Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:53:53 +1100, David Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a lumberjack and I am ok... I sleep all night and I work all day... COME ON EVERYONE... I cut down trees, I wear high heels... Damn! A Python diversionary thread, and I missed it 'cause I was away for the weekend. And, my fave Python song, too (well, it would be, wouldn't it? No, no, 'cause of the Canadian reference, not the cross-dressing - not that there's anything wrong with cross-dressing...). Oh hell, I can't resist (despite Cotty's exhortations to the contrary): Suspendies and a bra, I wish I was a girlie, just like my dear Papa... There, that feels better. vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
OK, I'll have to make a short MOOSE fac 1. You don't take out the whole Moose - you remove the intestines (maybe except the liver) the hide and lots of time the lower parts of he legs. 2. Believe or not but up to the 1970's people in my area used to carry the meat - it could be distances up to 20 kms. They were quite tough, many had been lumberjacks. Some of my generation can do it but many dont have the stamina for some excercise anymore. 3. European - Scandinavian Moose is a bit smaller than Canadian with slaughtered weight ranging from say 150kg up 400 kg (rare size), nevertheless it was a heavy job to carry the burden out. The Scandinavian Moose however is a Moose and not an Elk or Wapititi as some people translate it into. 4. Nowadays when people are getting lazy terrain going vehicles - small 4wd buggies, tractors, particular draggers are being used to haul out the Moose. 5. You are right about the killing distance in the sense that one want a good clean shoot - the risk of injuring the Moose is to big at larger distances. 6. In our area the shooting is done through tracking with a dog (very skilled hunters can do it by themselves but they dont have the intricate smell of the dog) from one end of the are to the other - at the end of the area there is usually the rest of the hunting team posted at regular intervalls where one think the chased Moose might pass. 7. Why do we do it with such fine animals- we simply get too many otherwise - they become a hazard both in the traffic and for the woods (they eat small tree plants) - to few natural predators. Also it was in the past an important source of food and in parts of Scandinavia is one of the largest sorts of meats being consumed. 8. In the mountains where there are longer distances, the Lapps or Same as they want to be called actually use helicopters to get the meat out. 9. I'd love to see the secret service guys hauling the Moose in their slacks in one of the frequent northern wetlands. Cheers, Ronald Cheers, Ronald Peter J. Alling wrote: The point is that a Moose weighs in at a conservative 1200-1500lbs, (thats 550-700kg for the metricly impaired). If you shoot one farther than 100 yards from a road you'll never get it out of the woods, (unless you do have a helicopter, or maybe a detachment of, quietly swearing, secret service agents). Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Not from some kind of transportation, car, helicopter, whatever... Peter J. Alling wrote: Bill Clinton would probably shoot the Moose more than 100 yards from a road... Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
RA the meat - it could be distances up to 20 kms. They were quite tough, RA many had been lumberjacks. Some of my generation can do it but many dont RA have the stamina for some excercise anymore. I am a lumberjack and I am ok... Good light! fra
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
You should be enrolled, Good light, Ronald Frantisek wrote: RA the meat - it could be distances up to 20 kms. They were quite tough, RA many had been lumberjacks. Some of my generation can do it but many dont RA have the stamina for some excercise anymore. I am a lumberjack and I am ok... Good light! fra
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Frantisek wrote: RA the meat - it could be distances up to 20 kms. They were quite tough, RA many had been lumberjacks. Some of my generation can do it but many dont RA have the stamina for some excercise anymore. I am a lumberjack and I am ok... I sleep all night and I work all day... COME ON EVERYONE... Good light! fra -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
I am a lumberjack and I am ok... I sleep all night and I work all day... COME ON EVERYONE... I cut down trees, I wear high heels...
