The M 200/4 earns generally favorable reviews, but it appears that the M 150/3.5 has the better reputation. Some collected comments from Stan Halpin's site and elsewhere in PDML; I've sent you several source URLs offline:
JC O�Connell writes: �I also have one of these little gems. I like it more than a 135 for length, it is very sharp. It does really well on extension tubes for macro.� Richard Ross: �I have the M200/4. It lacks in contrast, not terribly but noticeably enough. It falls far short of my Tamron 90/2.8 macro (the new one), which is by far the best lens I own. I also have the SMC M150/3.5, which is very similar in optical design to the 200/4 but yields better contrast. The M135/3.5 is also similar in design.� Amateur Photography, July 5, 1978: �The definition, image contrast, and overall performance were very good; balance of aberrations was good. The best central definition was at f/22 and the best overall definition was at f/16, although the lens performed superbly even at the widest apertures. The lens is a very compact telephoto. Barry Brevik - This is the only Pentax lens I have dumped because I did not like the images. I feel the lens has exceptionally low contrast compared to other Pentax lenses. I much prefer the 120mm f2.8 K and 135mm f3.5 M. [and then in another conversation . . .] I got rid of mine because it seemed to have lower contrast than any telephoto I've used. I also have the 120mm f2.8 and the 135m�m f3.5 M, both of which are great (IMO). Bill Robb - I like my 150 a lot. It is a real gem of a lens. It seems very sharp and contrasty, I like the bit of extra length it has over the 135. I don't know how it compares image wise to that lens. [addendum] - Certainly not up to the standard of the A100 2.8 macro, but certainly it is no a dog. The bokeh of the lens is quite pleasing also. Shel Belinkoff - It's a little jewel. The bokeh is very nice, and the lens handles well. It's not quite as sharp as the SMCP 135/2.5, but it's better than the SMC-M 135/3.5. Overall, I'm quite pleased with my copy.� Comments on the 200/M, again several from Stan Halpin's site; KEH has about six for sale: Pentax catalog: The rectangular mask behind the rear element reduces reflection. Olle Bjernulf: �The A is supposed to be better than the M.� Fred Lahuis replies, �Could be; I have the M and it is a good lens, although optically a bit less brilliant than the 100/2.8.� Richard Ross: �Optically excellent. Extremely sharp. It is as good wide open as stopped down. The Ks and Ms are much more plentiful than the As. ... I have the M200/4. It lacks in contrast, not terribly but noticeably enough. It falls far short of my Tamron 90/2.8 macro (the new one), which is by far the best lens I own. I also have the SMC M150/3.5, which is very similar in optical design to the 200/4 but yields better contrast. The M135/3.5 is also similar in design.� Roberto Burgoss: �4 (Ahhh! superb optics, great handling).� Dennis: �Agreed. A local guy who mainly sells and repairs projectors but dabbles with camera equipment had one he was having trouble selling. He was only asking $60 for it; it was absolutely mint, and came with an absolutely mint hard case. I asked about a UV filter, and he dug out a nice used Hoya. When I asked how much he wanted for that, he said he'd throw it in for free if I paid cash! I couldn't get the 20's out fast enough. I love that lens.� David Mann: �* I like the SMCM 200/4 because it's very light and focuses much closer than the Tokina 200/3.8 it replaced.� Alex: �I'm pretty happy with my M 200/4. It is a good size (smaller then some 135s that I've used) and performs pretty well. You can see images from it in the lens gallery (http://www.phred.org/pentax/lensgal). It does well in flare, is pretty sharp, and has a pleasant bokeh. The used prices on them are very reasonable as well... I picked up this one for $100 at a local camera shop in almost new condition. The K 200/4 seems to be pretty similar in bokeh.� Bill Casselberry: �I have only had a couple of 200mm lenses. One is the Pentax M200f4. I am very satisfied with it, though I have not done any particular tests with it to check its quality. The proof is in the photos the lens makes in your conditions. In my conditions it has been a fine performer, easily as good, if not better than my Nikkor 200f4, and about half the size.� Mark Cassino, July 09, 2000: �A solid performer�not outstanding, but solid.� Roberto Burgos S. - I had the SMC-M 200/4 and liked it very much. It is very sharp. Very nice bokeh too. I sold it when switched to AF, because my sight was not very good any more. Bill C?� �I'm very happy with the way that the M 200/4 handles...the focus is very smooth, it is a great size and weight, and the build quality is great (just like the other M lenses that I own). It also has a nice built in hood. In almost all respects the lens is very similar to its brother, the M 135/3.5. Imagine a slightly bigger M 135/3.5 with 200/4 optics and you'll have an idea of what you are dealing with. The price of these lenses does, indeed, seem reasonable. B&H has one rated at 9+ for $149.00. I've not seen many for sale anywhere, though. I scoured Shutterbug last night and only found two examples. KEH lists one for $126 in EX condition." Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
