Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-17-2008, 02:15 AM   #1
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,214
Photozone test of the DA*200/2.8

here it is...
Pentax SMC DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report
enjoy...

02-17-2008, 02:54 AM   #2
and
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,471
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/20942-notice-p...00-2-8-up.html
02-17-2008, 03:51 AM   #3
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,214
Original Poster
ouch didn't see it ...
02-17-2008, 06:11 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.

02-17-2008, 08:54 AM   #5
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
Rice, don't write silly things...
Very good resolution, lense is FF (surprise), copy of FA*200, optically very good as FA*200,
the optical formula is the same as FA*200.
PF is not the problem at all. FA77 has more.
02-17-2008, 10:09 AM   #6
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
WHERE do you come up w/ this stuff

QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.
Any lens short of "perfection" has a design flaw...................
These two issues do probably originate in the rather old base design of the lens dating back to 1993. The mechanical quality of the lens is absolutely exceptional thanks to high quality materials and seals against dust and moisture. The new ultrasonic AF drive (SDM) works like a breeze - it's both fast and almost silent. All-in-all a quite sound offer although a comparatively expensive one.
02-17-2008, 10:37 AM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 126
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Rice, don't write silly things...
Very good resolution, lense is FF (surprise), copy of FA*200, optically very good as FA*200,
the optical formula is the same as FA*200.
PF is not the problem at all. FA77 has more.
If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?
02-17-2008, 10:52 AM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 126
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Any lens short of "perfection" has a design flaw...................
These two issues do probably originate in the rather old base design of the lens dating back to 1993. The mechanical quality of the lens is absolutely exceptional thanks to high quality materials and seals against dust and moisture. The new ultrasonic AF drive (SDM) works like a breeze - it's both fast and almost silent. All-in-all a quite sound offer although a comparatively expensive one.
The good news is that it is a full frame model (which means Pentax has not gone mad by converting all its lenses to the APS-C format). The bad news is that it is "comparatively expensive."

02-17-2008, 10:53 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 644
QuoteOriginally posted by Anastigmat Quote
If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?
The reason we waited is more likely a production issue than because of R&D. The 16-50 and 50-135 were more important to get to market first. I hope we will see a DA*11-16 in the next round and I suspect that is already through R&D as Tokina has theirs out already.

Mike.
02-17-2008, 11:24 AM   #10
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,214
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Anastigmat Quote
If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?
because there is no aperture ring they do not qualify as either FA or D-FA, would create one more designation?
02-17-2008, 04:30 PM   #11
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,337
FAJ? DFAJ? Or is Pentax trying to hide from those.
I agree they should differentiate between FF compatible lenses and FF incompatible lenses.
02-17-2008, 11:22 PM   #12
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.
A pity you can't join the "trash the DA200 feast" on DPR, you'd feel right at home...

The new DA*200/2.8 ED [IF] SDM reviewed ad PZ!: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

BTW, where are the 'slow SDM" complaints for this lens...? I thought it was a design issue?
02-17-2008, 11:59 PM   #13
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
Said that new sensor from K20D really makes lower PF with all lenses.
Even FA77 has 2 times lower PF on K20D. Although PF is not a problems at all.

As for rating figures of reviews...I hope that we are not robots or zombie to choose lens under
abstract figures of reviews. I find DA*200 is very good, not worse FA*200.
02-18-2008, 07:10 AM   #14
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
I have not experienced PF with my FA*200/2.8 in practice on film or digital. But my FA*24/2 & FA77/1.8 have some pronounce PF in some situations on film, and a better CMOS might not help (can't be better than film right?).
02-18-2008, 10:07 AM   #15
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
FAJ? DFAJ? Or is Pentax trying to hide from those.
I agree they should differentiate between FF compatible lenses and FF incompatible lenses.
Since it seems they plan to never produce a 24x36 sensor camera, it doesn't matter anymore.
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!
pentax news, pentax rumors, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC test on photozone asdf Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-26-2010 04:06 PM
Sigma 70-200 HSM Test Photos @ 200/2.8 and 5.6 joelovotti Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 11-09-2008 06:19 PM
DA* 200 2.8 informal test codiac2600 Pentax News and Rumors 1 02-24-2008 08:36 PM
Notice: Photozone has a review of the DA* 200 2.8 up. c.r.brown Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 02-17-2008 09:40 AM
FA 50 F/1.4 Test at PhotoZone XKimZe Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 04-20-2007 08:52 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 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