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 14/11/04, David Nelson, discombobulated, unleashed: I am a lumberjack and I am ok... I sleep all night and I work all day... COME ON EVERYONE... I cut down trees, I wear high heels... No! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Bill Clinton would probably shoot the Moose more than 100 yards from a road... Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Not from some kind of transportation, car, helicopter, whatever... Peter J. Alling wrote: Bill Clinton would probably shoot the Moose more than 100 yards from a road... Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
To be honest probably just spending more money... Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
The point is that a Moose weighs in at a conservative 1200-1500lbs, (thats 550-700kg for the metricly impaired). If you shoot one farther than 100 yards from a road you'll never get it out of the woods, (unless you do have a helicopter, or maybe a detachment of, quietly swearing, secret service agents). Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Not from some kind of transportation, car, helicopter, whatever... Peter J. Alling wrote: Bill Clinton would probably shoot the Moose more than 100 yards from a road... Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Like Cotty says, good performer and BIG. Reminds me of a 'pre'-300mm f4 A in shape and size. Becomes a nice 400mm with the old T6-2X converter, but 1.4 2.0A's work ok too. Overall much bigger and heavier than the Pentax 200/4 (K, M, or A), But the extra speed is great for focusing in the viewfinder... Regards, Bob S On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:59:19 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Big and heavy. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. I love mine. Mishka On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:30:09 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I've been an under-the-carpet list member (mostly because I couldn't get my submissions to work) for half a year or so but I'm going to have to show my face if I want to have any of my questions answered. Francis
RE: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
this is just a guess but since it is faster, probably contrastier(sic?), probably sharper, and lighter, I bet it is. JCO -Original Message- From: Ronald Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5? Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
It still weighs less than a 80-200 F2.8 lens no? JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5? Big and heavy. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. I love mine. Mishka On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:30:09 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I've been an under-the-carpet list member (mostly because I couldn't get my submissions to work) for half a year or so but I'm going to have to show my face if I want to have any of my questions answered. Francis
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I have no experience with the Pentax 80-200 2.8 - I had a Sigma 70- 200 2.8 in KA mount and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Or do you mean faster to work with as in speed and ease of use? Well, that L IS lens was one of the main reasons I bought into Canon. That's lightning-fast AF. As for the 200 2.5 and manual focus, it was fine. It's an impressive and quality lens. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Hi, Thanks Cotty, I didn't mean AF speed. I meant easier - I kind a prefer fixed focal lengths as I find them easier to work with than zoomz when only one focal length is needed. However, I've got an old Sigma 200/2.8, fixed focal length, and I don't quite like that lens -its good enough but I'm thinking of upgrading to a 200/2.5. Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I have no experience with the Pentax 80-200 2.8 - I had a Sigma 70- 200 2.8 in KA mount and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Or do you mean faster to work with as in speed and ease of use? Well, that L IS lens was one of the main reasons I bought into Canon. That's lightning-fast AF. As for the 200 2.5 and manual focus, it was fine. It's an impressive and quality lens. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)? Understood Ron. I would say that it is appreciably heavier than the 135 or the 200/4 so that may slow you down a bit. Depends. I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. If only you could get to see one before you buy, but I realise that's usually impossible when sourcing less than common gear. Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. It is a super lens, but it is heavy. The hood is big enough to bivouac two in an emergency and the case has tandem axles and full electrics. If you can get one at a good price i would say go for it, you certainly won't be disappointed. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Cotty wrote: No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Kostas
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Kostas Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens and body mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release mount. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
