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