Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-04-2014, 05:32 PM   #1
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
looking for samples of M200 on Q

has anyone out there with an M200/4 shot samples on the Q. I am looking to see if i can get equal performance to my Series 1 70-210/3.5 (version 1) with something more compact and lighter.

the vivitar outperforms my M135/3.5 and seems to have less fringing also, but at about 1 kilo is a little big.

05-04-2014, 06:49 PM   #2
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,539
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
has anyone out there with an M200/4 shot samples on the Q. I am looking to see if i can get equal performance to my Series 1 70-210/3.5 (version 1) with something more compact and lighter.

the vivitar outperforms my M135/3.5 and seems to have less fringing also, but at about 1 kilo is a little big.
I did this test if it is of any use to you
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/256849-comparing-adapted-lenses-q-5.html
Post 63
05-05-2014, 04:00 AM   #3
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
Thanks. But no thanks. If this is the true performance, no where near either as sharp or as good(wrt CA/fringing) than the series 1.

It is odd though, because the fringing reduces greatly as you stop down with the M135
05-05-2014, 04:50 AM   #4
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,539
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Thanks. But no thanks. If this is the true performance, no where near either as sharp or as good(wrt CA/fringing) than the series 1.

It is odd though, because the fringing reduces greatly as you stop down with the M135
Remember that for some reason (presumably lighting or perhaps Q vs Q10) my images appear softer but if you examine the resolution the results are comparable to cahudsons results.(for example with the 110 50mm that we have both tested.)
I don,t feel the M 200 is too bad. It is just managing to resolve the 4group. Perhaps slightly better at f8 than f5.6
You should test your vivitar.

05-05-2014, 04:08 PM   #5
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Original Poster
I don't normally shoot targets



The m135 does not come close, and I have later shots with the vivitar that are even better. This is hand held
05-05-2014, 06:11 PM   #6
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,539
Ok then I guess it is a shoot out
I will see your budgie and raise with some butt ugly bulls!
The eye is a 100% crop
The horned bull is about a 50% crop of the sensor area.
Bonus points for shooting into the sun!!
M200/4 @ f8
Hand held
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
05-06-2014, 03:51 AM   #7
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Original Poster
Ok interesting. Are these with the pentax adaptor or third party? Also, Iyou have FL set to 200. I have found that best hand held results are with the focal length set shorter. Fr my M135 105mm produces better results. For the series 1 I find 170 is better. But the results are interesting enough to look perhaps for an M200.

P.s. The american goldfinch takes exception to being called a budgie
05-06-2014, 04:16 AM   #8
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,539
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Ok interesting. Are these with the pentax adaptor or third party? Also, Iyou have FL set to 200. I have found that best hand held results are with the focal length set shorter. Fr my M135 105mm produces better results. For the series 1 I find 170 is better. But the results are interesting enough to look perhaps for an M200.

P.s. The american goldfinch takes exception to being called a budgie
Umm the M200 is a prime -- fixed focal length.
When I look at the shutter speed (1/1250 ) for the first image I have realized the the adapters' aperture adjustment must have been holding the M lens wide open - otherwise it was exceeding the f16 rule. (it was not quite full sun)
So the above images are at f4 which is pretty impressive.
The adapters I use are aftermarket so without shutter.
These are at f8

Edit. One of the main disadvantages of this prime is the difficulty of finding the subject in the viewfinder. At least with a zoom you can start wide then pull it in.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
05-06-2014, 11:22 AM   #9
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
I have both the M42 SMC Takumar 200mm f4.0 and the Tele-Tak f5.6 preset. For the Q, I usually carry the 5.6 because it is very light and easy handling. However, if I were in the market for another Q 200mm, I'd probably try a 200mm f3.5 Vivitar Komine - based on its 135mm f2.8 sister's performance. (5 element early). And they are also pretty cheap on fleabay as well..

Maybe some useful info here on the PF 3rd Party Lens reviews: Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 Auto Telephoto m42 mount Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
05-06-2014, 02:17 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Original Poster
Just to qualify a little of where I am going with this.

