200 mm lens for a K-1

wanderer2 · 07-24-2019, 06:58 PM

I would like to add a Pentax 200 mm lens to the lens kit of primes I am putting together for my K-1. The price of most of the versions is a problem, unfortunately. However, the A 200mm F4 is very low priced. In the reviews on this forum it's general score is much lower than the two A 200mm F2.8 versions but upon reading the individual reviews quite a number of the reviewers praise the image quality of the F4 quite highly.

If anyone who has had experience with the A F4 and one or both of the A F2.8 versions could give a comparison of these lenses I would be appreciative. My use is largely for landscapes on a tripod so sharpness wide open isn't important but sharpness stopped down is. Thanks for any advice.

arnold · 07-24-2019, 07:40 PM

You could do a lot worse than the Pentax 70-210 A zoom. Sunshine Coast Airport. The picture below was taken hand held.

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Jetstar Departs Sunshine Coast Airport, just below horizon. Plane is 6 direct miles away.

May 2012 (210mm Pentax A F4 Zoom f5@1/600@ISO160) Hand Held Pentax K5...IMGP2195.

**stevebrot** · 07-24-2019, 10:38 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by arnold

You could do a lot worse than the Pentax 70-210 A zoom.

My thoughts as well. I own both the Pentax-A 70-210/4.0 zoom and the Pentax-M 200/4.0 (optically the same as the A 200/4.0) and while both offer great value, it is the A 70-210 that has turned out to be the true gem.

From the Pentax-A 70-210/4.0

Balancing Act

From Within The Blind

The Goat Without The Mountain

From the Pentax-M 200/4.0

Red Tailed in the Morning

A Painterly Effect

Steve

Darkover · 07-24-2019, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by wanderer2

I would like to add a Pentax 200 mm lens to the lens kit of primes I am

I have the 200F4, 200F2.5 and also old 80-200 4-5.6(?)

The 200/4 is good. It is sharp and it has good color/contrast. If F4 is enought and manuel focus is okay, I can recomend it. I think I bought mine for 25Euro. I see it often on fleamarket for 50Euro in these day.
The lens is much better than the 80-200!

Olaf

Wheatfield · 07-24-2019, 10:57 PM - **1 Like**

I'm a big fan of the FA* 200/4 Macro, but they are quite rare.
The bokeh can be a bit harsh at normal picture taking distances, but it can't be beat at macro.
I also have an M200/4 which is decent, and an old Tokina 80-200/2.8, a pre A series lens that is remarkably good.

**TwoUptons** · 07-25-2019, 09:18 AM - **1 Like**

I have the A200 f4. It replaced the M version. I’ve also had several of the slower 80-200/70-210 lenses over the years.

My copy of the A200 is a tiny bit better than my copy of the M200 was, plus it is much easier to deal with when using flash because of the A contacts. I use it a lot with a Raynox for macro.

In terms of image quality, I’ve had no complaints about sharpness. There is a little purple fringing wide open, but very little once stopped down. Colors are nice, too.

Optically, it is better than any of the zooms I’ve had, though the F70-210 at 200mm f5.6 is close to the A200 at f4. The prime is noticeably better at f5.6...

-Eric

**SSGGeezer** · 07-25-2019, 10:15 AM

like the A 200 F/4 also, but since I picked up a FA* 80-200 about a week ago, it is unlikely to find much use anymore. If I am looking to go lightweight, I go for the PLM on my KP.

**SteveinSLC** · 07-25-2019, 10:17 AM

I have the very old Takumar 200/3.5. It's heavy, manual focus, and requires the screw mount adapter.

But if you can find a good copy, it's comparatively cheap, very sharp and has nice bokeh.

**pepperberry farm** · 07-25-2019, 02:55 PM - **1 Like**

I can wholeheartedly recommend the A200/4: great color, clarity, and lovely bokeh...

**monochrome** · 07-25-2019, 04:15 PM

I have the K200/4, K200/2.5 and FA*200/2.8. While none of these directly applies to your question these comments may be helpful:

The f/4 lenses are surprisingly sharp for their cost, and thus can be a good value at current prices but a challenge to focus on modern viewfinders
The faster lenses offer significantly more light for manual focusing, but manageIng the very narrow depth of field at wide apertures can be a chore on modern viewfinders
In my case, the FA*200/2.8 is a great compromise between the two points above when manually focused on film cameras, so the A200/2.8 might be worth considering.

northcoastgreg · 07-25-2019, 04:27 PM

I have the K 200 f4 which, allegedly, is said to be a little sharper and contrastier than the M/A 200 f4 (often the case when comparing K and M lenses of identical focal range and aperture). Whether true or not, the K series lens is heavier, and probably better built (build quality on the lens is off the charts) than the M/A variants.

