Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

thibs · 02-17-2008, 02:15 AM

here it is...
Pentax SMC DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report
enjoy...

and · 02-17-2008, 02:54 AM

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/20942-notice-p...00-2-8-up.html

thibs · 02-17-2008, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by and

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/20942-notice-p...00-2-8-up.html

ouch didn't see it ...

RiceHigh · 02-17-2008, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by thibs

here it is...
Pentax SMC DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report
enjoy...

The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.

ogl · 02-17-2008, 08:54 AM

Rice, don't write silly things...
Very good resolution, lense is FF (surprise), copy of FA*200, optically very good as FA*200,
the optical formula is the same as FA*200.
PF is not the problem at all. FA77 has more.

jeffkrol · 02-17-2008, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.

Any lens short of "perfection" has a design flaw...................
These two issues do probably originate in the rather old base design of the lens dating back to 1993. The mechanical quality of the lens is absolutely exceptional thanks to high quality materials and seals against dust and moisture. The new ultrasonic AF drive (SDM) works like a breeze - it's both fast and almost silent. All-in-all a quite sound offer although a comparatively expensive one.

Anastigmat · 02-17-2008, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Rice, don't write silly things...
Very good resolution, lense is FF (surprise), copy of FA*200, optically very good as FA*200,
the optical formula is the same as FA*200.
PF is not the problem at all. FA77 has more.

If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?

Anastigmat · 02-17-2008, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by jeffkrol

Any lens short of "perfection" has a design flaw...................
These two issues do probably originate in the rather old base design of the lens dating back to 1993. The mechanical quality of the lens is absolutely exceptional thanks to high quality materials and seals against dust and moisture. The new ultrasonic AF drive (SDM) works like a breeze - it's both fast and almost silent. All-in-all a quite sound offer although a comparatively expensive one.

The good news is that it is a full frame model (which means Pentax has not gone mad by converting all its lenses to the APS-C format). The bad news is that it is "comparatively expensive."

MikePerham · 02-17-2008, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Anastigmat

If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?

The reason we waited is more likely a production issue than because of R&D. The 16-50 and 50-135 were more important to get to market first. I hope we will see a DA*11-16 in the next round and I suspect that is already through R&D as Tokina has theirs out already.

Mike.

thibs · 02-17-2008, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Anastigmat

If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?

because there is no aperture ring they do not qualify as either FA or D-FA, would create one more designation?

Arpe · 02-17-2008, 04:30 PM

FAJ? DFAJ? Or is Pentax trying to hide from those.
I agree they should differentiate between FF compatible lenses and FF incompatible lenses.

lol101 · 02-17-2008, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.

A pity you can't join the "trash the DA200 feast" on DPR, you'd feel right at home...

The new DA*200/2.8 ED [IF] SDM reviewed ad PZ!: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

BTW, where are the 'slow SDM" complaints for this lens...? I thought it was a design issue?

ogl · 02-17-2008, 11:59 PM

Said that new sensor from K20D really makes lower PF with all lenses.
Even FA77 has 2 times lower PF on K20D. Although PF is not a problems at all.

As for rating figures of reviews...I hope that we are not robots or zombie to choose lens under
abstract figures of reviews. I find DA*200 is very good, not worse FA*200.

wlachan · 02-18-2008, 07:10 AM

I have not experienced PF with my FA*200/2.8 in practice on film or digital. But my FA*24/2 & FA77/1.8 have some pronounce PF in some situations on film, and a better CMOS might not help (can't be better than film right?).

eurostar · 02-18-2008, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Arpe

FAJ? DFAJ? Or is Pentax trying to hide from those.
I agree they should differentiate between FF compatible lenses and FF incompatible lenses.

Since it seems they plan to never produce a 24x36 sensor camera, it doesn't matter anymore.

02-17-2008, 02:15 AM	#1
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	*Photozone test of the DA200/2.8** here it is... Pentax SMC DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report enjoy...

