Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-13-2009, 07:56 AM   #16
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
But those 200/2 photos are amazing. .
it is not only lens - camera, light and decent post processing (faces).

07-13-2009, 07:59 AM   #17
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
Canon 200/2 is USD5100...
07-13-2009, 08:09 AM   #18
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
Well for APS-C, we just need to petition the folks at Pentax Japan to introduce an updated version of the 135mm f/1.8 that's weather sealed and have lightning fast AF.
If Pentax really had a 200mm f/2, you would be hard pressed to shoot full length portraits on APS-C because you're have to be quite a distance from the subject with the narrowed field of view.
07-13-2009, 08:19 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Canon 200/2 is USD5100...
Used, it's $3000 or so (same w/ Nikon) because there are a lot of Canikon users who trade up the latest and greatest
Once in a while, I see these 200/2 lovefest threads on other forums and can't help myself but drool

I'm surprised Pentax hasn't released a DA 135/1.8 though. Seems to be one of the few missing portrait primes...

07-13-2009, 08:32 AM   #20
Veteran Member
geauxpez's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,197
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
If Pentax really had a 200mm f/2, you would be hard pressed to shoot full length portraits on APS-C because you're have to be quite a distance from the subject with the narrowed field of view.
That would be my issue. Even with my 90mm/2.8 it seems like I have to keep backing up.
07-13-2009, 01:35 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
My solution to the problem:

Tamron SP Adaptall-2 180mm F/2.5 LD-IF Model 63B

As above - it's not made of plastic. It's also a very sharp and contrasty lens.
07-13-2009, 03:10 PM   #22
Veteran Member
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 754
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Canon 200/2 is USD5100...
Nikon 200mmF2 is just $4900. I am not confused And Pentax Da200mm is $1k
07-13-2009, 08:51 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 818
My FA* 85mm suits me just fine when I need creamy bokeh and a 3d look. And it didn't set me back $5000. Not that I wouldn't love a 200mm f2, I could just never justify the cost.

07-13-2009, 09:02 PM   #24
Veteran Member
arpaagent's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 777
QuoteOriginally posted by deejjjaaaa Quote
it is not only lens - camera, light and decent post processing (faces).
Agreed. Obviously he used off-camera diffused lighting here, and exposed the subject slightly above the background, so hence the "pop". Actually I think it sort of removes the subject from the environment...since he is basically lit separate from the rest of the world. Still looks good thought. Also he is pushing the exposure of the eyes 1 or 2 stops here, to give the faces even more vibrancy.

Believe me, the lens is hardly doing all the work here...but it does help to have that sharpness wide open in combination with the blur. I sure hope that the 1Ds can focus accurately (I don't doubt it for a $5k ? camera).

Although, to put something straight, a 200/2 lens might make portraits a little too easy, once you get your lighting working out right. Don't have to worry about small details in the background mudding up your photo, since they are blown to oblivion in the bokeh. But I guess that leaves the photog to worry about other details such as model poses & subject lighting.

-Jim
07-14-2009, 09:23 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 484
Some of these pop a little too much, I think, it just looks unrealistic. I can get this look with a bit of selective sharpening and blurring. It has obviously been post processed quite a bit, too. Just look at the eyes on the guy with the hat, post #7.
07-14-2009, 02:06 PM   #26
Veteran Member
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 754
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote

And sorry, Daniel. The 200/2's photos are way better than what you posted. The subjects do an almost 3D "pop" off the background (like some of the stuff you see off the 43Ltd or 77Ltd when something just works right). It's a fairly common effect from a 200/2 (similar for the Canon/Nikon variants) from the images I've seen.

Hmm it would be difficult to challenge what pops out and what not. Also difficult to say which pops a little too much.

Here is a bunch of Nikon 200/2 shots. Why I quote these is because at that time I took the same with F50mmF1.7




Here are those from Nikon 200/2







Nikon 200/2




Nikon 200/2















Here is one from F50mmF1.7 I think I paid around $100 for the lens and the Nikon 200/2 happens to be around $4900

















Daniel
07-14-2009, 06:15 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by danielchtong Quote
Hmm it would be difficult to challenge what pops out and what not. Also difficult to say which pops a little too much.
Here is a bunch of Nikon 200/2 shots. Why I quote these is because at that time I took the same with F50mmF1.7
The first 200/2 image is excellent (much more 3D pop than your 50/1.7). The 2nd and 3rd have too shallow DOF...like the guy was playing w/ it wide open w/o being far enough away. The 200/2 pops more if you do full body shots from far enough away (not indoors).

As for the "pops", it's just like what we've seen from some of the 43ltd shots as I mentioned. It's that combo of in focus foreground and OOF background that makes your subject almost look 3D in what's really a 2D medium. I was trying to find the 43Ltd thread on DPR that I saw a flower that really looked like it popped out of the screen.

The first image in this thread is an example w/ the 77Ltd:
Limiteds: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

The first image in this other thread is an example of the 300/4 on a 645:
Re: is that 3D or what?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
07-14-2009, 06:30 PM   #28
AM2
Forum Member
AM2's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 87
QuoteOriginally posted by danielchtong Quote
Not really . I tend to disagree. Pentax can mount a challenge anytime. You have to remember at a FL of 200mm the DoF is very little indeed even for F8.

Daniel, Toronto
I tend to further disagree. You are comparing close-up head & shoulder portraits to a half body portrait, in horizontal format, which means there's lots of room on the sides. Please try a half body horizontal potrait in front of backlit bushes and trees at 200/2.8, won't be too far off in terms of blur, but it certainly won't be nearly as smooth as your head & shoulder portraits.
07-14-2009, 06:46 PM   #29
Veteran Member
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 754
QuoteOriginally posted by AM2 Quote
You are comparing close-up head & shoulder portraits to a half body portrait, in horizontal format, which means there's lots of room on the sides. Please try a half body horizontal potrait in front of backlit bushes and trees at 200/2.8, won't be too far off in terms of blur, but it certainly won't be nearly as smooth as your head & shoulder portraits.


Likely these fit partly the criteria (half body) you mentioned

200mm/F2.8 Pentax


200mm/F2.8 Pentax











200mm/2 of Canon as shown in Page 1













Daniel

Last edited by danielchtong; 07-14-2009 at 07:09 PM.
07-14-2009, 07:06 PM   #30
Veteran Member
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 754
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
If Pentax really had a 200mm f/2, you would be hard pressed to shoot full length portraits on APS-C because you're have to be quite a distance from the subject with the narrowed field of view.
For full length at 200mm you literally need to be 40 ft away
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dear Pentax anomaly Photographic Industry and Professionals 1300 11-04-2016 07:04 PM
Misc Oh dear, oh dear, oh deer... Rense Post Your Photos! 5 11-05-2010 07:41 PM
dear pentax please be more careful anepo Photographic Technique 2 06-08-2010 11:43 AM
dear Pentax....... nathancombs Post Your Photos! 5 01-04-2008 11:17 PM
My Dear, Dear Friends: Don't Do This. Mike Cash Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 54 12-07-2007 11:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:49 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top