Larry Cook mused:
>
> 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,
1) It's heavy.
2) It's *heavy*
3) It's HEAVY.
4) Although it's not as heavy as a 300/2.8, let alone the 250-600/5.6
I use mine without a monopod, but after an hour or two my arms
complain every time I lift the thing to shooting position.
The tripod mount isn't flimsy; you can use it to break rocks with :-)
I find the AF performance perfectly acceptable, and have no complaints
about the optical performance of the lens. There's some degree of
light fall-off in the corners, especially wide open, but I haven't seen
an 80-200/2.8 where this isn't the case. I've used mine with a PZ-1p,
an MZ-S, and the *ist-D. I shoot primarily motorsports (a fast action
sport), and have found the AF performance fast enough. I rarely use
full-auto AF, though; I manually select the auto-focus point (this is
one of the reasons why I prefer the *ist-D to the earlier cameras;
a wider choice of AF points suits my shooting style much better).
With the full-frame cameras I sometimes found 200mm wasn't quite long
enough; the extra crop factor of the smaller sensor means that I can
sometimes get away with just the 80-200. That will also work to your
advantage when shooting soccer.
Where, physically, are you located? There are a couple of us on
the list that have the 80-200, and PDML members are a friendly bunch;
I've been able to test out lenses courtesy of other list members.
As for being worth the $500 premium; that's a question for you to
decide. That difference would buy you a DA 16-45, for one thing.
