I have to smile at your comment on the weight. After using an 80-200/2.8 from Tokina, I finally sold it because of weight. That is what led me to the A 70-210/4. Optically as good, but much lighter and usable than the 2.8 series of lenses. I had really hoped that Pentax would have released the 50-200 as a constant f4 so that we would have had an AF version of the A 70-210/4.
-- Bruce Sunday, February 4, 2007, 8:14:54 AM, you wrote: BL> Thanks all of you who replied. BL> Well, there is only one problem with Sigma 70-200 2.8 beside its BL> price. It is over 1 kg in weight. It would seem to me that I will have BL> to confine myself to focal lengths no longer than 200 mm and actually BL> I may even confine myself further making my 77 ltd the longest lens I BL> would *actively* use. BL> I have read about Tamron 70-300 and looked at sample images. It is not BL> that much better than FA 80-320 if at all... Several people also BL> reported that it suffers from CA as well, so the sample variation BL> seems to be significant. BL> I am afraid this is going to be a real case of disablement for me. BL> On 2/4/07, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 4/2/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >> >I'll amend that, I was referring to optical quality. >> >> No argument. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO is a top performer. >> >> -- >> >> >> Cheers, >> Cotty >> >> >> ___/\__ >> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >> ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com >> _____________________________ >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> BL> -- BL> Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
