[shardulm]

please post unprocessed images if you have any. or please point me too an existing set. Been through the reviews and looks it got a bad rap for pf.

[Mikesul]

Normhead has posted many such shots. Do a search for his threads.

[shardulm]

Normhead has posted many such shots. Do a search for his threads.

Searched. Found some but they were using stacked TCs+200 and they were not on K-1.

Need sample of Da*200 on K-1.

Please post a result link if you find them.

[KiloHotelphoto]

Easiest way to see examples would probably just go to Flickr and search K-1 DA*200.

[Ole]

please post unprocessed images if you have any. or please point me too an existing set. Been through the reviews and looks it got a bad rap for pf.

Try the photo search here one the forum. There are 17 photos with the combo you're asking for.

[shardulm]

Try the photo search here one the forum. There are 17 photos with the combo you're asking for.

Thanks fir the pointer. Found exactly what I was looking for.
Now i am contemplating D-FA*70-200 vs DA*200.
Tabling the versatility, newness, hd coatings etc of the new lens..
need some one to shed some light on IQ vs weight/handling (shooting for 2 hours straight assuming that is the only lens you are shooting with on a k-1).

[normhead]

Thanks fir the pointer. Found exactly what I was looking for.
Now i am contemplating D-FA*70-200 vs DA*200.
Tabling the versatility, newness, hd coatings etc of the new lens..
need some one to shed some light on IQ vs weight/handling (shooting for 2 hours straight assuming that is the only lens you are shooting with on a k-1).

That depends on how strong your are. The DA*200 is quite manageable, the 70-200 is heavier. Are you going to be shooting only 200mm? Other wise the comparison is puzzling. With my 18-135, the 200 (on APS-c) and a couple TCs I have a complete "do everything" package. If you need to cover 70-200 then your question is answered.

On a K-1, 200mm just isn't very long. I use my 60-250 as a walk around lens on my K-1.

[Rondec]

Here is an image of my son with it.

" target="_blank">

You can see purple fringing on his glasses at 100 percent, it is pretty easy to fix in Lightroom. Norm is exactly right. The size difference between the DFA 70-200 and the DA *200 is pretty significant. The DFA 70-200 does have a lot less PF, is a little sharper wide open, focuses faster, and obviously is a zoom so it covers multiple focal lengths. On the other hand, the DA *200 is no slouch. It is pretty sharp wide open and is 2/3 the size of the DFA 70-200. I currently own both and will probably be selling the DA *200 as my wife shoots weddings and really likes the faster auto focus and we really don't need both lenses.

[joostdh]

You requested unprocessed images. I have placed some here (Dropbox - DA200) to look at. Developed with Lightroom with Huelight Standard profile and only some exposure (+0.85EV) added to the church tower and my daughter on the swing (+1.50EV). The photo of the cat has its white balance warmed (that floor always throws the WB off). Otherwise as is, at full resolution.

As is probably clear from these photos: I am very happy with the DA200 and its performance on the K-1. If you have the room, it’s great for portraits. Hope this helps.

These are the processed version of the photos:

1. Close focus.


2. At full resolution you can see birds flying around the tower.


3. Hard light is a challenge for this lens. I was probably shooting without hood, not sure if that would have helped.


4. Not perfect focus on the eyes but a wonderful shot of another of my daughters. As you can see: the aperture blades are not rounded.


5. Cat’s hairs are always nice to asses sharpness. This photo is a significant crop.

[normhead]

I took the DA*200 on my dog walk today just for you.... although I have to admit, I really don't care which lens I take on my dog walk.....













This isn't going to be an IQ decision... this is going to be a do I want a heavy expensive zoom that has faster AF, or a cheaper, lighter older prime with marginally passable AF. I'm not sure you can make this decision looking at images.

I'm not saying the 70-200 isn't better optically, the 200 is a DA* so it could not be a lot better. I'm just saying it isn't a given. It also isn't a given that you'll like it more, even if it is "test chart" optically better.

DA*200 and K-1 Slideshow here.