I have at present the tele takumars 200/3.5 preset. , an SMC tak 200/4( optically same as the K200/4) and my series 1 70-210/3.5. The tak 200/3.5 is about the same size and weight as the series 1zoom, but a little more prone to fringing and CA than the series 1 lens which by all accounts is an excellent lens

The SMC tak optically is not as good, either for CA or sharpness than the tak 200/3.5. But all are big lenses,. I will trade the half stop of the series 1 zoom for a lot smaller and lighter which is why I am looking at the M200/4. It has also occurred to me I should look at the DA 55-200 just as a benchmark.
05-06-2014, 02:29 PM   #11
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
Well, I dug out my M42 SMCT 200 f4 and mounted it on a Q10 using the Fotodiox adapter. Immediately remembered why the 200 5.6 is in the bag instead. The 200 f4 is heavy. It feels very unbalanced on the Q. I can't see putting it on a tripod using the camera mount - and the Fotodiox v1 adapter (without the washer immediately behind the threads - which interferes slightly with the open-aperature square block-stop gizmo) does not have a tripod mount. So hand-held.by necessity.

Shot the nearest thing with any detail. Even at ISO 800 and 1/1250 you can see image distortion in the vertical shutters due to the 1/13 effect (I think) SR focal length set to 170mm. Everything wide-open at f4.

I used one of those cheap Nikon LCD-V5 loupes, held camera close in at eye level - still impossible to hand hold IMO. Lens is back off the Q - and again with my K-01......
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
05-06-2014, 03:00 PM   #12
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
Here is the Tele-Tak PS f5.6. Far easier to handle I would not be afraid to use the camera tripod mount with it. Plus it can use the Fotodiox with the washer and its own tripod mount.
Same loupe and shooting position. Even at twice the exposure I think there is less shake. IMO - a clearly better Q choice over the f4...

Both wide-open at 5.6. (And BTW - the shutters are really painted purple....)

Now to put the 110 50mm 2.8 with stop down - and walk up to the tree... (Not really - its the neighbors tree - 100 yards away at least. I'd be arrested as a peeping tom...)
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q10  Photo 

Last edited by cahudson42; 05-06-2014 at 03:13 PM.
05-06-2014, 04:04 PM   #13
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,539
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
It has also occurred to me I should look at the DA 55-200 just as a benchmark.
I think this would be a good choice.
QuoteOriginally posted by cahudson42 Quote
Even at ISO 800 and 1/1250 you can see image distortion in the vertical shutters due to the 1/13 effect (I think) SR focal length set to 170mm. Everything wide-open at f4.
Wow I have never noticed shutter distortion like this on a stationary subject. (But then I don't tend to shoot buildings etc)
I was just able to recreate this by winding up the iso to get the shutter speed really fast (+1/1000) and then by flailing the camera around I could bend lines.
You must have been shaking like hell ca

---------- Post added 05-07-14 at 11:32 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Also, Iyou have FL set to 200. I have found that best hand held results are with the focal length set shorter. Fr my M135 105mm produces better results
AAAhhhh just worked out what you mean-- naa I set the SR input to the lens FL-- I have noticed that people are varying it but there has been no emphatic result.
This is another use for your lens test image cahudson -- to get some objectivity here.
05-06-2014, 05:07 PM   #14
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 147
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
You must have been shaking like hell ca:.
Well, as you too get older... Anyway, the SMCT 200mm f4 I found a real beast to hand hold. The 5.6 - much less. The 200mm f4 was really imbalanced on Q for me..

FWIW - I still can do the 'loose distance scale' repair on the 2.0 and 1.8 Taks - with the little itty-bitty screws..
05-06-2014, 05:50 PM   #15
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,539
QuoteOriginally posted by cahudson42 Quote
Well, as you too get older... Anyway, the SMCT 200mm f4 I found a real beast to hand hold. The 5.6 - much less. The 200mm f4 was really imbalanced on Q for me..

FWIW - I still can do the 'loose distance scale' repair on the 2.0 and 1.8 Taks - with the little itty-bitty screws..
I use a pistol grip and the balance is sweet.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...thread-44.html
Post 654

---------- Post added 05-07-14 at 01:00 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by cahudson42 Quote
(Not really - its the neighbors tree - 100 yards away at least. I'd be arrested as a peeping tom..
Probably what you could see thru your neighbours window had you shaking
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!
200mm, camera, distortion, f4, iso, length, lens, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, post, q10, q7, results, samples, samples of m200, shutter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sammy 800/8 mirror lens on Q (Bower Rokinon Vivitar Opteca .. etc) any Samples ? digital029art Pentax Q 6 02-21-2013 03:00 PM
Does anyone has samples of Q with a macro lens? pinholecam Pentax Q 16 08-14-2012 07:46 AM
Looking for film samples from FAJ 18-35mm Swift1 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 21 05-17-2010 07:17 PM
50-135mm - looking for low light samples Duh_Vinci Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 04-15-2008 03:23 AM
Looking for da35macro image samples Levi Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 02-25-2008 11:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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