Medium tele for Pentax 67

Hi,
First of all sorry for my poor english.
I plan to add a medium tele for my P67 and thinking of either 165mm f2.8 or 200mm f4. I read that 165mm have lover/hater while most people like the 200mm. What I don't understand is that used 165mm sells higher than 200mm.
Please give me some feedback, I shoot mostly landscape and occasionaly portrait.

Jon

Hi,
I haven't got the 200 F/4 but I do have the 165 f/2.8. From what I get, the 200 has several variations, the newest one being the best and closest focusing. I know that that edition was optically redesigned so it is worth getting the latest one if you go for the 200 f/4.

As for a lens I actually do have experience with, I personally think that the 165 is an excellent portrait lens, and with that big f/2.8 aperture its a magnificent piece of optical glass in my opinion. Really stunning with a nice circular diaphragm that stops down nicely and has really good bokeh wide open. I guess you could wish the 165 had a f/32 stop, which the 200 has, but honestly I never felt like I needed it. I have very little experience using the lens in landscape situations as I tend to use wide angles, but nevertheless I offer high praise for the 165, as I would for any P67 optic.

I own and use the 165 mm f 4.0 (with shutter) and a 200mm f 4. ( late version). If I would have to choose between both and I was to do mostly landscapes I would favor the 200mm. Both have pleased me in every way optically and with their sturdiness. BTW both were pleasant and cheap succesfull purchases on the big online seller.

Hi boris, any reason why you favor 200mm? To be honest I'm still training my eyes to see landscape in compressed perspective so I wouldn't want a lens that only serves narrow purpose.
F32 would be nice to have but I wonder if diffraction creeps at this point?

Jon