02-17-2008, 10:09 AM	#6
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	WHERE do you come up w/ this stuff Originally posted by RiceHigh The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned. Any lens short of "perfection" has a design flaw................... These two issues do probably originate in the rather old base design of the lens dating back to 1993. The mechanical quality of the lens is absolutely exceptional thanks to high quality materials and seals against dust and moisture. The new ultrasonic AF drive (SDM) works like a breeze - it's both fast and almost silent. All-in-all a quite sound offer although a comparatively expensive one.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC test on photozone	asdf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	01-26-2010 04:06 PM
Sigma 70-200 HSM Test Photos @ 200/2.8 and 5.6	joelovotti	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	11-09-2008 06:19 PM
DA* 200 2.8 informal test	codiac2600	Pentax News and Rumors	1	02-24-2008 08:36 PM
Notice: Photozone has a review of the DA* 200 2.8 up.	c.r.brown	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	02-17-2008 09:40 AM
FA 50 F/1.4 Test at PhotoZone	XKimZe	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	04-20-2007 08:52 AM

02-17-2008, 02:54 AM	#2
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/20942-notice-p...00-2-8-up.html

02-17-2008, 03:51 AM	#3
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001 Original Poster	Originally posted by and https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/20942-notice-p...00-2-8-up.html ouch didn't see it ...

02-17-2008, 06:11 AM	#4
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by thibs here it is... Pentax SMC DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED [IF] SDM - Review / Test Report enjoy... The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned.

02-17-2008, 08:54 AM	#5
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Rice, don't write silly things... Very good resolution, lense is FF (surprise), copy of FA200, optically very good as FA200, the optical formula is the same as FA*200. PF is not the problem at all. FA77 has more.

02-17-2008, 10:37 AM	#7
Anastigmat Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 126	Originally posted by ogl Rice, don't write silly things... Very good resolution, lense is FF (surprise), copy of FA200, optically very good as FA200, the optical formula is the same as FA200. PF is not the problem at all. FA77 has more. If the DA is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design?

02-17-2008, 10:52 AM	#8
Anastigmat Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 126	Originally posted by jeffkrol Any lens short of "perfection" has a design flaw................... These two issues do probably originate in the rather old base design of the lens dating back to 1993. The mechanical quality of the lens is absolutely exceptional thanks to high quality materials and seals against dust and moisture. The new ultrasonic AF drive (SDM) works like a breeze - it's both fast and almost silent. All-in-all a quite sound offer although a comparatively expensive one. The good news is that it is a full frame model (which means Pentax has not gone mad by converting all its lenses to the APS-C format). The bad news is that it is "comparatively expensive."

02-17-2008, 10:53 AM	#9
MikePerham Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Prince George, BC Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 642	Originally posted by Anastigmat If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design? The reason we waited is more likely a production issue than because of R&D. The 16-50 and 50-135 were more important to get to market first. I hope we will see a DA11-16 in the next round and I suspect that is already through R&D as Tokina has theirs out already. Mike.

02-17-2008, 11:24 AM	#10
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001 Original Poster	Originally posted by Anastigmat If the DA* is the same as the FA* and full frame, then why call it the DA*, which means small image circle and it would therefore be misleading consumers? Why did it take Pentax so long to bring out a lens that is an old design? because there is no aperture ring they do not qualify as either FA or D-FA, would create one more designation?

02-17-2008, 04:30 PM	#11
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	FAJ? DFAJ? Or is Pentax trying to hide from those. I agree they should differentiate between FF compatible lenses and FF incompatible lenses.

02-17-2008, 11:22 PM	#12
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by RiceHigh The optical quality rating seems to be on the low side (3.5 out of 5), owing to some optical design flaws as mentioned. A pity you can't join the "trash the DA200 feast" on DPR, you'd feel right at home... The new DA*200/2.8 ED [IF] SDM reviewed ad PZ!: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review BTW, where are the 'slow SDM" complaints for this lens...? I thought it was a design issue?

02-17-2008, 11:59 PM	#13
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Said that new sensor from K20D really makes lower PF with all lenses. Even FA77 has 2 times lower PF on K20D. Although PF is not a problems at all. As for rating figures of reviews...I hope that we are not robots or zombie to choose lens under abstract figures of reviews. I find DA200 is very good, not worse FA200.

02-18-2008, 07:10 AM	#14
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	I have not experienced PF with my FA200/2.8 in practice on film or digital. But my FA24/2 & FA77/1.8 have some pronounce PF in some situations on film, and a better CMOS might not help (can't be better than film right?).

02-18-2008, 10:07 AM	#15
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by Arpe FAJ? DFAJ? Or is Pentax trying to hide from those. I agree they should differentiate between FF compatible lenses and FF incompatible lenses. Since it seems they plan to never produce a 24x36 sensor camera, it doesn't matter anymore.

Photozone test of the DA*200/2.8

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!