06-09-2011, 07:07 AM
06-09-2011, 09:44 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1307603275' post='9083']
Pretty nice lens ...
[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/pentax/643-pentax300f4"]http://www.opticallimits.com/pentax/643-pentax300f4[/url]
[/quote]
Seems like a nice lens, but.... one big drawback (if the published data is right):
Its MFD is a nice 1.2m, but only will do 1:5.. this means it has very pronounced breathing. My 70-200mm f4 L also reaches 1:5, at 1.2m.
It performs similar to the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM in this respect, but that lens is a zoom lens (and a let down in that respect too).
So, for photographers like me, not an ideal lens either (just like that Canon 70-300 L), who would like 300mm at close focus distances, for the narrow field of view.
The Tamron 70-300mm VC and Canon EF 300mm f4 L IS USM perform better in this respect (1:4 at 1.5 meters MFD).
Pretty nice lens ...
[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/pentax/643-pentax300f4"]http://www.opticallimits.com/pentax/643-pentax300f4[/url]
[/quote]
Seems like a nice lens, but.... one big drawback (if the published data is right):
Its MFD is a nice 1.2m, but only will do 1:5.. this means it has very pronounced breathing. My 70-200mm f4 L also reaches 1:5, at 1.2m.
It performs similar to the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM in this respect, but that lens is a zoom lens (and a let down in that respect too).
So, for photographers like me, not an ideal lens either (just like that Canon 70-300 L), who would like 300mm at close focus distances, for the narrow field of view.
The Tamron 70-300mm VC and Canon EF 300mm f4 L IS USM perform better in this respect (1:4 at 1.5 meters MFD).
froeschle
06-09-2011, 10:19 AM
Quote:Its MFD is a nice 1.2m, but only will do 1:5
That is an error in the specification sheet, which obviously was copied from the DA* 200 and not from the DA* 300.
According to Pentax (see e.g. p. 23/24 in http://www.pentax.jp/japan/products/cata...sories.pdf ) the DA* 300 has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4m with a maximum magnification of 0.24x (size: 83x184mm^2, weight: 1070 g, optical formula: 8 elements in 6 groups).
06-09-2011, 10:28 AM
[quote name='froeschle' timestamp='1307614772' post='9091']
That is an error in the specification sheet, which obviously was copied from the DA* 200 and not from the DA* 300.
According to Pentax (see e.g. p. 23/24 in http://www.pentax.jp/japan/products/cata...sories.pdf ) the DA* 300 has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4m with a maximum magnification of 0.24x (size: 83x184mm^2, weight: 1070 g, optical formula: 8 elements in 6 groups).
[/quote]
Ah.. thanks! 1:4 at 1.4 meters makes more sense for a prime!
That is an error in the specification sheet, which obviously was copied from the DA* 200 and not from the DA* 300.
According to Pentax (see e.g. p. 23/24 in http://www.pentax.jp/japan/products/cata...sories.pdf ) the DA* 300 has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4m with a maximum magnification of 0.24x (size: 83x184mm^2, weight: 1070 g, optical formula: 8 elements in 6 groups).
[/quote]
Ah.. thanks! 1:4 at 1.4 meters makes more sense for a prime!
PuxaVida
06-09-2011, 10:51 AM
[quote name='froeschle' timestamp='1307614772' post='9091']
That is an error in the specification sheet, which obviously was copied from the DA* 200 and not from the DA* 300.
According to Pentax (see e.g. p. 23/24 in [url="http://www.pentax.jp/japan/products/catalog/pdf/lenses_accessories.pdf"]http://www.pentax.jp...accessories.pdf[/url] ) the DA* 300 has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4m with a maximum magnification of 0.24x (size: 83x184mm^2, weight: 1070 g, optical formula: 8 elements in 6 groups).
[/quote]
I guess 1:4 at 1.4 meters is quite impressive for a non-macro lens with 300mm FL. Apart from macro lenses, I would rather use lenses with shorter FL (with higher mag. ratio) for close up flowers etc... Something like the Voigtlaender Lanthar 90mm...
