[mrclark321]

Tonight I managed to bid and win a 645 A 200mm f/4, tried for the 120mm but missed. I hear a lot of mixed reviews on the 200 but for the price it's something to play with.
I will try for a 120 macro later.


Dan

Anyone else's thoughts on the 200 would be great or add some pics here if you like

---

Last edited by mrclark321; 01-20-2015 at 08:30 PM.

[Thomas]

Hi Dan:

I have the A and FA versions. Both, in my experience, are underrated. Both are compact, and very sharp. The 120 is at different level, but the 200 is worth having.

Tom

Here's an example:

[Ole]

Here is one from Northern Arizona taken with the FA version - I have no complaints regarding resolution and rendering of color:

[Docrwm]

Hi Dan:

I have the A and FA versions. Both, in my experience, are underrated. Both are compact, and very sharp. The 120 is at different level, but the 200 is worth having.

Tom

Here's an example:

Tom,
Tell me what I am seeing in your photo. Perhaps its late but I'm confused about the source of what I think are reflections of the sunset - ice?

[Kayaker-J]

Is this 200mm lens worth it in weight and modest cost increase for adapted use on a K3 in place of a Tak, -M, or -A 200/f.4 for landscapes, etc.? Thanks, anyone.

[Thomas]

Tom,
Tell me what I am seeing in your photo. Perhaps its late but I'm confused about the source of what I think are reflections of the sunset - ice?

Yes, I should explained. It's a shot of Lake Erie taken just as the sun sets. The ice above the surface of the lake is still receiving direct sunlight.

Here's a crop:

[Docrwm]

Yes, I should explained. It's a shot of Lake Erie taken just as the sun sets. The ice above the surface of the lake is still receiving direct sunlight.

Here's a crop:

Thanks, I appreciate it. It's beautiful and I thought it was ice but wanted to be sure. My father's side of the family was from Erie, PA - never been there but your photo makes it seem more like someplace I'd like to visit.

[Thomas]

It can be beautiful. Here's a recent shot of the ice mounds that form along the shore:

[mrclark321]

Thanks everyone keep them coming

[Richard Longseth]

Thanks everyone keep them coming

I hope you are still trying for the 120. Thats a great lens that won't disappoint. I usually carry both the 120 A and the 200 FA in my pack, and prefer trying to find compositions where I can use the 120. If only the 200 will work, I'm more than happy with the results. I feel the 200 FA is an easy lens to shoot with. I also have the 67 300* and the 645 400 FA which to me are much harder to get good results with. Here are some photos using the 645 200 FA. Its near impossible to judge quality with small web jpg's and also on some of these, I threw the kitchen sink at to get the feel I was after. Some of the processing on a couple of these actually softens parts of the photos. The Old Dodge I took today and I felt a bit lazy. The 200 was on the camera, so I just left it on and got a couple shots with it. Mawikwe Ramparts is a stitch of 5 vertical shots.

Rick

[Richard Longseth]

Here's a couple more from the 200 FA.

Rick

[Racerdew]

Here is one from Northern Arizona taken with the FA version - I have no complaints regarding resolution and rendering of color:

Insane!!! Awesome picture!

[Docrwm]

Richard, if you could walk me through how you achieved Steadfast I would really appreciate it. Lovely image. Really like the Dodge too.

[Richard Longseth]

Richard, if you could walk me through how you achieved Steadfast I would really appreciate it. Lovely image. Really like the Dodge too.

Thanks Docrwm. I like the Dodge too. It really surprised me actually, because it's not something I normally photograph. It had started snowing, and I wasn't dressed for it so I gave up way too early shooting it. Wish I would have stuck with it more. Its close by so I can always try again.

Steadfast was somewhat of a mistake. It was the last images of the day after the sun had gone down and it was getting dark. It's lit with what I refer to as "after glow". Although its very dim, there's directional warm light coming from the western horizon and a soft blue light coming from above. Its shot at ISO 100 at f/11 with the 645 200 FA on my D. One capture held the focus on the rocks at f/11 and I didn't have to focus stack. It was a 30 second second exposure shot with the AV mode. If I would have recognized it's potential, I would have worked with this some more and either up the ISO to 200 or use the Bulb setting for a longer exposure. What happens with long exposures at this time is the light is continuing to dim thru out the exposure and if it isn't properly accounted for the exposure will be off. As it was, the image was nearly a stop underexposed because of the 30 second limitation with the AV setting. The waves were large and crashing into the shoreline rocks, and that rendered a nice creamy effect because of the long exposure.

I did initial editing in Lightroom. There was a line of cliffs in the background that I cropped out to simplify and strengthen the composition. The white balance was adjusted slightly to take out some magenta, and I'm guilty of adding saturation to both the blues and warm tones. Because of the long exposure and also underexposing it, I processed two copies for noise reduction that was later blended together in Photoshop. The water has quite a bit more NR added to it and in the rocks the noise wasn't as apparent, so less NR was used for that copy.

In Photoshop the two NR copies were blended together. I use Tony Kuper's Luminosity masks and actions. The Orton Effect action was used on just the highlights of the water to soften the crashing waves even more. I subtly used the triple play action to add a bit of contrast in the rocks. I adjusted the tones a bit in the waves so as not to have hot spots. Thats about it.

I hope that wasn't too confusing and that it helps.

Rick

[mrclark321]

Here's a couple more from the 200 FA.

Rick

Thanks Rick they are all nice but I really like "Steadfast"