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 12, 2006, 9:30 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Here is the last comparison, but I found it interesting! The lighting is interesting also, since the first one was taken late in the day and the last two early this moring with the light coming from the back.

The first is the A*200 @ 2.8


The socond is the FA*80-200 @ 200mm f/2.8


Now the FA*200 @ 200mm f/2.8, but this lens focuses closer than both the M200 and the A* 200 which is what this shows.



Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 12, 2006, 9:41 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Yeah. They are fairly close. Somehow I like A* better. Can't explain it though.
The FA*200mm may very well be like 210 or 215mm actual though.
Thanks for posting.

Daniel

ennacac wrote:
Quote:
Here is the last comparison, but I found it interesting! The lighting is interesting also, since the first one was taken late in the day and the last two early this moring with the light coming from the back.

The first is the A*200 @ 2.8


The socond is the FA*80-200 @ 200mm f/2.8


Now the FA*200 @ 200mm f/2.8, but this lens focuses closer than both the M200 and the A* 200 which is what this shows.



Tom
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 10:07 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

EXIF shows 1/750 sec @ 200mm and I would expect the zoom to be less sharp than the prime 200, but the minimum focus distance difference was substantial, making the zoom kind of a semi macro lens.

Both 2.8 200 lenses are fairly large with the zoom being very heavy and hard to use at 200mm without a tripod, while the M200 is very small, light and handy to use and my choice for someone that needs a sharp 200mm lens.

Cost wise the A*/F*/FA* lenses are out of control, with used versions going for almost new prices when they were available for lenses that show wear. I firmly believe that you can not go wrong with the sharpest lens you can afford, but as these tests show you can get a very sharp lens, for far less than the best lenses.

FA* 80-200 2.8 is going for $1,500 and up used
A* 200 2.8 is going for $1,440 (new on ebay last week) That is an amazing price!
M200 is going for around $150 for a like new version.

Is the slightly better sharpness worth $1,300 to you, I don't think so, but then there is the 2.8 compared to the f/4 which can be worth quite a bit of extra money and then having an extremely sharp zoom from 80-200 is worth some extra money also.

I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 ($700) and it was a great lens, but no where near as sharp at 2.8 as the FA* Pentax is.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 6:13 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

tom,
if you have one, i'd like to see a comparison of the *80-200 vs the A70-210 f4.

roy
  Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 7:44 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Roy,

Sorry I don't have the 70-210 f/4 although I have heard it is a pretty good lens.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 7:52 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

ennacac wrote:
Quote:
Roy,

Sorry I don't have the 70-210 f/4 although I have heard it is a pretty good lens.

Tom
Too bad, I have a 70-210 f4 A lens that I got from Roy, it was one that had been somewhat abused and he revitalized. Even with obvious evidence of fungus damage it appears to be the sharpest lens I have (except for the M 50mm f1.7), and it only gives up one f stop.

Ira


Here is a sample shot indoors at 210mm (I think)f5 and 1/180.
Attached Images
 
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 8:27 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
jabilson007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 182
Default

Maybe it is the lighting or reducing for web, but the first image is 4x as sharp as the other two. Were the settings in the camera the same for sharpness? Did you shoot them as raw files? I don't know much about DSLRs or lenses, but I would want the first one.
jabilson007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 8:29 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Thanks for those comparisons Tom. Like Daniel, I find the A* 200 to have more pleasing color and maybe just a little more sharpness in the center (?). With all of those great lenses you have it leads me to the next natural question . . . Do you need an adopted son? I can stay out past curfew and bring the car home on "E" with the best of them! Whaddaya say . . . Dad?

Tim

:-):-):-):-):-)
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2006, 8:45 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Depends on how much wood you can cut and split, how many cows you can milk in an hour and how much snow you can plow with a snow blower Tim.

The first photo was with the afternoon light from the front, the others were with early morning light fromt the back.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2006, 11:29 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

ennacac wrote:
Quote:
Depends on how much wood you can cut and split, how many cows you can milk in an hour and how much snow you can plow with a snow blower Tim.

Chores! Man you fight dirty :-)! BTW, what is this snow you speak of? Thanks for pointing out the time of day difference, I guess I should have figured it out on my own.

Tim
NonEntity1 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 8:42 AM.