[JonVdG]

Just wondering if anyone has tried this combination and if so, what are your thoughts on sharpness? I've found the 200mm SMC-A to be extremely sharp from edge to edge, even wide open. That's made me tempted to buy a 1.4x TC for infrequent use, as an alternative to carrying the 300mm f/4 or 150-300mm FA f/5.6. I'll primarily be using it for landscape work on the 645D.

[bull drinkwater]

Just wondering if anyone has tried this combination and if so, what are your thoughts on sharpness? I've found the 200mm SMC-A to be extremely sharp from edge to edge, even wide open. That's made me tempted to buy a 1.4x TC for infrequent use, as an alternative to carrying the 300mm f/4 or 150-300mm FA f/5.6. I'll primarily be using it for landscape work on the 645D.

I have both the 1.4x and the 2.0x and found both combos to produce sharp images. even stacked together they produce usable images.

[JonVdG]

Thanks, that's good to know. Seems like it could be a decent, compact solution if I don't want to pack the 300mm.

[asahijock]

Thanks, that's good to know. Seems like it could be a decent, compact solution if I don't want to pack the 300mm.

To anyone with the answer and just a matter of interest, how much bigger and or heavier is the 300 compared to a 200 plus the 1.4 converter?.

Thanks

asahijock

[donesteban]

I was never that happy with the 200/4 and the 1.4x TC. It was OK, if contrast was quite high (landscape in direct sun light), but too soft of landscape with lower contrast.

The 150-300 has come down to 400 $ in Japan, and that zooms shows better quality with the 1.4x TC at the long end, With one restriction: 645D. It works not that well on the 645Z. The 645D does not yet have gapless micro lenses and thus has higher micro contrast. Without the 1.4x TC, the 150-300 does a perfect job on the 645Z, too.

I have comapred it to teh FA 300/4. The FA is one stop faster (obviously) and the bokeh is a bit somther than the zoom. Beside that: Hard to find adifference on the pictures.

[RICHARD L.]

I have an A 200 mm f/4 but it was always disappointingly flat and unsharp on my 645N. I once tried it with the 1.4X converter (which is excellent in itself) and the results were terrible on film. I put it aside and never used it on the 645Z. Instead I got an FA 200 mm f/4 ... Wow! That is a superior lens, very sharp and contrasty for landscapes. I never tried the 1.4X converter on it as I use a 6X7 M* 300 mm f/4 (with a Pentax adapter) and a 645 FA 400 mm f/5.6 (both of which have a tripod foot that facilitates handling) for longer telephoto shots.

Picture of Ile-aux-Coudres in Charlevoix taken with the FA 200 mm f/4 and the 645Z on a tripod.

[JonVdG]

Thanks, Richard. It sounds like you might have had a bad copy of the A 200mm. My copy is sharp from corner to corner at f/4 on the 645D. My reference points are the Leica 135mm Elmar, Minolta 200mm APO, and Nikon 70-200mm AF-S VR. I've read that the A and FA have similar (identical?) optical formulas but can't confirm this. Perhaps I'll find an inexpensive copy of the TC and just see how it works out.

[RICHARD L.]

Thank you John. The older A 200 mm has 4 elements in 4 groups while the new FA 200 mm has 6 elements in 5 groups. I may have fallen on a lemon concerning the A 200 mm as it was very disappointing from the start with the 645N and negative color film. Conversely my FA 200 mm has been stellar even with the 645Z.