K-1 ( not on a crop body! ), and whether anyone else has used it more or less exclusively for landscape work and enjoyed the experience and results. My expectation is that it should be excellent. I'm also considering a FA 135mm ( if I can find one in good condition for a reasonable price ). I have considered the D-FA 70-200, however the entry price gives me pause as does the weight ( I hike a lot ) and potential for focal shift. For me, sharpness may not be the be-all-end-all, but it is very important. Any info, advice, alternative suggestions, or experiences would be appreciated, and feel free to post examples if you wish! And if anyone has found themselves drifting from using wide angle to nearly exclusive use of telephoto lenses for landscape, I'd be interested in that as well.

08-09-2018, 02:18 AM	#6
jawsy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 422	The issue you run into is environmental. If you're after conventional landscape perspectives the length is too long. You end up with an image that whilst technically able to be sharp, isn't because your landscape details are affected by atmospheric haze, etc because you're further away. As Billk suggests though, if your game is 'landscape details', then go for it. ... and don't forget you won't achieve front to back focus unless the nearest object is a couple of hundred metres away. The comment posted about bokeh reminded me. Last edited by jawsy; 08-09-2018 at 02:33 AM.

08-09-2018, 05:22 AM - 7 Likes	#9
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	Whilst I can't comment on the 200.... I quite enjoy using long lenses to see scapie things with. However, for me, I reckon a modern zoom in that range would be more useful then just a fixed 200..... lots of things I see are across water, or some light breaks through and hits a tree etc.... fleeting moments that some flexability in reach or framing is advantagous for. The new DFA 70-200 could be worth 12 months more saving for..... (I hike with the DFA 150-450) 450mm 150mm 200mm 450mm ---------- Post added 09-08-18 at 10:38 PM ---------- Also FWIW.... my Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS HSM does a pretty good job. Last edited by noelpolar; 08-09-2018 at 05:30 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SMC Tak 35mm f3.5 on K-5 ... any experiences?	Jean Poitiers	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-31-2012 09:25 AM
K-r black vs. red body - any experiences?	Guest	Pentax K-r	4	01-08-2011 11:15 AM
Carry-on camera gear for US bound flights - any experiences?	SF1	Travel, Events, and Groups	4	03-05-2010 07:03 PM
Sigma430EF - any experiences	axl	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	2	08-19-2009 03:36 PM
Any experiences with new DA L 18-55?	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	12-08-2008 04:46 PM

08-08-2018, 11:36 PM - 1 Like	#2
LennyBloke Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Worcestershire, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 677	Traditionally a 200mm would be considered a bit long for Landscapes, but IMO you can use any lens for any subject if it works for you. I have a DA200 that I am more than happy to use on the K1 and it is a real pleasure - I wouldn't say I take many Landscapes with it but there are some occasions where it is very useful to have in the bag, this mini set on Flickr DA 200mm F2.8 \| Flickr was taken at a local food market a few months ago - i think it shows how well it performs on full frame. Here's one of my favourites... You've listed most of the reasons for and against getting one - the flexibility of a 70-200ish zoom, the weight, etc. - but my attitude nowadays is to try every lens I fancy. That way you'll either find yourself a "keeper" or if it doesn't suit then just sell it on

08-08-2018, 11:46 PM - 1 Like	#3
Medex Pentaxian Join Date: May 2013 Location: Vilnius Posts: 1,020	Originally posted by Focusrite Hello all! I'm continuing to love using my K-1 for landscape, but I've always typically used the wider end of my lens selection for what I do. I'd be fibbing if I claimed to be either proficient or a big fan of telephoto landscape shots, but I am warming to the idea of using a longer focal length and am seeing more situations where I might use one. The DA200 f2.8 is on my radar, and there is a reasonably good deal on one locally that I'm considering. My typical kit is pretty much the D-FA 28-105, the three Samyang Ultra-Wide primes, and a few other primes tossed in along the way within the limits of the 28-105. I have found the upper limit on the 28-105 on a few occasions, especially if I want to do a panorama with a longer focal length. I do have an older Sigma APO 70-200 f2.8 ( which I picked up for peanuts as a fungus victim ), but its level of sharpness kinda disappoints me ( possibly a result of the subsequent repairs ) as well as when you change the focal point the focal length seems to slightly change as well ( the 28-105 seems to do this as well; do all zooms suffer with this? ) - this makes focus stacking harder with my limited skill-set. Hence, I'm considering getting a prime instead. I am curious as to how sharp the DA200 is across the frame on the K-1 ( not on a crop body! ), and whether anyone else has used it more or less exclusively for landscape work and enjoyed the experience and results. My expectation is that it should be excellent. I'm also considering a FA 135mm ( if I can find one in good condition for a reasonable price ). I have considered the D-FA 70-200, however the entry price gives me pause as does the weight ( I hike a lot ) and potential for focal shift. For me, sharpness may not be the be-all-end-all, but it is very important. Any info, advice, alternative suggestions, or experiences would be appreciated, and feel free to post examples if you wish! And if anyone has found themselves drifting from using wide angle to nearly exclusive use of telephoto lenses for landscape, I'd be interested in that as well. I tried 141/1.9 projection lens at f3.2 for bokehrama type landscape. You can see it here: Belmontas Garden Pano by Medex G - Photo 269282713 / 500px 99 stitched frames, captured with Pentax K-1, a little cropped in postprocess. About 115 grade field of view. If the reason you want to make gigapixel panoramas is printing on the wall (selling your work), then it is worth the time needed for postprocessing. You should use very capable PC too. The very similar scene in infrared mode, captured with Pentax K-5 and Pentax 15-30/2.8 at 30 mm: 49 frames as I rememeber. Belmontas Pano infrared by Medex G - Photo 269283619 / 500px The only reason for me to shoot telephoto landscape panoramas is smaller DOF and blur effect in foreground and background.