The K 200 f4 is a reasonably sharp lens, especially at f8-16; but that said, it's not as sharp as my other K series primes (28/3.5, 35/3.5, 50/1.2) at comparable apertures. Nor is it as sharp as my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or DA 55-300 PLM. It is a little sharper, however, than the aforementioned A 70-210 f4.

**TerryL** · 07-25-2019, 04:35 PM

The DA 200 is a fine lens, and officially full frame compatible.

**WPRESTO** · 07-25-2019, 05:15 PM

I think that the general opinion of the 200mm f4 SMCA is that it is a decent/good lens when stopped to the f5.6~f11 range. The ancient screw-mount, preset 200mm f5.6 has a somewhat better reputation for IQ, and the current 200mm f2.8 is pretty much everyone's pick for a quality 200mm prime in K-mount. HOWEVER, outside of prime lenses, Tamron's 70~200 f2.8 is really good for it's price, and probably as good or better than the 200mm f4 at equivalent apertures.

wanderer2 · 07-25-2019, 07:23 PM

Thanks to all for your helpful responses, i much appreciate them and your time and effort to reply.

**stevebrot** · 07-25-2019, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by WPRESTO

HOWEVER, outside of prime lenses, Tamron's 70~200 f2.8 is really good for it's price, and probably as good or better than the 200mm f4 at equivalent apertures.

Yes, that is a reasonable statement. What is a Tamron 70-200/2.8 Di LD Macro going for used nowadays?

Steve

(...~ $769 USD street price new, today...)

07-24-2019, 06:58 PM	#1
wanderer2 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 298	200 mm lens for a K-1 I would like to add a Pentax 200 mm lens to the lens kit of primes I am putting together for my K-1. The price of most of the versions is a problem, unfortunately. However, the A 200mm F4 is very low priced. In the reviews on this forum it's general score is much lower than the two A 200mm F2.8 versions but upon reading the individual reviews quite a number of the reviewers praise the image quality of the F4 quite highly. If anyone who has had experience with the A F4 and one or both of the A F2.8 versions could give a comparison of these lenses I would be appreciative. My use is largely for landscapes on a tripod so sharpness wide open isn't important but sharpness stopped down is. Thanks for any advice.

07-24-2019, 07:40 PM	#2
arnold Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,870	You could do a lot worse than the Pentax 70-210 A zoom. Sunshine Coast Airport. The picture below was taken hand held. [IMG][/IMG] Jetstar Departs Sunshine Coast Airport, just below horizon. Plane is 6 direct miles away. May 2012 (210mm Pentax A F4 Zoom f5@1/600@ISO160) Hand Held Pentax K5...IMGP2195.

07-24-2019, 10:38 PM - 1 Like	#3
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 39,225	Originally posted by arnold You could do a lot worse than the Pentax 70-210 A zoom. My thoughts as well. I own both the Pentax-A 70-210/4.0 zoom and the Pentax-M 200/4.0 (optically the same as the A 200/4.0) and while both offer great value, it is the A 70-210 that has turned out to be the true gem. From the Pentax-A 70-210/4.0 Balancing Act From Within The Blind The Goat Without The Mountain From the Pentax-M 200/4.0 Red Tailed in the Morning A Painterly Effect Steve

07-25-2019, 04:15 PM	#10
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,269	I have the K200/4, K200/2.5 and FA200/2.8. While none of these directly applies to your question these comments may be helpful: The f/4 lenses are surprisingly sharp for their cost, and thus can be a good value at current prices but a challenge to focus on modern viewfinders The faster lenses offer significantly more light for manual focusing, but manageIng the very narrow depth of field at wide apertures can be a chore on modern viewfinders In my case, the FA200/2.8 is a great compromise between the two points above when manually focused on film cameras, so the A200/2.8 might be worth considering.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
macro lens filter for my 18 - 50 mm lens or 50 - 200 mm lens?	inzova	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	09-28-2016 12:07 AM
For Sale - Sold: Brand New FA 31 mm, FA 77 mm, DA* 60-250 mm, DA* 300 mm	ppkkcao	Sold Items	14	11-02-2014 08:42 PM
Tokina 70-210 mm, 1:4-5.6 and Vivitar 28 mm 1:2.8 auto 049 mm. Worth getting for $30?	shaolin95	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-02-2009 07:22 AM
is my copy ok or??? 16-45's 45 mm vs 50-135 mm' s 50 mm	hll	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-20-2008 09:03 AM

