[Pentaxor]

ok guys. I already read the review about this lens on this site, so please dont direct me to the lens review section. lol.

what I want to know is the experiences of the people here who have this particular lens and some sample shots if they could provide one. I dunno but it seems like this lens is a better performer than a 300mm. and much cheaper too. what are your thoughts?

[Marc Sabatella]

It's definitely cheaper, unless of course you happen to lucky on a 300mm. Some really like the M200/4. I'm ambivalent - as I probably alluded to in my review (at least, I think I posted one). It's good, but not obviously better overall than my 50-200. I seem to have a good copy of the latter, though. It's main advantage over the 50-200 is the extra stop of speed and the much nicer MF ring. It also plays better with my cheap Kenko 1.5 TC, but not well enough to actually make me think of that as a much better option than simply cropping, or using my Tamron-made 70-300, or even my new Vivitar 500/8 mirror. I rather doubt you'd actually find it much improvement at all over your 55-300 except for the MF ring. Although comparing it to the 55-300 rather than the 50-200, it at least stops looking unnecessarily big and heavy, as it's actually perhaps a bit smaller and lighter.

Anyhow, hey, for $60 or whatever it goes for, why not?

[Pentaxor]

It's definitely cheaper, unless of course you happen to lucky on a 300mm. Some really like the M200/4. I'm ambivalent - as I probably alluded to in my review (at least, I think I posted one). It's good, but not obviously better overall than my 50-200. I seem to have a good copy of the latter, though. It's main advantage over the 50-200 is the extra stop of speed and the much nicer MF ring. It also plays better with my cheap Kenko 1.5 TC, but not well enough to actually make me think of that as a much better option than simply cropping, or using my Tamron-made 70-300, or even my new Vivitar 500/8 mirror. I rather doubt you'd actually find it much improvement at all over your 55-300 except for the MF ring. Although comparing it to the 55-300 rather than the 50-200, it at least stops looking unnecessarily big and heavy, as it's actually perhaps a bit smaller and lighter.

Anyhow, hey, for $60 or whatever it goes for, why not?

thanks, I might just probably stick up to my 55-300 then. and if all goes well at 300, I might consider getting an AF 1.4 TC. though I'm quite uncertain as to the result of that combo because it's not a prime telephoto. so how does your Tammy 70-300 + 1.5 TC perform at 300? did you get the IQ you were looking for but at the expense of speed? I think it's not ideal for action photography at 300, am I right?

[Marc Sabatella]

I have almost never tried the 70-300 with the TC. I suppose I should, just to see. But given that neither the 50-200 nor M200/4 do better with the TC than cropping, plus you lose a stop, I've ceased to be that interested. Only advantage to the TC is that by making the viewfinder image larger, it can make manual focusing easier.

[jsherman999]

Unlinke Marc, I wasn't ever able to match the 200 f/4 with my 50-200 - the 200 f/4 was always a tad sharper with better bokeh. That was in my K100DS days, though, so I wasn't able to try AF adjustment on the 50-200.

Here's the 200 f/4 with the Tamron 1.4x TC, at f/4 or f/5.6:







Some other shots from the 200 f/4:

[Marc Sabatella]

Unlinke Marc, I wasn't ever able to match the 200 f/4 with my 50-200 - the 200 f/4 was always a tad sharper with better bokeh. That was in my K100DS days, though, so I wasn't able to try AF adjustment on the 50-200.

FWIW, I usually do these sort of tests using MF on both lenses, to remove that variable from the equation. My M200/4 vs DA50-200 tests would all have been on the (10MP) K200D, and viewing at 100%, I just don't see the sort of difference I expected to see. It's probably the closest match of any prime versus zoom comparison I've tried (looking at a couple different 28's, the DA40, a couple different 50's, the M100/2.8, and a couple of different 135's, versus both 18-55's, the 50-200 and Tamron 70-300 non-Di). Actually, the off-brand 28 was also not much obviously better than the 18-55 II.

But again, my 50-200 seems unusually good, in that I find cropping the 50-200 yields results close as as good as the Tamron 70-300 set anywhere in the 200-300 range, and my 50-200 also totally blows away the 18-55 at the 50-55 end. Also, I tend to not see some very subtle differences that others might see as more significant. I'm not shooting resolution test charts but real world objects to see how they deal with texture (veins on leaves, feathers on birds, fur on mammals, etc.). So I have no trouble believing that others would find things like more about the M200/4 when compared to the DA50-200.

Still, I'd be surprised if the M200/4 were much better than *anyone's* copy of the DA55-300.

[GeneV]

The M 200/4 is certainly lighter than the zooms other than the DA 50-200, if that makes any difference. I find it snappier than the 50-200, but I'm pretty happy with that little zoom, as well.

[Just1MoreDave]

I sort of replaced my M200/4 with this Vivitar, which appears to be better and ought to be cheaper:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/52678-pentax-2...omparison.html

A 200mm prime is not really a convenient size. I tend to bring the Pentax-F 70-210mm f4-5.6 on trips. It's still heavy but not very large, sharper than the M200/4, opens to f4.5 at 170mm if you really need to trade focal length for a half-stop.

[EsBee]

I bought my copy from Jay, one of my early manual lenses. Loved the sharpness when I got it right. Didn't keep it for too long and sold it on an impulse (just like how I do buying on impulse also) along with a few other excellent manual primies and regretted it, especially now that I have a manual-assist focus screen in my camera.

[Pentaxor]

that s surely as sharp. I need to atleast replicate that kind of sharpness with the 55-300.