I'll respond to a few of the other messages in this thread. (Sorry if this is a bit long of an answer - remember, though, I could have flooded the thread with a bunch of short answers instead - g.) Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I can compare the K 200/2.5 to the manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 (which I still have) and to the A* 200/2.8 (which I no longer have). I'd say the ease of focusing is essentially the same in all three. I'd say that the focusing feel is slightly stiffer (although still very smooth) in the 200/2.5 than in the others (while the A* 200/2.8 has the easiest-to-turn focus feel). I did own the K 200/2.5 and the A* 200/2.8 both at the same time for a while. I actually had the A* first, and picked up the K lens later. I liked the K so much that I ended up selling the A*. (Go figure...) Actually, the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 are my two most favorite K-era Pentax lenses (not including a few dear VS1 lenses of that era that I also love). That's not too surprising, I guess, inasmuch as the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 share the same optical design as the premium A* 200/2.8 (and these are the only three Pentax lenses to share this particular design, I believe). (It's not just the 6 elements in 6 groups configuration that they share - their optical diagrams are also virtually identical.) (The K 200/4, in contrast, also has a 6/6 formula, but a different optical diagram.) See: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/135f2.5-i.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.5.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.8-i.gif (The A* lens, probably due to its use of LD glass, has just a ~very~ slightly different shape to some of the elements, but the two K lenses are virtually identical.) Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. ...which is a real pleasure, if you're a manual focus fan. Objects really seem to snap into focus at 200mm and at f/2.5. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Agreed. An f/2.5 lens is supposed to be faster than an f/2.8 one, but it's not a big difference. And, I'm just a bit dubious about the f/2.5 in the K 200/2.5, anyway - with a 77mm front filter mount (and with a clear aperture of therefore a little less than 77mm), it seems to me (who admittedly doesn't know much about optics) that 200mm divided by 2.5 should require a clear aperture of 80mm. The A* 200/2.8 also uses 77mm filters, but the actual diameter of the 200/2.5's front element is definitely a little wider than that of the 200/2.8's front element - i.e., the circular frame around the outer edge of the 2.8's front element is definitely more restrictive than is the thinner frame on the 2.5. Still, 200mm divided by 2.8 is only 71mm, while 200mm divided by 2.5 is 80mm. The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. If it really is a true f/2.5 lens, then that would be true. When the lens was first introduced, the Pentax Lenses and Accessories booklets of the time stated: In testimony of its role as a leader in the field of optics, and ever mindful of the needs of the professional photographer, Asahi Optical has introduced the first 200 lens with an f/2.5 maximum aperture. This ultra high-speed telephoto lens is well suited for available light photography, such as indoor and nighttime sporting events. Even when used wide-open, its 6-element, 6-group optical design ensures high contrast and resolution, as well as attractive out-of-focus highlights. And that's an objective opinion (no pun intended) - g, but, it's true - sharpness, contrast, and good bokeh are definitely characteristics of this lens. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). True. (I do think someone here on PDML tried out one of those custom tripod mounts - from a UK company, if I remember correctly - for this lens some time ago.) I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Mounted to a body that is mounted through its base to a tripod, the lens is extremely front heavy (and probably would strain the frame of the body if it's at all plasticky - most of the metal-bodied camera bodies would handle the load OK, however). The lens really works well with a monopod (especially for low-light use, which is where it really shines). With one hand cradling the focus ring on the lens, and the other handling the body, the font-heaviness of tripod use seems to disappear (with monopod use). Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. True, true, and true. I'd say its optical performance is essentially identical to that of the A* 200/2.8 (despite the latter's LD elements). Theoretically, I should see just a slight sharpening of edge detail with the LD A* lens, but I never could notice a
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens and body mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release mount. I'd say it depends on the body. I've used the K 200/2.5 on a tripod-mounted LX with absolutely no sign of stress. (It's quite front-heavy, of course). I don't think I'd like to try the lens on a tripod-mounted ZX-5n, say, however. It really works well on a monopod-mounted body, though, where the lens is partially supported by the hand on the focus ring. Fred
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Thanks Cotty, Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also. Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)? Understood Ron. I would say that it is appreciably heavier than the 135 or the 200/4 so that may slow you down a bit. Depends. I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. If only you could get to see one before you buy, but I realise that's usually impossible when sourcing less than common gear. Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. It is a super lens, but it is heavy. The hood is big enough to bivouac two in an emergency and the case has tandem axles and full electrics. If you can get one at a good price i would say go for it, you certainly won't be disappointed. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