07-24-2019, 10:50 PM	#4
Darkover Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 68	Originally posted by wanderer2 I would like to add a Pentax 200 mm lens to the lens kit of primes I am I have the 200F4, 200F2.5 and also old 80-200 4-5.6(?) The 200/4 is good. It is sharp and it has good color/contrast. If F4 is enought and manuel focus is okay, I can recomend it. I think I bought mine for 25Euro. I see it often on fleamarket for 50Euro in these day. The lens is much better than the 80-200! Olaf

07-24-2019, 10:57 PM - 1 Like	#5
Wheatfield Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 12,623	I'm a big fan of the FA* 200/4 Macro, but they are quite rare. The bokeh can be a bit harsh at normal picture taking distances, but it can't be beat at macro. I also have an M200/4 which is decent, and an old Tokina 80-200/2.8, a pre A series lens that is remarkably good.

07-25-2019, 09:18 AM - 1 Like	#6
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,445	I have the A200 f4. It replaced the M version. I’ve also had several of the slower 80-200/70-210 lenses over the years. My copy of the A200 is a tiny bit better than my copy of the M200 was, plus it is much easier to deal with when using flash because of the A contacts. I use it a lot with a Raynox for macro. In terms of image quality, I’ve had no complaints about sharpness. There is a little purple fringing wide open, but very little once stopped down. Colors are nice, too. Optically, it is better than any of the zooms I’ve had, though the F70-210 at 200mm f5.6 is close to the A200 at f4. The prime is noticeably better at f5.6... -Eric

07-25-2019, 10:15 AM	#7
SSGGeezer Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: Indiana, U.S. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,834	like the A 200 F/4 also, but since I picked up a FA* 80-200 about a week ago, it is unlikely to find much use anymore. If I am looking to go lightweight, I go for the PLM on my KP.

07-25-2019, 10:17 AM	#8
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 544	I have the very old Takumar 200/3.5. It's heavy, manual focus, and requires the screw mount adapter. But if you can find a good copy, it's comparatively cheap, very sharp and has nice bokeh.

07-25-2019, 02:55 PM - 1 Like	#9
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,429	I can wholeheartedly recommend the A200/4: great color, clarity, and lovely bokeh...

07-25-2019, 04:27 PM	#11
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,582	I have the K 200 f4 which, allegedly, is said to be a little sharper and contrastier than the M/A 200 f4 (often the case when comparing K and M lenses of identical focal range and aperture). Whether true or not, the K series lens is heavier, and probably better built (build quality on the lens is off the charts) than the M/A variants. The K 200 f4 is a reasonably sharp lens, especially at f8-16; but that said, it's not as sharp as my other K series primes (28/3.5, 35/3.5, 50/1.2) at comparable apertures. Nor is it as sharp as my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or DA 55-300 PLM. It is a little sharper, however, than the aforementioned A 70-210 f4.

07-25-2019, 04:35 PM	#12
TerryL Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 850	The DA 200 is a fine lens, and officially full frame compatible.

07-25-2019, 05:15 PM	#13
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 46,926	I think that the general opinion of the 200mm f4 SMCA is that it is a decent/good lens when stopped to the f5.6~f11 range. The ancient screw-mount, preset 200mm f5.6 has a somewhat better reputation for IQ, and the current 200mm f2.8 is pretty much everyone's pick for a quality 200mm prime in K-mount. HOWEVER, outside of prime lenses, Tamron's 70~200 f2.8 is really good for it's price, and probably as good or better than the 200mm f4 at equivalent apertures.

07-25-2019, 07:23 PM	#14
wanderer2 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 298 Original Poster	Thanks to all for your helpful responses, i much appreciate them and your time and effort to reply.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-25-2019, 09:34 PM	#15
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 39,225	Originally posted by WPRESTO HOWEVER, outside of prime lenses, Tamron's 70~200 f2.8 is really good for it's price, and probably as good or better than the 200mm f4 at equivalent apertures. Yes, that is a reasonable statement. What is a Tamron 70-200/2.8 Di LD Macro going for used nowadays? Steve (...~ $769 USD street price new, today...)