dear pentax: please make a 200mm/2 :-)

kenyee · 07-14-2009, 07:18 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

Originally posted by danielchtong

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

Not bad (looks nice), but still no 3D pop like the images I linked which had no real PP AFAIK.

I'm going to have to ask that guy w/ the 200/2 if he can upload the unprocessed images...

Some more images that pop from the Nikon 200/2 variant...pretty much everything on this page:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/792011
I rarely see that much pop even from the Limiteds because they don't blur the background as much...

Last edited by kenyee; 07-14-2009 at 07:37 PM.

Votesh · 07-14-2009, 10:13 PM

To blur the background more all you would have to do is place the subject further in front of it. It's not an effect that can only be achieved by a 200mm f2 lens. There are more pedestrian lenses that could produce similar images with a skilled photographer taking the photos.

ivoire · 07-14-2009, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by 2Thumbs

Hmmm, Takumar 135mm f/1.8's exist. Good luck finding one though, I've seen more teeth on hen's.

Those shot's are lovely, truely inspiring in my opinion. Wish I could afford the 1Ds MkIII he's using let alone the lens as well.

@RARE@ PENTAX A*(STAR) 135mm F1.8 fit K20D K10D 135/1.8 - eBay (item 120381694990 end time Jul-21-09 00:40:52 PDT)

kenyee · 07-15-2009, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Votesh

To blur the background more all you would have to do is place the subject further in front of it. It's not an effect that can only be achieved by a 200mm f2 lens. There are more pedestrian lenses that could produce similar images with a skilled photographer taking the photos.

It's the quality of blurring as well. Would you say the 31/43/77Ltd and 85/1.4 are just regular lenses or do they have a certain something that makes you look at some of their images and go wow because your 50/1.4 can't do that? I wasn't a believer until I got a 77Ltd and it seems to do a consistently higher level of wow pictures than my 50/1.4. Your wallet will be happier if you can't see a difference, just like high end audio

At any rate, I asked the guy for unprocessed pics and at least the first two look like they have extra pop that you don't see in a most other lenses. A bit of sharpening and they'd pop a lot more:
Senior Portraits with 200/2 wide open. - FM Forums

I'd be happy w/ a DA135/1.8 though

kthung · 07-15-2009, 10:58 PM

I too have drooled over such glass. There was a blog somewhere with pictures of this woman on train tracks taken with the canon 200/2 but I don't remember where it is. Anyways, I don't think the "pop" seen in those (excellent) examples on FM forums is from post processing but rather from the photographers use of lighting

**Kerrowdown** · 07-16-2009, 06:26 AM

Remember there is already is a SMC Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8 out there, that would do this job.

Oops sorry ivoire, just spotted your post, you beat me to it

farfisa · 07-16-2009, 08:36 AM

That smallville dude looks like he's against a fake backdrop to me. Sharp though!

Darren M · 07-16-2009, 09:20 AM

There are literally dozens of lenses Pentax needs more. Way too expensive and too much of a specialty piece to interest all that many. The photos you linked to were very good, but really the result of a good photographer and post processor more so than of a great lens. Too expensive, too big and it would cost Pentax too much money considering the very few people who would buy it.

Darren M · 07-16-2009, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by kenyee

Not bad (looks nice), but still no 3D pop like the images I linked which had no real PP AFAIK.

Lots of production on those; both preproduction due to his lighting and plenty done in post too. This is not an attack on the photos at all, but just pointing out the obvious.

Quote:

I'm going to have to ask that guy w/ the 200/2 if he can upload the unprocessed images...

I doubt he will.

Quote:

Some more images that pop from the Nikon 200/2 variant...pretty much everything on this page:
nikon 200. f2 vr. - FM Forums
I rarely see that much pop even from the Limiteds because they don't blur the background as much...

A mixed bag from that bunch. Some good photos, some duds. Again, you are giving the lenses way too much credit overall.

Votesh · 07-16-2009, 10:51 AM

I don't have a 50mm 1.4 anymore, but I do have the 2 85mm 1.4 pentax lenses and the FA 31 Ltd. I have plenty of pictures with the 85s that "pop" in a similar fashion as the ones you've shown, and I'm not even a pro, and I don't use off camera lighting. They may not be quite up to the level of the photos you're showing, but I'm just an amateur.

Granted, I'm sure the 200mm f2 lenses are great, but there are plenty of other gread lenses that can produce spectacular 3d images when used in the right way. When I said more pedestrian I just meant not costing nearly $5000 new. Even then, I've seen plenty of photos taken with fast 50s that have wowed me.

Originally posted by kenyee

It's the quality of blurring as well. Would you say the 31/43/77Ltd and 85/1.4 are just regular lenses or do they have a certain something that makes you look at some of their images and go wow because your 50/1.4 can't do that? I wasn't a believer until I got a 77Ltd and it seems to do a consistently higher level of wow pictures than my 50/1.4. Your wallet will be happier if you can't see a difference, just like high end audio

At any rate, I asked the guy for unprocessed pics and at least the first two look like they have extra pop that you don't see in a most other lenses. A bit of sharpening and they'd pop a lot more:
Senior Portraits with 200/2 wide open. - FM Forums

I'd be happy w/ a DA135/1.8 though

kenyee · 07-16-2009, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Darren M

Lots of production on those; both preproduction due to his lighting and plenty done in post too. This is not an attack on the photos at all, but just pointing out the obvious.
I doubt he will.