I guess a monopod would do the trick if one wants to be mobile. Thats what I prefer when photographing birds and wildlife if I need to be mobile rather than handheld. Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Kostas Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens and body mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release mount. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Thanks Fred, Cheers, Ronald Fred wrote: I'll respond to a few of the other messages in this thread. (Sorry if this is a bit long of an answer - remember, though, I could have flooded the thread with a bunch of short answers instead - g.) Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I can compare the K 200/2.5 to the manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 (which I still have) and to the A* 200/2.8 (which I no longer have). I'd say the ease of focusing is essentially the same in all three. I'd say that the focusing feel is slightly stiffer (although still very smooth) in the 200/2.5 than in the others (while the A* 200/2.8 has the easiest-to-turn focus feel). I did own the K 200/2.5 and the A* 200/2.8 both at the same time for a while. I actually had the A* first, and picked up the K lens later. I liked the K so much that I ended up selling the A*. (Go figure...) Actually, the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 are my two most favorite K-era Pentax lenses (not including a few dear VS1 lenses of that era that I also love). That's not too surprising, I guess, inasmuch as the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 share the same optical design as the premium A* 200/2.8 (and these are the only three Pentax lenses to share this particular design, I believe). (It's not just the 6 elements in 6 groups configuration that they share - their optical diagrams are also virtually identical.) (The K 200/4, in contrast, also has a 6/6 formula, but a different optical diagram.) See: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/135f2.5-i.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.5.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.8-i.gif (The A* lens, probably due to its use of LD glass, has just a ~very~ slightly different shape to some of the elements, but the two K lenses are virtually identical.) Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. ...which is a real pleasure, if you're a manual focus fan. Objects really seem to snap into focus at 200mm and at f/2.5. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Agreed. An f/2.5 lens is supposed to be faster than an f/2.8 one, but it's not a big difference. And, I'm just a bit dubious about the f/2.5 in the K 200/2.5, anyway - with a 77mm front filter mount (and with a clear aperture of therefore a little less than 77mm), it seems to me (who admittedly doesn't know much about optics) that 200mm divided by 2.5 should require a clear aperture of 80mm. The A* 200/2.8 also uses 77mm filters, but the actual diameter of the 200/2.5's front element is definitely a little wider than that of the 200/2.8's front element - i.e., the circular frame around the outer edge of the 2.8's front element is definitely more restrictive than is the thinner frame on the 2.5. Still, 200mm divided by 2.8 is only 71mm, while 200mm divided by 2.5 is 80mm. The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. If it really is a true f/2.5 lens, then that would be true. When the lens was first introduced, the Pentax Lenses and Accessories booklets of the time stated: In testimony of its role as a leader in the field of optics, and ever mindful of the needs of the professional photographer, Asahi Optical has introduced the first 200 lens with an f/2.5 maximum aperture. This ultra high-speed telephoto lens is well suited for available light photography, such as indoor and nighttime sporting events. Even when used wide-open, its 6-element, 6-group optical design ensures high contrast and resolution, as well as attractive out-of-focus highlights. And that's an objective opinion (no pun intended) - g, but, it's true - sharpness, contrast, and good bokeh are definitely characteristics of this lens. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). True. (I do think someone here on PDML tried out one of those custom tripod mounts - from a UK company, if I remember correctly - for this lens some time ago.) I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Mounted to a body that is mounted through its base to a tripod, the lens is extremely front heavy (and probably would strain the frame of the body if it's at all plasticky - most of the metal-bodied camera bodies would handle the load OK, however). The lens really works well with a monopod (especially for low-light use, which is where it really shines). With one hand cradling the focus ring on the lens, and the other handling the body, the font-heaviness of tripod use seems to disappear (with monopod use). Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. True, true, and true. I'd say its optical performance is essentially identical to that of the A* 200/2.8 (despite the latter's LD elements). Theoretically, I should see just a slight sharpening of edge
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, Fred, discombobulated, unleashed: I love the K 200/2.5. I'd recommend the lens to anybody who wants a sweet and fast 200mm manual focus lens (and who doesn't mind the weight). Totally agree. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also. Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Vader It is your *destiny* Luke, er Ronald! /Vader Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
The thought of you being full of Bill's cigars well it's just too, too, too... Simile fails me. Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also. Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Vader It is your *destiny* Luke, er Ronald! /Vader Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also. Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? In the full process. Full and long; they don't feature that often in your favourite or otherwise marketplace. Good luck Ronald. I have this lens top on my list myself. Kostas (just for the f un of it)
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
I guess this is not what... From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also. Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Vader It is your *destiny* Luke, er Ronald! /Vader Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
