> Anyone considering the purchase of a 70-210/4 zoom should price > the 80-200/2.8 zooms. It's surprising how small a premium you pay > to get the extra speed (and hence ease of focus), build quality, > and panache in this lens class. The real penalty is weight, but at > least you get a tripod mount.
[and] > I am in that exact situation but the Tokina AT-X 80-200 f/2.8 is > $350 from KEH, while the SMC-A 70-210 f/4 is $160 in the same > condition, avail. for $125 or thereabouts in bargain condition. To > me, that's a big difference. If you feel that it is absolutely > worth saving up to get the bigger, brighter lens, I understand > that and maybe I'll wait and save some more. The subject line of this thread is indeed appropriate - <g>. Yes, there are advantages to having a brighter 80-200/2.8, as compared to a "dimmer" (?) 70-210/4, but there are disadvantages, too: 1. Weight, as mentioned. 2. Size (physical dimensions, separate from weight). 3. 80-200 is a 2.5 to 1 zoom range, while 70-210 is a 3.0 to 1 zoom range, and that ~is~ a significant difference (although often overlooked in discussions of 70-210 vs 80-200 lenses). (This is also the main reason why I prefer the A 70-210/4 to the M 80-200/4.5 - it's not the small speed difference of f/4 vs f/4.5.) 4. The Pentax lens is a jen-you-wine SMC Pentax. The Tokina (which is a good lens - don't get me wrong), well, it, er, "isn't". I ~used to~ have a (manual focus) Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, but I ~still~ have my Pentax A 70-210/4's. Almost never have I missed the extra stop of speed. (If I'm shooting inn really low light, I'm using fast primes such as the A* 85/1.4, A* 135/1.8, and K 200/2.5 anyway.) AT-X 80-200/2.8 - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x8020028/ A 70-210/4 - http://phred.org/pentax/lensgal/a70-210_4/ge1c.html Fred - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