[shardulm]

You can see purple fringing on his glasses at 100 percent, it is pretty easy to fix in Lightroom. Norm is exactly right. The size difference between the DFA 70-200 and the DA *200 is pretty significant. The DFA 70-200 does have a lot less PF, is a little sharper wide open, focuses faster, and obviously is a zoom so it covers multiple focal lengths. On the other hand, the DA *200 is no slouch. It is pretty sharp wide open and is 2/3 the size of the DFA 70-200. I currently own both and will probably be selling the DA *200 as my wife shoots weddings and really likes the faster auto focus and we really don't need both lenses.

Not too much enough to worry about I am thinking. Nice background blur.

---------- Post added 11-16-16 at 10:26 AM ----------

You requested unprocessed images. I have placed some here (Dropbox - DA200) to look at. Developed with Lightroom with Huelight Standard profile and only some exposure (+0.85EV) added to the church tower and my daughter on the swing (+1.50EV). The photo of the cat has its white balance warmed (that floor always throws the WB off). Otherwise as is, at full resolution.

As is probably clear from these photos: I am very happy with the DA200 and its performance on the K-1. If you have the room, it’s great for portraits. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the comprehensive compositions. Nice pics especially the swing and the cat.

---------- Post added 11-16-16 at 10:29 AM ----------

I took the DA*200 on my dog walk today just for you.... although I have to admit, I really don't care which lens I take on my dog walk.....

I wholeheartedly appreciate it @normhead. I don't like squirrel pictures in general. That bird pic is exquisite though. Almost 3d for my slightly deteriorating eyes.

---------- Post added 11-16-16 at 10:36 AM ----------

Overall it looks like it produces great images but with consistent PF looks like (I am sure it can be cleaned up in the post very easily unless there are purple subjects in the picture),

Thank you all for the response. I was being offered the DA*200 for $600 used which is not being offered any more. I think I will have to wait and save up for the D-FA* 70-200 despite someone trashed it on Amazon for less than stated focal length (focus breathing just like the DA*60-250 I am imagining).

[normhead]

Overall it looks like it produces great images but with consistent PF looks like (I am sure it can be cleaned up in the post very easily unless there are purple subjects in the picture),

I've seen images published in photo magazines with PF. Personally I think people on the forum make way to much of an issue over it. MY wife looks for it, and it upsets her. I ignore it. Once at craft show, she pointed out the PF and CA in a fisheye landscape to a customer. He bought it anyway. He liked the image PF CA and all. Many images with both PF and CA are still excellent images.

I PP on a 27 inch monitor, and I doubt I see PF in 5% of my images. Every lens PFs, even heavily corrected modern designs like the 60-250. So you're looking at a difference of say PF in 2% of your images, where as the 200 PFs in maybe 5. So yes the 200 is more than twice as bad, but it's 2x a very small amount.

[cali92rs]

This is really a subjective thing.
For me, the only reasons to go with the 200mm is weight/size and cost. However, the 200mm is MUCH smaller and MUCH less expensive.

For me, 70-200mm is a very useful focal length. And the IQ is also better with the zoom. If you can afford it and can tolerate the size, i would choose the zoom.
If you can't, get the DA 200mm, which is still a fine lens and enjoy

One thing, if you have never handled a full frame 70-200mm, i would strongly suggest renting one for a week and shooting the heck out of it. Some people just do not enjoy handling a lens that large.

[shardulm]

This is really a subjective thing.
For me, the only reasons to go with the 200mm is weight/size and cost. However, the 200mm is MUCH smaller and MUCH less expensive.

For me, 70-200mm is a very useful focal length. And the IQ is also better with the zoom. If you can afford it and can tolerate the size, i would choose the zoom.
If you can't, get the DA 200mm, which is still a fine lens and enjoy

One thing, if you have never handled a full frame 70-200mm, i would strongly suggest renting one for a week and shooting the heck out of it. Some people just do not enjoy handling a lens that large.

Agree its a versatile FL for a zoom. Also i have shot with a similar setup (Can5d+Can70-200) and after shooting for 3 hours i was so tired that i am second guessing the D-FA*70-200 every moment.
Besides it will render my Da*55, Fa*85 redundant FLs to an extent.
So I tabled its strenghts already to make the case for DA*200. And I am still on the fence now that I lost the deal on that used copy.

[lennyl]

K-1 + DA*200/2,8 @f2,8, 1/200s, ISO-500