> I concur. The "SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4" has been a very sharp and good > performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because > this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for > just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement.
I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - <g>). However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the "pinching" of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good "light bucket". Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X "PRO" (<g>) 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass? Fred
