Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 11, 2006, 7:35 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

you're correct daniel. the * lenses are pulling some hefty prices lately. just saw a F*300 go for over $1600usd. everything else is also high. 1600 for the 300 was ridiculous.. some others as well..

roy
  Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 8:33 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 166
Default

I had a close look and would have to say that it looks like the M lens at f4 has given a clearer picure overall (the whole photo is well focused).....However, the * lens scores better in the areas it has focused




Chesslanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 10:00 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

I will break out the FA*80-200 tomorrow and take a shot at 200mm @ f/2.8 just for grins, to see how that shapes up compared to the other 200mm lenses.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 9:36 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Tom,

We are all envious of your pain of finding the perfect gear somewhere from your cobwebbed arsenal of *zoom and *primes.

Anyway the shootout should be interesting find. My hunch is that they will be close.

Daniel

ennacac wrote:
Quote:
I will break out the FA*80-200 tomorrow and take a shot at 200mm @ f/2.8 just for grins, to see how that shapes up compared to the other 200mm lenses.

Tom
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 9:46 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

The only one I rarely use is the M200 (which there are two versions of, one with a 52mm filter size and the other with a 58mm-I have the 52mm). I moved the comparison to a new thread for the 2.8's wide open.

There were no cobwebs on the M200, but I did have to take it off my LX to test it.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 9:13 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Well hopefully the SMC 200/4 (not marked A or M) is as good as your M, as I just won one off ebay. Thanks for the comparison, it does look like the 200/4 M offers much more valuefor the money even if not the absolute tops in performance.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 10:30 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Tim,

This is all I could find on the two lenses and they both get good reviews!

smc PENTAX-M 1:4 200mm

Optical Formula 6 elements in 5 groups
Number of Aperture Blades 8
Aperture Range f/4 ~ f/32
Minimum Focusing Distance 2.0m
Weight 405g
Length 111mm

smc PENTAX-K 1:4 200mm
Optical Formula 5 elements in 5 groups
Number of Aperture Blades 6
Aperture Range f/4 ~ f/32
Minimum Focusing Distance 2.0m
Weight 535g
Length 137mm

Dad
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2006, 10:55 PM   #18
Member
 
danag42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 69
Default

I have an M 200 f/4. It's great for what it is, especially since it seems the equal of the more expensive lens at f/4. It's also a lot lighter, and more likely to find its way into the bag.
danag42 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:53 AM.