[Digitalis]

Incidentally, it must be totally mindblowing with the Q system.

The discrepancy in scale would look hilarious though..

[normhead]

Very interesting - I think I've heard some of this before, but I had no idea how dramatic the FL difference is at closer distances.

I'm guessing the FA*200/4 macro has no problem acting like a 200mm FL at 12'.

My dissertation on the subject is here...
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/242576-da-6...0-vs-a400.html

I'd love to have an FA*200 macro... but I'm guessing a DA*200 is what I'll end up with. 2.8 or faster is what I'm going for these days.

I really wonder though, I think the DA*300 is internal focusing, where as the DA*200 2.8 is an older deign, so it probably extends it's front element, when comparing images at 12 feet, I wonder whether the DA*300 suffers the DA*60-250 effect, while the DA*200 is more like the f 70-210.

Maybe I'll try and research that a little later, but without someone owning both lenses I'm not sure what the odds are of getting an answer.

[Wild Mark]

My dissertation on the subject is here...
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/242576-da-6...0-vs-a400.html

I'd love to have an FA*200 macro... but I'm guessing a DA*200 is what I'll end up with. 2.8 or faster is what I'm going for these days.

I really wonder though, I think the DA*300 is internal focusing, where as the DA*200 2.8 is an older deign, so it probably extends it's front element, when comparing images at 12 feet, I wonder whether the DA*300 suffers the DA*60-250 effect, while the DA*200 is more like the f 70-210.

Maybe I'll try and research that a little later, but without someone owning both lenses I'm not sure what the odds are of getting an answer.

With regards to speed, I suspect that f4 in the FA* 200mm macro will be a relatively mute point when high ISO performing FF sensors are freely available. I am betting, at some stage, that technology will allow for the regular use of ISO 800 plus without any noticeable degradation in IQ. Put another way, technology is not focusing on the glass anymore (already well researched), rather, it is focusing on the sensor ..... so perhaps speed is not all that important unless you are looking for special effects wide open or sharp performance a stop down or two in dwindling light.....

So, if I had the choice with the above in mind, I would always choose the FA* 200mm f4 macro over a faster thoroughbred. Unfortunately, my wallet and availability of the lens thwarts such imaginings .....

[normhead]

The k-3 is listed as focusing at -3 EV, on a 2.8 lens. I'm assuming -2 EV on an ƒ4 lens. The point being, from the spec I assume to take best advantage of the current focusing system, you need ƒ2.8. What may happen in the future is moot. I'm not getting rid of my DA*60-250 ƒ4.. but it's my opinion that if you shoot in low light, you need to have at least one ƒ2.8 lens in each area where it could be needed. I have a 35 2.4, a 50 1.8 and a 70 2.8, but nothing in the long end. I have been out first thing in the morning and had difficulty getting the AF to focus with the DA*60-250. Maybe it wouldn't have been any better with the DA* 200, but I find that unlikely, because of the ƒ2.8 rating of the AF system.

This image being a case in point. I never did achieve a focus lock. Full size this image is quite out of focus, and would be completely un-acceptable as a print.

[Wild Mark]

Good point norm re: AF - perhaps I have been working with manual too much lately to neglect such matters.

Your point is not lost on me. This is what motivated me to buy the FA* 80-200/2.8 and yes it does exactly what you are seeking - AFing well in low light. Perhaps you need a FA* 80-200/2.8

[normhead]

Good point norm re: AF - perhaps I have been working with manual too much lately to neglect such matters.

Your point is not lost on me. This is what motivated me to buy the FA* 80-200/2.8 and yes it does exactly what you are seeking - AFing well in low light. Perhaps you need a FA* 80-200/2.8

I've considered it, but I'm in reducing weight mode... I'm thinking the DA* 200 is about a pound lighter, any of the 70-200's would be the same approx.

[Stavri]

I used to loose so much sleep over the FA 200mm f4 that my doctor prescribed the Sigma 180mm f3.5. It's a great lens no doubt, but my sleep hasn't improved that much...