HD PENTAX-D FA ★ 70-200mm F2.8 at 5th February?

**woodywesty** · 06-19-2015, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan

Yeah, but what's its F Stop?

f 2.8 ;-)

**gaweidert** · 06-19-2015, 03:07 PM

I'm wonder if the problem may be related to problems that have occurred with the 150-450 lens zoom jamming.

Cannikin · 06-19-2015, 03:17 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by deus ursus

According to the above, the lens' focal length isn't 70-200 millimeters, but 70-200 megameters.

200 megameters (200,000 km) is more than halfway to the moon. You could do some lunar surface macro photography from the comfort of your own home.

Zygonyx · 06-23-2015, 01:37 PM

with K-S1 @ISO4000 1/250s f/2.8

D1N0 · 06-23-2015, 01:44 PM

what has "girl texting" to do with anything?

Zygonyx · 06-23-2015, 01:49 PM - **1 Like**

I hope this lens will come out with better sharpness at the long end.
This is pre-production sample, however not only noise can explain this softness.

At a closer range it looks better though :

Quicksand · 06-23-2015, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

I hope this lens will come out with better sharpness at the long end.
This is pre-production sample, however not only noise can explain this softness.

Wow, that's remarkably hazy and flat -- could processing be to blame? Unfortunately the pic is marked as private in flickr so I can't zoom in to see how sharpness looks at a closer level.

The plant photo looks OK though. Still perhaps not that contrasty.

**Pål Jensen** · 06-23-2015, 02:45 PM

Whats in focus (not much) seem sharp enough to me. The rest is soft due to lack of DOF.

reh321 · 06-23-2015, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

I hope this lens will come out with better sharpness at the long end.
This is pre-production sample, however not only noise can explain this softness.

The problem with linking to Flickr is that we lose EXIF data.
What settings did you use? (shutter speed & aperture)

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Whats in focus (not much) seem sharp enough to me. The rest is soft due to lack of DOF.

I agree 100%!

FantasticMrFox · 06-23-2015, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by reh321

The problem with linking to Flickr is that we lose EXIF data.

That's an issue with either the image itself or his personal settings though, Flickr does show extensive EXIF as a standard.

D1N0 · 06-23-2015, 03:51 PM

flickr only shows exif in the original size pics. With other sizes it can only be viewed on flickr. These samples don't tell me very much. ISO 4000 will detract from sharpness and colour rendering and close-ups always look OK.

**Weevil** · 06-25-2015, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

I hope this lens will come out with better sharpness at the long end.
This is pre-production sample, however not only noise can explain this softness.

At a closer range it looks better though :

Can we se other test shots ? This lens is not intended to do macro shots...
How did you hade the opportunity to test the pre-production version ?

**mwilky55** · 06-25-2015, 03:29 PM

It will be interesting to see how successful this lens will be. For my part, I consider this range/aperture zoom an essential in a well equipped kit. I've desired the FA*80-200, but ended up with the Tokina Pro at about a 1/3 of the cost and would have been happy with the Sigma/Tamron counterpart at about 1/2 the cost. Both the Tokina and Tamron are FF capable.

Still, this lens will be tempting, even at twice the cost of the FA*, because it is:
- modern
- essential
- weather resistant.

Plus, by the time I have the money, maybe it will be a $1500 "legacy" lens

.

Scintilla · 06-25-2015, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by angus

Anyway, I posted some sample photos in a German forum and you can find them here Kleines UT Foto+Adventure in Duisburg - m. Bilder 70-200/2.8 • Pentaxians. The ones with the 70-200/2.8 are ## 10 and 15-18.

I scrolled to the photo I thought was #10, and my immediate reaction was "holy crap that bridge looks good!"

... then I took another look at how the captions were arranged relative to the photos and realized that that was #11, taken with a 645Z...

-- something to the "MF look" after all?

mee · 06-25-2015, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by mwilky55

It will be interesting to see how successful this lens will be. For my part, I consider this range/aperture zoom an essential in a well equipped kit. I've desired the FA*80-200, but ended up with the Tokina Pro at about a 1/3 of the cost and would have been happy with the Sigma/Tamron counterpart at about 1/2 the cost. Both the Tokina and Tamron are FF capable.

Still, this lens will be tempting, even at twice the cost of the FA*, because it is:
- modern
- essential
- weather resistant.

Plus, by the time I have the money, maybe it will be a $1500 "legacy" lens

.

haha I am thinking the same for me.

This year I just bought the DA* 16-50 f/2.8 and DA* 50-135 f/2.8 (at super low bargain prices) which were top of the line way back in 2007. So perhaps in another 7-8 years I can pick up this shiny 'new' lens.

The sad thing is, I could sell all 10 of my lenses and my 2 APS-C bodies and I could buy this one lens... that's it. hahahaha

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR & DA* 200mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM	jurysi	Sold Items	11	09-17-2012 05:27 PM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM vs Pentax FA* 80-200mm F2.8?	vectrln	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-27-2011 07:41 AM
★★NOW IN STOCK★★Pentax K-5 Limited Edition★★	Chuck-B&H	Ask B&H Photo!	11	03-31-2011 05:29 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma APO EX 70-200mm/f2.8, Pentax FA 35mm/f2, Tamron 28-75mm/f2.8	chemxaj	Sold Items	15	06-26-2008 06:58 PM

06-19-2015, 04:44 AM	#1156
woodywesty Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Northern Wisconsin Posts: 725	Originally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Yeah, but what's its F Stop? f 2.8 ;-)

06-19-2015, 03:07 PM	#1157
gaweidert Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,325	I'm wonder if the problem may be related to problems that have occurred with the 150-450 lens zoom jamming.

06-19-2015, 03:17 PM - 1 Like	#1158
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by deus ursus According to the above, the lens' focal length isn't 70-200 millimeters, but 70-200 megameters. 200 megameters (200,000 km) is more than halfway to the moon. You could do some lunar surface macro photography from the comfort of your own home.

06-23-2015, 01:37 PM	#1159
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	with K-S1 @ISO4000 1/250s f/2.8

06-23-2015, 01:44 PM	#1160
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	what has "girl texting" to do with anything?

06-23-2015, 01:49 PM - 1 Like	#1161
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	I hope this lens will come out with better sharpness at the long end. This is pre-production sample, however not only noise can explain this softness. At a closer range it looks better though :

06-23-2015, 02:44 PM	#1162
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by Zygonyx I hope this lens will come out with better sharpness at the long end. This is pre-production sample, however not only noise can explain this softness. Wow, that's remarkably hazy and flat -- could processing be to blame? Unfortunately the pic is marked as private in flickr so I can't zoom in to see how sharpness looks at a closer level. The plant photo looks OK though. Still perhaps not that contrasty.

06-23-2015, 02:45 PM	#1163
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Whats in focus (not much) seem sharp enough to me. The rest is soft due to lack of DOF.

06-23-2015, 03:17 PM	#1164
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by Zygonyx I hope this lens will come out with better sharpness at the long end. This is pre-production sample, however not only noise can explain this softness. The problem with linking to Flickr is that we lose EXIF data. What settings did you use? (shutter speed & aperture) Originally posted by Pål Jensen Whats in focus (not much) seem sharp enough to me. The rest is soft due to lack of DOF. I agree 100%!

06-23-2015, 03:31 PM	#1165
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by reh321 The problem with linking to Flickr is that we lose EXIF data. That's an issue with either the image itself or his personal settings though, Flickr does show extensive EXIF as a standard.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2015, 03:51 PM	#1166
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	flickr only shows exif in the original size pics. With other sizes it can only be viewed on flickr. These samples don't tell me very much. ISO 4000 will detract from sharpness and colour rendering and close-ups always look OK.

06-25-2015, 02:47 PM	#1167
Weevil Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Near Montréal, Québec Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Originally posted by Zygonyx I hope this lens will come out with better sharpness at the long end. This is pre-production sample, however not only noise can explain this softness. At a closer range it looks better though : Can we se other test shots ? This lens is not intended to do macro shots... How did you hade the opportunity to test the pre-production version ?

06-25-2015, 03:29 PM	#1168
mwilky55 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Southeastern Connecticut Photos: Albums Posts: 816	It will be interesting to see how successful this lens will be. For my part, I consider this range/aperture zoom an essential in a well equipped kit. I've desired the FA80-200, but ended up with the Tokina Pro at about a 1/3 of the cost and would have been happy with the Sigma/Tamron counterpart at about 1/2 the cost. Both the Tokina and Tamron are FF capable. Still, this lens will be tempting, even at twice the cost of the FA, because it is: - modern - essential - weather resistant. Plus, by the time I have the money, maybe it will be a $1500 "legacy" lens .

06-25-2015, 07:48 PM	#1169
Scintilla Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 347	Originally posted by angus Anyway, I posted some sample photos in a German forum and you can find them here Kleines UT Foto+Adventure in Duisburg - m. Bilder 70-200/2.8 • Pentaxians. The ones with the 70-200/2.8 are ## 10 and 15-18. I scrolled to the photo I thought was #10, and my immediate reaction was "holy crap that bridge looks good!" ... then I took another look at how the captions were arranged relative to the photos and realized that that was #11, taken with a 645Z... -- something to the "MF look" after all?

06-25-2015, 08:04 PM	#1170
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by mwilky55 It will be interesting to see how successful this lens will be. For my part, I consider this range/aperture zoom an essential in a well equipped kit. I've desired the FA80-200, but ended up with the Tokina Pro at about a 1/3 of the cost and would have been happy with the Sigma/Tamron counterpart at about 1/2 the cost. Both the Tokina and Tamron are FF capable. Still, this lens will be tempting, even at twice the cost of the FA, because it is: - modern - essential - weather resistant. Plus, by the time I have the money, maybe it will be a $1500 "legacy" lens . haha I am thinking the same for me. This year I just bought the DA* 16-50 f/2.8 and DA* 50-135 f/2.8 (at super low bargain prices) which were top of the line way back in 2007. So perhaps in another 7-8 years I can pick up this shiny 'new' lens. The sad thing is, I could sell all 10 of my lenses and my 2 APS-C bodies and I could buy this one lens... that's it. hahahaha