I gave one (manual focus) a whirl a couple of years ago. It's optically excellent, except perhaps @ 2.8 where it is a bit soft. For the price (often under $200 with paint wear) it's a bargain as it's 99% as good as the $1k camera-branded lenses.
I got rid of it for a simple functionality matter -- for me 80-200 is a general-purpose range (not long enough for sports or wildlife and not wide enough for people) and a 2.8 lens is awfully big fo carry-around. In that range a more compact f4 lens I find more suitable. About the only place I made good use of 80-200 was @ wrigley field, sitting 1/2 way between first & second, about 15 rows back. Add a 1.4x and it's a more usable range. Otherwise you have to be too close to the action. That's why I like 100mm. It gives me the majority of what 80-200 provides, and then sharper. Next stop -- 300/4.5 or thereabouts with a 1.4x. Something good for sports and large birds (buzzards and turkeys). Collin _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
