Pentax made very nice, quite famous loupes :-) They ar expensive, thouh. I just use the first wideangle I can find on my shelf. Looking through it reversed gives a great magnification. But sometimes I see the texture in the paper rather than the photograph :-)
I'd love to see a test: K 4/200mm vs. M 4/200mm. Anyway, I'm quite surprised that the M 4/200mm seems to perform so well. I actually bought it to sell, but now I believe I'll keep it. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. marts 2005 22:20 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: M 4/200mm vs F 4-5.6/70-210mm at 200mm > Congratulation with the K 200mm, John! Quite a bargain! Is it better > than the M - or just harder to find? Thanks for posting your > results. Thanks Jens, I'm not sure which is the best optically but it'll be interesting to test both some time, perhaps post some results. I never scanned the test shots of the previous test but examined prints under a borrowed loupe, I really need to get a loupe of my own someday but not sure what to buy. > I'd like to have the FA 2.8/200mm, which is excellent. But this baby > has a list price of 3200 USD here in Denmark, really!! And can be > purchased for > 1.359 Euro in Germany (which is about half, but still a lot of money) > ! I guess I'll nevfer get the FA 2.8 :-) Yes me too, the best I can manage is the FA 135mm f/2.8 (with occasional 1.5x TC attached). I've resigned myself to looking for a Sigma EX 70-200 f/2.8 OR EX 180mm f/3.5 prime, at least I could put my EX converters to more use. > But my K 2.8/105mm gives me "2.8/158mm" on the *ist D - Brilliant > lens! I'll never part with that one. Razor sharp at f2.8! Sounds great, I feel the same way about the 200mm M, I've had it for years and won't part with it even if the K turns out better. John