Ummm....look at my last post above

AM2 · 07-16-2009, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by danielchtong

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

Very nice, but as you said, they only fit half the criteria. :-)

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is bokeh depends on a dozen things, distance of the subject from the background, distance of the camera from the subject and camera orientation all affect it very much, not just the aperture, a 200mm f2.8 is not that far off from a 200mm F2 in terms of sheer blur capacity - especially not in the real world where customers won't ditch your images simply because the background is blurred about a stop less than the guy with the F2.

felix68 · 07-16-2009, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by kenyee

Ummm....look at my last post above

The photog claims that the second set were not PP but how does he get that vignetting without it? I doubt that the lens is vignetting that much and it really doesn't make sense to do that mechanically these days. Anyone have another explanation for this?
I know that this thread is about 3D pop but the vignetting is not hurting the focus on the subject at all.

designinme_1976 · 07-16-2009, 02:02 PM

Shot with my old Nikon before moving to Pentax with a COMPARABLY cheap Tamron 70-200...

I think POP... or 3D look has FAR more to do with lighting from the OP's Links than it does with lens choice.

kenyee · 07-16-2009, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by felix68

The photog claims that the second set were not PP but how does he get that vignetting without it?

Very true. He said straight out of Lightroom and that app does have some basic PP'ing it can do, including vignetting. That lens doesn't have vignetting.

Originally posted by designinme_1976

Shot with my old Nikon before moving to Pentax with a COMPARABLY cheap Tamron 70-200...
I think POP... or 3D look has FAR more to do with lighting from the OP's Links than it does with lens choice.

Not as much pop IMHO, but I get the point (not all the 200/2 images in that thread I linked pop either). As long as you'd agree that some lenses have a higher "pop" ratio, which is why some people like the 43Ltd and 77Ltd (and FA*85/1.4 which Pentax really should keep making because they're discontinuing the 77Ltd and the 55/1.8 doesn't cut it)-:

07-16-2009, 06:26 AM	#36
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,819	Remember there is already is a SMC Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8 out there, that would do this job. Oops sorry ivoire, just spotted your post, you beat me to it Last edited by Kerrowdown; 07-16-2009 at 06:32 AM.

07-16-2009, 01:51 PM	#43
felix68 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 281	He Claims Not Processed Originally posted by kenyee Ummm....look at my last post above The photog claims that the second set were not PP but how does he get that vignetting without it? I doubt that the lens is vignetting that much and it really doesn't make sense to do that mechanically these days. Anyone have another explanation for this? I know that this thread is about 3D pop but the vignetting is not hurting the focus on the subject at all.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dear Pentax	anomaly	Product Suggestions and Feedback	1343	1 Hour Ago 03:47 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

07-14-2009, 07:18 PM	#31
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026 Original Poster	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. Originally posted by danielchtong Likely these fit partly the criteria (half body) you mentioned Not bad (looks nice), but still no 3D pop like the images I linked which had no real PP AFAIK. I'm going to have to ask that guy w/ the 200/2 if he can upload the unprocessed images... Some more images that pop from the Nikon 200/2 variant...pretty much everything on this page: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/792011 I rarely see that much pop even from the Limiteds because they don't blur the background as much... Last edited by kenyee; 07-14-2009 at 07:37 PM.

07-14-2009, 10:13 PM	#32
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	To blur the background more all you would have to do is place the subject further in front of it. It's not an effect that can only be achieved by a 200mm f2 lens. There are more pedestrian lenses that could produce similar images with a skilled photographer taking the photos.

07-14-2009, 10:13 PM	#33
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	Originally posted by 2Thumbs Hmmm, Takumar 135mm f/1.8's exist. Good luck finding one though, I've seen more teeth on hen's. Those shot's are lovely, truely inspiring in my opinion. Wish I could afford the 1Ds MkIII he's using let alone the lens as well. @RARE@ PENTAX A*(STAR) 135mm F1.8 fit K20D K10D 135/1.8 - eBay (item 120381694990 end time Jul-21-09 00:40:52 PDT)

07-15-2009, 07:42 AM	#34
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026 Original Poster	Originally posted by Votesh To blur the background more all you would have to do is place the subject further in front of it. It's not an effect that can only be achieved by a 200mm f2 lens. There are more pedestrian lenses that could produce similar images with a skilled photographer taking the photos. It's the quality of blurring as well. Would you say the 31/43/77Ltd and 85/1.4 are just regular lenses or do they have a certain something that makes you look at some of their images and go wow because your 50/1.4 can't do that? I wasn't a believer until I got a 77Ltd and it seems to do a consistently higher level of wow pictures than my 50/1.4. Your wallet will be happier if you can't see a difference, just like high end audio At any rate, I asked the guy for unprocessed pics and at least the first two look like they have extra pop that you don't see in a most other lenses. A bit of sharpening and they'd pop a lot more: Senior Portraits with 200/2 wide open. - FM Forums I'd be happy w/ a DA135/1.8 though

07-15-2009, 10:58 PM	#35
kthung Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 359	I too have drooled over such glass. There was a blog somewhere with pictures of this woman on train tracks taken with the canon 200/2 but I don't remember where it is. Anyways, I don't think the "pop" seen in those (excellent) examples on FM forums is from post processing but rather from the photographers use of lighting

07-16-2009, 08:36 AM	#37
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	That smallville dude looks like he's against a fake backdrop to me. Sharp though!

