[Just1MoreDave]

...Having a look now and it seems the A 200/4 is probably what I am after, it's more or less a K200/4 with the A setting which makes it a bit more flexible for me in a shoot. I can jump straight into f5.6 like I do with the K yet be in Av mode and perhaps have better contrast and colours due to coating. Hopefully a copy won't be too expensive to come by...

The A200/4 has a little mystery to it. The lens data says it's different than the M, 6 elements in 6 groups instead of 5 groups for the M. The minimum focus distance is 1.9m, vs. 2.0m for the M. User comments suggest the K is good, the M is OK, and the A is some degree better, but nowhere near as common. The M and A versions have more aperture blades than the K and are smaller and lighter.

I'd love to see a detailed test quantifying the exact differences. For me, I know the K is too big, M or K are not as easy to use, I saw the A at a good price ($75 US) and bought it. If they were all on a shelf in front of me, I'd only use the A because of size, weight and function. I see nothing wrong with the images so I suspect the detailed comparison would show one of them is 10% sharper wide open than the rest and that all goes out the window when I miss focus.

If you sell the K200/4, an A200/4 shouldn't be that much more. Tell everyone the K is 10% sharper.

Edit: To give a slightly more informed opinion, I put the lens on a K-30 and happened to stumble on this hawk about 10 feet/3m away. I had enough time to switch to f8, focus and take two shots. I don't think the focus is quite right and shutter is 1/45 so it's a long way from perfect, but fun anyway.

---

Last edited by Just1MoreDave; 09-11-2019 at 12:41 PM.

[BruceBanner]

You should seriously consider the Rokinon 135/2. It is so good even wide open that it is hard to believe and is actually an A lens, easy to use and focus.

Yes. I had the Samyang 85/1.4 and it produced a shot that saw me gain a submission into the Pentaxian Yearbook. Good glass indeed. My only issue is at 85 and 135 these are (future proofing here) 'portrait' lenses and thus with how I work I will need AF at these ranges as I often shoot that kind of flow with off camera flash handheld. I think @Sandy's recommendation for the FA 135 makes better sense, even if the IQ is a little lower, because the additional benefits of flash work overall will produce better images for me. I think $499 is quite a lot for MF glass as well, and I know now from experience nailing 1.4 with a 85 is bloody tricky, so I'm guessing the same could be said for the f2 and 135.
Really my purpose with a 200 is more natural light (too far for flash now), and not 'real' work (might snap kangaroos and the like with it etc, not proper portrait work etc).

I traded a M200 f4 for an A200 f4, and that was a big step forward.
Optically, it seems a little better, though it's close enough to be well within the bounds of sample variation.
And while usable, it isn't great wide open...

The TAv possibilities are nice, as is P-TTL flash.
Put those together with a Raynox closeup adapter, and it does some really cool macro work...


I paid less than US$100 for mine, shipped from Japan.

-Eric

Thanks for the info.

SMC Pentax-A 70-210mm F4.

Funny you should mention this one as one is selling on Gumtree for $150AUD nearby. How does this compare with the A200 I wonder? What I'm reading is you (once again) need to get into f5.6-8 at a minimum to produce shots worth taking, making low light work pretty much out of the question. I'm now scratching my head as to just keep saving for a 2.8 of some sorts...

The A200/4 has a little mystery to it. The lens data says it's different than the M, 6 elements in 6 groups instead of 5 groups for the M. The minimum focus distance is 1.9m, vs. 2.0m for the M. User comments suggest the K is good, the M is OK, and the A is some degree better, but nowhere near as common. The M and A versions have more aperture blades than the K and are smaller and lighter.

I'd love to see a detailed test quantifying the exact differences. For me, I know the K is too big, M or K are not as easy to use, I saw the A at a good price ($75 US) and bought it. If they were all on a shelf in front of me, I'd only use the A because of size, weight and function. I see nothing wrong with the images so I suspect the detailed comparison would show one of them is 10% sharper wide open than the rest and that all goes out the window when I miss focus.

If you sell the K200/4, an A200/4 shouldn't be that much more. Tell everyone the K is 10% sharper.

Edit: To give a slightly more informed opinion, I put the lens on a K-30 and happened to stumble on this hawk about 10 feet/3m away. I had enough time to switch to f8, focus and take two shots. I don't think the focus is quite right and shutter is 1/45 so it's a long way from perfect, but fun anyway.

Thanks for that. I just have to mull some things over, perhaps save some more $$ for something faster. I wouldn't mind a A setting f2.8 lens that performs poorly wide open but once stopped down to 3.5 or 4 it performs excellently, in this regard I would be happy with something that could be used in Av mode and I would just ignore the wider open apertures indefinitely.

---------- Post added 09-12-19 at 07:04 AM ----------

For what it's worth, I have the A* 200/2.8 and the A* 300/4. I really like the 200. The 300 isn't bad, but the 200 is really sharp. Nice lens. Might be worth looking for a copy.

The A * 200 does look good, however I cannot understand its pricing when a DA* 200 has all the bells and whistles and effectively is similar priced... I guess it's a status thing, to own an older A setting * rated lens?

Have you tried using Exposure compensation at +2 or so to "trick" AV mode? It should work decently (I have used it with my M 135/3.5 to shoot AV at 5.6 and I was laughing like a mad scientist discovering a new superweapon) but I would check that the compensation values don't change because of stop-down non-linearity.

I'm kinda confused by this! I've never tried, I mean I typically have my exposure compensation at some value in Manual or Av mode, but I never thought that shifting it to something else would somehow make the aperture actually change for the shot?! Huh... that's bizarre.

[ZombieArmy]

My next 135 is likely to be the Samyang 135 f2 if/when I get the money. It's inexpensive, sharper than any pentax 135 in the entire lineup and has the A setting you desire.

Plus it'd really suit your style of portraiture photography.

[Serkevan]

I'm kinda confused by this! I've never tried, I mean I typically have my exposure compensation at some value in Manual or Av mode, but I never thought that shifting it to something else would somehow make the aperture actually change for the shot?! Huh... that's bizarre.

Scratch that, I just double checked and the aperture doesn't change at all... I was probably just overexposing when I tried it . I'll edit my previous post. Gosh, am I embarrassed.

[D1N0]

need to get into f5.6-8

This was shot at F4