08-09-2018, 12:18 AM	#4
othar Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Linz Photos: Albums Posts: 3,098	Originally posted by Focusrite I do have an older Sigma APO 70-200 f2.8 ( which I picked up for peanuts as a fungus victim ), but its level of sharpness kinda disappoints me ( possibly a result of the subsequent repairs ) as well as when you change the focal point the focal length seems to slightly change as well ( the 28-105 seems to do this as well; do all zooms suffer with this? ) - this makes focus stacking harder with my limited skill-set. Hence, I'm considering getting a prime instead. I am curious as to how sharp the DA200 is across the frame on the K-1 ( not on a crop body! ), and whether anyone else has used it more or less exclusively for landscape work and enjoyed the experience and results. My expectation is that it should be excellent. I'm also considering a FA 135mm ( if I can find one in good condition for a reasonable price ). What you are experiencing with your Sigma lens is focus breathing and it also can happen with prime lenses. The focal lenght is determined when the lens is set to infinity, when you focus closer the focal lenght usually gets shorter too. I think internal focusing lenses are more prone to this behavior than lenses that extend external when focused, on the other hand is WR easier with IF lenses. When I am mountaineering I usually take my Cosina Cosinon-T 3.5/135mm lens with me as my longest lens (I use a K-3 so this would be in the ballpark of the 200mm in your case). For landscapes per se this lens is usually too long for my needs but that depends on the area you are and your intended subjects. I use it mostly to photograph chamois or other animals on the way (for those occasions this lens is on the short end, but it's also a compromise with size and weight of the lens and the 3.5/135 is small enough to get a permanent spot in the backpack) and when I am hiking in a group I like this lens for taking pictures of the others because with the longer reach I get more natural pictures and not the usuall smiling into the camera. Of course it helps when you are one of the faster hikers in the group for those pictures. Last edited by othar; 08-09-2018 at 12:27 AM.*

08-09-2018, 01:58 AM - 1 Like	#5
Billk Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Posts: 349	I have found my DA200mm F2.8 more useful since moving to the K1. I think it is great for landscape details, still life and head-and-should portraits.. One of our (Australia's ) great landscape photographers, Peter Dombrovskis, moved towards landscape details later in his career. Check out his work. If you like it, I think you will like shooting with the K1/ DA200mm combo.

08-09-2018, 04:58 AM	#8
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	If you want a long lens for the K-1, you really can't go wrong with the DA200. Longer lenses are better for isolation, but the DA200 is great edge to edge, yes, there is a little purple fringing to deal with now and then, but it's easy to correct. When I pack a K-1 kit, my DA*200 always has a place in the bag.

08-09-2018, 09:37 AM	#10
AstroDave Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Flagstaff, Arizona Posts: 1,637	noelpolar: Love that 200mm shot!!!!! ---------- Post added 08-09-18 at 09:38 AM ---------- noelpolar: Love that 200mm shot!!!!!

08-09-2018, 09:46 AM	#11
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,400	Another dark horse to consider is the FA* 80-200. I haven't shot it on digital other than crop, but on crop, it was the equal of my DA* in every way and bested it by not purple fringing in high contrast situations that the DA* was unable to handle without the aberrations showing up.

08-09-2018, 10:48 AM	#13
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,400	Originally posted by UncleVanya Another dark horse to consider is the FA* 80-200. I haven't shot it on digital other than crop, but on crop, it was the equal of my DA* in every way and bested it by not purple fringing in high contrast situations that the DA* was unable to handle without the aberrations showing up. I forgot to mention it is a bit lighter than the DFA 70-200. But it is quite pricey - at least for a good one.

08-09-2018, 12:49 PM	#14
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,616	Of course you can use a 200mm for landscape and panoramas, and if you don't want it then I might! Here's a panorama of a rare cloud inversion in Death Valley last winter. The photographer is offering prints at 60"x20" (should you feel inclined) and it was shot on an 80-200mm zoom. Thomas Heaton \| Landscape, Travel & Outdoor Photography

08-09-2018, 02:29 PM	#15
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653	Having used and sold a fair few 135mm on K3, for me the DA200 on FF is an obvious choice. For some reason I haven't bought one. I can't fathom why really. I mostly use primes. Maybe because it is a little large for me and there's the reported PF. Plus I do have 135 mm on K3. But I constantly come back to considering buying the 200mm. Maybe someday soon as this FL is great for isolating subjects & minimalist shots.