Hi,
I bought the FA* 80-200/2.8 a couple of weeks ago. So
far I am very pleased with it and an I can second
everything John Francis said about this lens.
Also, if this is important for you, I think it is one
of the very few zoom lenses that have a good bokeh.
That was the ultimate reason why I preferred it over
the Sigma (which also seems to be a good lens).
For the size/weight/flimsy tripod mount issues: They
all (2.8 tele zooms) are heavy and bulky; IMO the
Sigma is only marginally lighter. If weight is an
issue I would not go for a 2.8 zoom at all. (BTW the
dimensions of the Pentax FA* are almost identical to
those of the Canon 70-200/2.8L). The Pentax FA* is
mostly made of metal (including the tripod mount,
which is certainly not "flimsy")
Some other aspects which may be of interest: The Sigma
APO EX 1.4x converter fits the FA*80-200mm though it
is not mentioned under the list of compatible lenses
manual of the converter. But actually it fits because
its "snout" is shorter than that of the genuine Pentax
1.4L converter (and designed for A* and FA* tele
lenses) that will *not* fit (only the Pentax
S-converters fit). But this one does not allow
autofocus anyway.
The Pentax focuses down to 1.4 m (vs. 1.8 for the
Sigma) and the tripod collar (of the Pentax) is
removable so it does not get in the way when shooting
free-hand.
Enjoy,
Alexander
I was in a similar situation choosing between the
Sigma and the Pentax.
Larry Cook wrote:
>
> I have recently posted a query about 80-200 f2.8
zooms in general and
> after receiving opinions here and elsewhere I would
like to know more
> about the Pentax 80-200 FA* specifically from actual
owners/users of
> that lens, especially when married to a *istD. I
have narrowed my search
> to the Pentax and the Sigma 70-200. I have heard
nice things about both
> but I have also heard some less than favorable
things about the Pentax
> (as well as teh Sigma). So before I launch off into
a search for a
> suitable speciman and its most likely equally
suitable price I would
> like to see if it is worth searching for given what
I intend to shoot
> with it. I intend to shoot mainly my son's high
school soccer, so I need
> something that has a rather quick AF. I have heard
that the Pentax AF is
> both slow and fast and that it is both one of the
best and not one of
> the best optically. It is also apparently heavy and
the tripod moumt is
> flimsy. What is the actual truth? How is the AF
performance? Is it a
> great optical speciman or just mediocre? It is
heavy, oh well, I have a
> monpod and currently use it with the two Tokina ATX
MF zooms that I
> have, so no big deal there. How is the construction?
Is the tripod mount
> really flimsy? Anything else of note? Is it worth
pursuing given the
> possible $500 premium over and above the Sigma lens?
>
> I appreciate any reponses both good and bad because
it is information
> that I seek,
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