I think the main issue with this lens is that the background blur is not so pleasent. Because of the pronounced outlining, it looks nervous (as the report already states). And unsurprisingly, the foreground blur looks better (which can be questioned if needed or not).
Serkan
That is an error in the specification sheet, which obviously was copied from the DA* 200 and not from the DA* 300.
According to Pentax (see e.g. p. 23/24 in [url="http://www.pentax.jp/japan/products/catalog/pdf/lenses_accessories.pdf"]http://www.pentax.jp...accessories.pdf[/url] ) the DA* 300 has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4m with a maximum magnification of 0.24x (size: 83x184mm^2, weight: 1070 g, optical formula: 8 elements in 6 groups).
[/quote]
I guess 1:4 at 1.4 meters is quite impressive for a non-macro lens with 300mm FL. Apart from macro lenses, I would rather use lenses with shorter FL (with higher mag. ratio) for close up flowers etc... Something like the Voigtlaender Lanthar 90mm...
I think the main issue with this lens is that the background blur is not so pleasent. Because of the pronounced outlining, it looks nervous (as the report already states). And unsurprisingly, the foreground blur looks better (which can be questioned if needed or not).
Serkan
06-09-2011, 12:19 PM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1307616660' post='9094']
I guess 1:4 at 1.4 meters is quite impressive for a non-macro lens with 300mm FL. Apart from macro lenses, I would rather use lenses with shorter FL (with higher mag. ratio) for close up flowers etc... Something like the Voigtlaender Lanthar 90mm...
I think the main issue with this lens is that the background blur is not so pleasent. Because of the pronounced outlining, it looks nervous (as the report already states). And unsurprisingly, the foreground blur looks better (which can be questioned if needed or not).
Serkan
[/quote]
Seeing the Tamron 70-30-0 VC and Canon 300mm f4 L IS already reach 1:4 at 1.5 meters, not quite that impressive... OK, but nothing special.
I seriously dislike 90mm on APS-C for close up work, the field of view just is highly unattractive to me. I like more narrow field if view (use 200mm at the moment) or wider field of view (35mm or wider). My 90mm macro gets very little use.
I guess 1:4 at 1.4 meters is quite impressive for a non-macro lens with 300mm FL. Apart from macro lenses, I would rather use lenses with shorter FL (with higher mag. ratio) for close up flowers etc... Something like the Voigtlaender Lanthar 90mm...
I think the main issue with this lens is that the background blur is not so pleasent. Because of the pronounced outlining, it looks nervous (as the report already states). And unsurprisingly, the foreground blur looks better (which can be questioned if needed or not).
Serkan
[/quote]
Seeing the Tamron 70-30-0 VC and Canon 300mm f4 L IS already reach 1:4 at 1.5 meters, not quite that impressive... OK, but nothing special.
I seriously dislike 90mm on APS-C for close up work, the field of view just is highly unattractive to me. I like more narrow field if view (use 200mm at the moment) or wider field of view (35mm or wider). My 90mm macro gets very little use.
Yakim
06-09-2011, 12:21 PM
It's so light. If I was in Pentax I'd probably get it.
johnwhit
06-09-2011, 12:29 PM
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1307622097' post='9097']
It's so light. If I was in Pentax I'd probably get it.
[/quote]
I think that the the weight is copied from the DA*200 review and thus incorrect.
John
It's so light. If I was in Pentax I'd probably get it.
[/quote]
I think that the the weight is copied from the DA*200 review and thus incorrect.
John
Yakim
06-09-2011, 12:32 PM
[quote name='johnwhit' timestamp='1307622566' post='9099']
I think that the the weight is copied from the DA*200 review and thus incorrect.
John
[/quote]
Party spoiler. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
I think that the the weight is copied from the DA*200 review and thus incorrect.
John
[/quote]
Party spoiler. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />06-09-2011, 12:47 PM
Yes, this is incorrect. I'm a bit surprised because I entered the data at some stage. Seems as if I forgot to safe the info thereafter.