For landscapes I'm considering the 165 2.8 or 200 f4. Any opinions on which is best? Also, how about 165 with 2X or 200 with 1.4? Thanks, Pat

-- Pat Gerlach (patgbek@bektel.com), September 16, 2001

Answers

I have owned the 200 Pentax for many years. Although it has an f/32 stop, it still does not have enough DOF for many of the landscapes that I do. There is no question in my mind that the f/4 165 LS would be a better landscape lens than the 200. The 165 LS has f/32 while the 165 f/2.8 does not.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), September 16, 2001.

Pat: The 165 LS with the 2x might be a stretch, not so much because of optics but because of shutter vib. At 330mm with no tripod collar, it would probably be a problem at the known dangerous shutter speeds. The 165 LS is the same optical design as the 200 Pentax. It is a long proven design(Ernostar) that originated in Germany about 75 years ago and has been used by Leica quite a bit. The 165 LS with the 1.4X would be more usable at 231mm and f/45. (The 1.4x has the added benefit of extending the focal length and the original f/32 becomes f/45). A 2x with the 165 becomes 330mm and that is in the range where color separation starts to become a problem. If you never shot this combination wide open, then it wouldn't be an issue. The new 90-180 zoom is reported to have f/45 at all focal lengths. Something to consider.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), September 16, 2001.

Pat, I use the 200 f4 quite a bit for landscape work. I had a 165 2.8 but sold it in favor of the new 200. I think that if your preference in 35mm is an 85mm or 100mm, then let that guide you. I've always loved the Nikon 105mm lens for landscape work, so I guess that "look" influenced me in favoring the 200mm for the P67. Although, it has the reach and depth of field of a 200, for certain landscapes it's great. I also carry the 1.4 rear converter for use on the 200mm; it's sharper and has more contrast than the 300mm Takumar I had. I think you have to see which lenses you use most in 35mm landscape work (if you shoot 35mm) and then get a close equivalent for the Pentax 6x7. Multiply the focal length for 35mm by 2 and that should be close, although the aspect ratios for the formats are not the same, so the 6x7 long lenses will look longer, and the wide lenses won't look as wide. My landscape kit includes the 55mm, 75 shift lens, 135 macro, the 200mm and the 1.4 converter. Sometimes I'll swap the 45mm for the 55. In 35mm this combination would be 28, 35, 70, 100,and 140. So, if you're an 85mm guy, go for the 165, if you see in 105mm, get the 200. The new 200 is light, sharp, is a great performer, and the resolution won't degrade with the 1.4 converter.

-- Charles Shoffner (chasmn@aol.com), September 16, 2001.

So if I went with a 165 f4 LS with a 2X converter, how sharp would it be? Let's assume I have enough technique to get the job done, that I'd be shooting at f22 or 32 anyway, that I'm fussy about sharpness and that I like big prints. What do you think? Pat

-- Pat Gerlach (patgbek@bektel.com), September 16, 2001.