07-16-2009, 09:20 AM	#38
Darren M Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Taipei, Taiwan Posts: 130	There are literally dozens of lenses Pentax needs more. Way too expensive and too much of a specialty piece to interest all that many. The photos you linked to were very good, but really the result of a good photographer and post processor more so than of a great lens. Too expensive, too big and it would cost Pentax too much money considering the very few people who would buy it.

07-16-2009, 09:26 AM	#39
Darren M Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Taipei, Taiwan Posts: 130	Originally posted by kenyee Not bad (looks nice), but still no 3D pop like the images I linked which had no real PP AFAIK. Lots of production on those; both preproduction due to his lighting and plenty done in post too. This is not an attack on the photos at all, but just pointing out the obvious. Quote: I'm going to have to ask that guy w/ the 200/2 if he can upload the unprocessed images... I doubt he will. Quote: Some more images that pop from the Nikon 200/2 variant...pretty much everything on this page: nikon 200. f2 vr. - FM Forums I rarely see that much pop even from the Limiteds because they don't blur the background as much... A mixed bag from that bunch. Some good photos, some duds. Again, you are giving the lenses way too much credit overall.

07-16-2009, 10:51 AM	#40
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	I don't have a 50mm 1.4 anymore, but I do have the 2 85mm 1.4 pentax lenses and the FA 31 Ltd. I have plenty of pictures with the 85s that "pop" in a similar fashion as the ones you've shown, and I'm not even a pro, and I don't use off camera lighting. They may not be quite up to the level of the photos you're showing, but I'm just an amateur. Granted, I'm sure the 200mm f2 lenses are great, but there are plenty of other gread lenses that can produce spectacular 3d images when used in the right way. When I said more pedestrian I just meant not costing nearly $5000 new. Even then, I've seen plenty of photos taken with fast 50s that have wowed me. Originally posted by kenyee It's the quality of blurring as well. Would you say the 31/43/77Ltd and 85/1.4 are just regular lenses or do they have a certain something that makes you look at some of their images and go wow because your 50/1.4 can't do that? I wasn't a believer until I got a 77Ltd and it seems to do a consistently higher level of wow pictures than my 50/1.4. Your wallet will be happier if you can't see a difference, just like high end audio At any rate, I asked the guy for unprocessed pics and at least the first two look like they have extra pop that you don't see in a most other lenses. A bit of sharpening and they'd pop a lot more: Senior Portraits with 200/2 wide open. - FM Forums I'd be happy w/ a DA135/1.8 though

07-16-2009, 11:53 AM	#41
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026 Original Poster	Originally posted by Darren M Lots of production on those; both preproduction due to his lighting and plenty done in post too. This is not an attack on the photos at all, but just pointing out the obvious. I doubt he will. Ummm....look at my last post above

07-16-2009, 01:46 PM	#42
AM2 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 87	Originally posted by danielchtong Likely these fit partly the criteria (half body) you mentioned Very nice, but as you said, they only fit half the criteria. :-) Anyway, all I'm trying to say is bokeh depends on a dozen things, distance of the subject from the background, distance of the camera from the subject and camera orientation all affect it very much, not just the aperture, a 200mm f2.8 is not that far off from a 200mm F2 in terms of sheer blur capacity - especially not in the real world where customers won't ditch your images simply because the background is blurred about a stop less than the guy with the F2.

07-16-2009, 02:02 PM	#44
designinme_1976 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Dayton Ohio Posts: 132	Shot with my old Nikon before moving to Pentax with a COMPARABLY cheap Tamron 70-200... I think POP... or 3D look has FAR more to do with lighting from the OP's Links than it does with lens choice.

07-16-2009, 06:31 PM	#45
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026 Original Poster	Originally posted by felix68 The photog claims that the second set were not PP but how does he get that vignetting without it? Very true. He said straight out of Lightroom and that app does have some basic PP'ing it can do, including vignetting. That lens doesn't have vignetting. Originally posted by designinme_1976 Shot with my old Nikon before moving to Pentax with a COMPARABLY cheap Tamron 70-200... I think POP... or 3D look has FAR more to do with lighting from the OP's Links than it does with lens choice. Not as much pop IMHO, but I get the point (not all the 200/2 images in that thread I linked pop either). As long as you'd agree that some lenses have a higher "pop" ratio, which is why some people like the 43Ltd and 77Ltd (and FA*85/1.4 which Pentax really should keep making because they're discontinuing the 77Ltd and the 55/1.8 doesn't cut it)-: