[Mistral75]

They did when they came with the 300/4 (from the 300/4.5) I believe.

Indeed: minimum focusing distance went down from 2m to 1.4m and maximum magnification went up from 0.17x to 0.24x.

[timautin]

OK, I though that the 200 was as good as the 300!

[pid]

I love my DA*200 :-) ... sharp wide open and butter smooth bokeh

[Caat]

Indeed: minimum focusing distance went down from 2m to 1.4m and maximum magnification went up from 0.17x to 0.24x.

Yes, I understand that as a result the DA 300 is quite a good butterfly lens. High enough magnification but a very long (relative to a macro lens) working distance.

[Venom3300]

Well DA* 200 and 300 are basically film lenses base on FA* 200 and 300 so they have limited optical quality compare to canon and nikon. Well they are way cheaper than Canon and nikon and still have great optical quality.

Actually the pentax 300/4 is a little sharper lens than the canon 300/4 L IS. And nearly as good as the original 300/2.8 L. Check DXO

Actually the pentax 300/4 is a little sharper lens than the canon 300/4 L IS. And nearly as good as the original 300/2.8 L. Check DXO

I don't even trust DXO. Did you even used those lenses in real life?

[thibs]

The DA300 is NOT old FA300.
DA300 is f/4, FA300 is f/4.5

DA200 though = FA200 (if maybe a small tweak).

[Venom3300]

I don't even trust DXO. Did you even used those lenses in real life?

Just because you dont trust it doesnt maoe it wrong. Do you honestpy think pentax has the time or money to pay them off to write favorable reports? DXO has no interest in making sure pentax does well. They do scientific tests and report the findings.

If we were talking subjective qualities such as rendering then yes, dxo is useless sense there is no way to measure that kind of thing. But in terms of quantifiable optics, the DA* 300 keeps up with the big guns.

I use to shoot canon. Still love a lot of canon ergonomics and lenses. Ive shot L lenses. Im not a pentax fanboy though i do enjoy pentax products also.

Also you will notice that pentax routiney offers large discounts on lenses... the new D-FA* 150-450 has recieved great reviews about anywhere you look, yet you can now run across discounts of several hundred dollars dispite it being relatively new. Same for the D-FA* 70-200/2.8. New, great optics, already at a discount.

A lot of it is supply and demand. Pentax is a small brand with much lower demand for expensive optics and they have to discount to make sales.

Sorry but you sound like a forum warrior. Looking for some hair to split on optical quality... move on- the DA* 300 is not your lens.

[timautin]

Just because you dont trust it doesnt maoe it wrong. Do you honestpy think pentax has the time or money to pay them off to write favorable reports? DXO has no interest in making sure pentax does well. They do scientific tests and report the findings.

If we were talking subjective qualities such as rendering then yes, dxo is useless sense there is no way to measure that kind of thing. But in terms of quantifiable optics, the DA* 300 keeps up with the big guns.

I use to shoot canon. Still love a lot of canon ergonomics and lenses. Ive shot L lenses. Im not a pentax fanboy though i do enjoy pentax products also.

Also you will notice that pentax routiney offers large discounts on lenses... the new D-FA* 150-450 has recieved great reviews about anywhere you look, yet you can now run across discounts of several hundred dollars dispite it being relatively new. Same for the D-FA* 70-200/2.8. New, great optics, already at a discount.

A lot of it is supply and demand. Pentax is a small brand with much lower demand for expensive optics and they have to discount to make sales.

Sorry but you sound like a forum warrior. Looking for some hair to split on optical quality... move on- the DA* 300 is not your lens.

I'd like to add that I own the DA* 300 and used it a lot (now I'm using the 150-450 ). I shared a lot of pictures on forums, and saw a lot of pictures taken by the canikon 300, and it's absolutely impossible to tell which lens took which picture.
I think that if you want to compare the 300s, you have to compare something else than optics (size, weight, price, AF speed...).

Last thing, despite the lot of complains about the DA* 300 AF speed, I find it perfectly fine, even for BIFs, even on the K5, even with the 1.4 TC attached :

Just because you dont trust it doesnt maoe it wrong. Do you honestpy think pentax has the time or money to pay them off to write favorable reports? DXO has no interest in making sure pentax does well. They do scientific tests and report the findings.

If we were talking subjective qualities such as rendering then yes, dxo is useless sense there is no way to measure that kind of thing. But in terms of quantifiable optics, the DA* 300 keeps up with the big guns.

I use to shoot canon. Still love a lot of canon ergonomics and lenses. Ive shot L lenses. Im not a pentax fanboy though i do enjoy pentax products also.

Also you will notice that pentax routiney offers large discounts on lenses... the new D-FA* 150-450 has recieved great reviews about anywhere you look, yet you can now run across discounts of several hundred dollars dispite it being relatively new. Same for the D-FA* 70-200/2.8. New, great optics, already at a discount.

A lot of it is supply and demand. Pentax is a small brand with much lower demand for expensive optics and they have to discount to make sales.

Sorry but you sound like a forum warrior. Looking for some hair to split on optical quality... move on- the DA* 300 is not your lens.

Scientific test doesn't mean better. They can't even test any Fuji mirrorless camera because they can't test those with scientific tests. I'm talking about 300 not other lenses.

[MJSfoto1956]

They can't even test any Fuji mirrorless camera because they can't test those with scientific tests.

Whatever you say. Fuji sensors don't use Bayer arrays. DxO would have to re-engineer their whole business from the ground up to satisfy Fuji users. Perhaps if Fuji and Foveon become the majority sensors in the world DxO would have no choice in the matter. For now, the "bayer bet" has been a reasonable one given how the industry has evolved.

On a related topic: I don't understand the outright hostility to DxO here on this forum -- in general I find this forum to be one of the best on the web. But there are a few individuals that seem to relish their unelected position as "Master Slayer of all things DxO". Frankly, I find it tedious and unproductive to waste all this energy in DxO bashing.

Michael

[monochrome]

Whatever you say. Fuji sensors don't use Bayer arrays. DxO would have to re-engineer their whole business from the ground up to satisfy Fuji users. Perhaps if Fuji and Foveon become the majority sensors in the world DxO would have no choice in the matter. For now, the "bayer bet" has been a reasonable one given how the industry has evolved.

On a related topic: I don't understand the outright hostility to DxO here on this forum -- in general I find this forum to be one of the best on the web. But there are a few individuals that seem to relish their unelected position as "Master Slayer of all things DxO". Frankly, I find it tedious and unproductive to waste all this energy in DxO bashing.

Michael

i think even disinterested members as such as I fail to understand things like bothering to test 645z, then refusing to publish the result, then removing the inadvertently revealed data from a comparison table showing it beat a favored FF camera, and simply refusing to respond to questions about the whole thing. If I'm wrong, please reply . . .

I'm not convinced there isn't a dirty secret, but I don't care either way.

[D1N0]

Scientific test doesn't mean better.

You know what doesn't mean better. Canon L. It's just marketing.

[timautin]

i think even disinterested members as such as I fail to understand things like bothering to test 645z, then refusing to publish the result, then removing the inadvertently revealed data from a comparison table showing it beat a favored FF camera, and simply refusing to respond to questions about the whole thing. If I'm wrong, please reply . . .

I'm not convinced there isn't a dirty secret, but I don't care either way.

And maybe also because:
- their last Pentax lens review was 3 years ago...
- they don't test the super resolution modes (pixel shift) of concurrent bodies, while they does for theirs

I find DxO a useful tool, but sure for a Pentax user it's quite frustrating. They seems to need a competitor.

Edit: I just check for other brands. They reviewed 6 Canon lenses in 2014, 1 in 2015. 4 Nikon lenses in 2014, 0 in 2015. Maybe they are concentrating on their smartphone division?

[kenspo]

As i've said before, DxO and real life use, doesn't match up most of the time.