Hi,
Thanks Cotty,
I didn't mean AF speed. I meant easier - I kind a prefer fixed focal lengths as I find them easier to work with than zoomz when only one focal length is needed. However, I've got an old Sigma 200/2.8, fixed focal length, and I don't quite like that lens -its good enough but I'm thinking of upgrading to a 200/2.5. Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)?
Cheers,
Ronald
Cotty wrote:
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference?
I have no experience with the Pentax 80-200 2.8 - I had a Sigma 70- 200 2.8 in KA mount and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO.
Or do you mean faster to work with as in speed and ease of use? Well, that L IS lens was one of the main reasons I bought into Canon. That's lightning-fast AF. As for the 200 2.5 and manual focus, it was fine. It's an impressive and quality lens.
HTH
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
