Fortunately their closefocusing ability is about the same. /Paul
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Paul Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re[2]: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:17:26 -0700
One thing to always check into is close focusing before switching from
prime to zoom. It is quite commonfor the prime to focus closer than the zoom.
If one needs/wants close focusing then the prime might be the better choice.
Seems I recall someone mentioning in this thread the FA* 80-200/2.8 doesn't focus
very close.
--- Bruce
Wednesday, October 1, 2003, 9:55:56 AM, you wrote:
PE> The reason for my question and the comparison is that I have the other three
PE> lenses. If I get the 80-200mm f/2.8 it would replace my 200m f/2.8 (any
PE> interest?). The macro lens I'm keeping for macro and the 70-210mm f/4-5.6
PE> I'm keeping for times when the I want to travel light. Also when I get the
PE> ist D a 200mm lens will be croped to a equivalent of a 300mm lens. A lens
PE> this long requires (in my book) a tripod mount that the 2.8 zoom has. Of
PE> course this is not the only reason, the zoom function will be handy as well.
PE> But a big question is if I will have to give up to much in performance
PE> switching to the zoom.
PE> /Paul
>>From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: FA* 80-200mm f/2.8
>>Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:52:03 -0400
>>
>>This is a silly question, look at what you're comparing, a fast sharp macro
>>with a very fast zoom
>>and a much smaller lighter prosumer zoom.
>>
>>I've never used the first two, I have the F 70-210. It's a very nice lens
>>well built, (lots of metal).
>>It's manual focus characteristics are like the 43mm Ltd, (same whirring
>>noise that some people here have
>>complained about), but less damping so it's a bit more fiddlie. This lens
>>has very long focusing helical,
>>almost like an old Manual Focus two touch lens. It takes 49mm filters
>>which is nice, (no expensive 77mm
>>filters for this baby).
>>
>>Both the FA* 200 and the FA* 2.8 80-200 have excellent reputations but here
>>is the comparison that I'm sure
>>of...
>>
>>You can pick one up a good to mint condition F 70-210 for between $90-$160.
>>KEH currently has a FA* 80-210 listed in excelent-plus condition for $999.
>>I'm not sure what the FA* 200 would go for at this point but at least $900+
>>new.
>>
>>So you have to ask yourself, is a couple of stops worth about $900? If you
>>need it
>>the answer is yes, even if you can't afford it, but in that case you still
>>buy the F 70-210.
>>The second thing is do I need the sharpness and resolution that a Prime
>>will give me over a zoom?
>>That's not so easy to answer these days.
>>
>>At 11:10 AM 9/30/03 -0700, you wrote:
>>>What's the general opinion of this lens? Compared to the FA* 200mm f/2.8,
>>>F 100mm macro f/2.8 and the F 70-210mm f/4-5.6? What about the weight?
>>>And also if I can ask what you paid for yours used (of list if you want)?
>>>I'm trying to determine what a reasonable price is. Any info about this
>>>lens is appreciated.
>>>
>>>thanks
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>By the way, I checked all the usual sources online.
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get
>>>Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
>>
>>I drink to make other people interesting.
>> -- George Jean Nathan
>>
PE> _________________________________________________________________
PE> High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local
PE> service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
