Hey Larry, don't worry about the weight, just consider it training for the 600mm FA. <VBG>
-----Original Message----- From: Larry Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Nov 10, 2004 7:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax 80-200 FA* Opinions > >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. > > > > John, Thanks very much for the response. That is exactly the type of response I was seeking. I assumed that it was heavy at 1510g but the two lenses I currently use, Tokina ATX 100-300 f4 and ATX 80-200 f2.8 (both MF) are heavy themselves. The 300, I always use the monopod with but I have taken to handholding the 200. I haven't weighed either but the new ATX 80-200 is around 1300g so I'm betting the ones I have are that or heavier, most likely the latter. So that actually didn't concern me greatly. Though lighter would be easier on my aging back and shoulders and arms and feet...oh well...Of course the Sigma 70-200 which I am considering is 1200-1300g, so while lighter, it is no featherweight but lighter is lighter... I am glad to hear that he tripod mount is solid. When I read about the mount previously, I was surprised to see it described in that way considering the type of lens this is. So I wanted first hand knowledge which is usually better than second or third hand. I have been thinking about how to use the AF because at the moment I don't use it all. In fact I only have one lens, the 16-45 DA, that is AF (A great lens that I managed to get for just $300, lucky me.) and I was thinking about selecting the center point to focus with. Considering, that when I meter, I use center weighted or spot metering during the games, which are usually at night, selecting the center AF point should work fine. Most of the time, however, I just set the aperture and speed and shoot but I am almost always centering my subject so I'm athinkin' it should work. I am in Lexington, KY, so if someone were close, I would love to test drive one if possible but I'm not holding my breath. I'm betting that Pentax users are a scattered bunch and I have gotten used to buying lenses on faith since no one around here carries Pentax lenses other than consumer grade. My preference is constant f2.8 glass, though the 16-45 is f4 and I have an f3.5 35-105 A, but I prefer as fast as possible because I prefer to shoot in existing light whenever I can. The flashes just give me trouble. They either don't flash enough or too much or I just don't like the effect. Maybe I'll outgrow that sometime... Larry www.cook-imaging.com ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
