The * lens club - Page 3

**Adam** · 03-11-2007, 09:37 PM

I'd better not talk about the cost of the 80-200mm, but it's by far my best and favorite lens

After 4 months of looking all over the place, I found one through a private deal. Now all I have left to find are the 85mm and 200mm macro.

SupremeMoFo · 03-11-2007, 10:05 PM

Would anyone be willing to volounteer the cost of the 80-200 just to make me not even worry about it?

**Adam** · 03-11-2007, 10:36 PM

I got mine for a bit less, luckily, but the last eBay auction (in early February) ended at $2000.

And I still think it's worth every penny...

SupremeMoFo · 03-12-2007, 12:13 AM

OK, that's sorted.

*CertEdFriday* · 05-13-2008, 04:27 AM

LBA at it's worst 18 months ago - Advised by business manager to go cold turkey...

FA* 24/2 AL [IF]
FA* 28-70/2.8 AL
FA* 85/1.4 [IF]
FA 100/2.8 Macro
A* 200/4 Macro ED
FA* 80-200/2.8 ED [IF]
F* 300/4.5 ED [IF]
FA* 300/4.5 ED [IF]
FA* 300/2.8 ED [IF]
FA* 400/5.6 ED [IF]
FA* 600/4 ED [IF]

I also have the monster Pentax 2000 mirror lens - just need the transport to get it around!
Evidence of 600mm ownership is in the exif data in the link below to my Flickr images

Pied Wagtail on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Regards

*Peter Zack* · 05-13-2008, 04:45 AM

To those that lust after the FA*80-200/2.8 PASS on it. It's not as good as you think. I had a chance to get a mint condition one at a great price (even had the box). It had a few scratches on the body but was well cared for. I have the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and thought I'd sell the Sigma.

Not a chance. The Sigma is lighter and about an inch shorter. Better tripod collar and takes better pictures in every respect. It's sharper, Yes It's sharper at all focal lengths!! and has better IQ in every way you could measure with one exception. The Pentax produces better bokeh but only just a little.
This is an over hyped lens that IMHO is worth not a dime more than $600.00 given that the new Tamron will come in at around $700.00 and I bet that lens will outclass the Pentax as well. After a 2 week testing period, I couldn't sell the FA*80-200mm FAST ENOUGH. There are some excellent */F*/FA*/DA* lenses out there but this isn't one of them. This was a great lens in the film days but I think there is a reason that Pentax has not yet revived this lens for DSLR's (It's said the 200mm and 300mm are just re-worked FA*'s) It's just not as good on a DSLR and they will redesign this lens from the ground up if they ever introduce a new one.

Stupidly I passed on a MF A*85mm/1.4 for a decent price and have kicked myself ever since. I got to test it and these lenses are something to use. IQ like nothing I've seen. But at $1200 ++ these days a 77mm ltd will do just fine thanks.

So my only lens in this group is now the FA*300mm/4.5 and that is a beautiful lens. (2 times the quality of the FA*80-200 (BTW)

I second Adam's request. If you have lens pictures for either the Pentax lenses or the 3rd party ones, Please submit them to Adam.

ericc · 05-13-2008, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Zack

To those that lust after the FA*80-200/2.8 PASS on it. It's not as good as you think. I had a chance to get a mint condition one at a great price (even had the box).

...

This is an over hyped lens that IMHO is worth not a dime more than $600.00

...

OK, Peter, I'll bite. I'll happily give you $600 for your FA* 80-200. Seriously.

I still lust after that lens. I've bid on a few, including Mousehill's waterlogged copy that James now has (and he hasn't updated this thread). If you want to get rid of it, consider me first in line.

*tranq78* · 05-13-2008, 08:54 AM

Interesting comments Peter. I owned the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (since sold) and got to try the FA*80-200/2.8. I much preferred the Pentax over the Sigma, and the Sigma was a very very good lens.

As an experiment I did a photo shoot of a childrens' performance using another third party 80-200/2.8 lens (ahem, Nikon D) and last week I was asked to reshoot the performance, which I did using the FA*80-200/2.8. Upon comparing the 2 results I still greatly prefer the way the Pentax lens renders images.

Originally Posted by Peter Zack

To those that lust after the FA*80-200/2.8 PASS on it. It's not as good as you think. I had a chance to get a mint condition one at a great price (even had the box). It had a few scratches on the body but was well cared for. I have the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and thought I'd sell the Sigma.

Not a chance. The Sigma is lighter and about an inch shorter. Better tripod collar and takes better pictures in every respect. It's sharper, Yes It's sharper at all focal lengths!! and has better IQ in every way you could measure with one exception. The Pentax produces better bokeh but only just a little.
This is an over hyped lens that IMHO is worth not a dime more than $600.00 given that the new Tamron will come in at around $700.00 and I bet that lens will outclass the Pentax as well. After a 2 week testing period, I couldn't sell the FA*80-200mm FAST ENOUGH. There are some excellent */F*/FA*/DA* lenses out there but this isn't one of them. This was a great lens in the film days but I think there is a reason that Pentax has not yet revived this lens for DSLR's (It's said the 200mm and 300mm are just re-worked FA*'s) It's just not as good on a DSLR and they will redesign this lens from the ground up if they ever introduce a new one.

Stupidly I passed on a MF A*85mm/1.4 for a decent price and have kicked myself ever since. I got to test it and these lenses are something to use. IQ like nothing I've seen. But at $1200 ++ these days a 77mm ltd will do just fine thanks.

So my only lens in this group is now the FA*300mm/4.5 and that is a beautiful lens. (2 times the quality of the FA*80-200 (BTW)

I second Adam's request. If you have lens pictures for either the Pentax lenses or the 3rd party ones, Please submit them to Adam.

aegisphan · 05-13-2008, 09:32 AM

Wow, some of you got into the game pretty early or had quite a large amount of cash to spend

. At the moment, I have only 3 FA* lenses but I don't plan to get anymore of these cause I'm content with what I have, and because they're horribly overpriced.

FA* 24/2, FA* 85/1.4, and FA* 200/4 macro.

What I'm considering to get is probably the A* 85/1.4 just to make my FA* 85 happy

. The rest of the gals are quite peerless in their respective area.

It's interesting to see that the FA* 80-200 might be more appealing than the Nikon 80-200. I don't have the Nikon, but from what I read, the Nikkor easily stomps other 3rd party zooms in, at least, optical prowess. Admittedly, Nikon's color rendition is somewhat lacking at time. Now if the FA* 80-200 had SDM, $2k+ is definintely worth it.

*Peter Zack* · 05-13-2008, 09:43 AM

Oh I sold the Pentax. For a tidy sum as well. Maybe I have an exceptional Sigma (non macro version) or got a bad Pentax but the Sigma was a touch sharper and the IQ was equal other than the slightly smoother bokeh. It would be interesting to hear anyone else that had the 2 at the same time and shot the same things with both.

But I like swimming upstream.

Ron Boggs · 05-14-2008, 09:28 AM

* LENSES...OO LA LA!

My turn, and no it isn't a wealth issue by any means. It's a "hobby" issue. Photogs spend less than people who RV, boat, 4-wheel, collect antiques, fly, drag race, skydive, ride dirt bikes, etc. So what if some of us prioritize this hobby to a similar extent as those doing the activities listed above? The majority of the buyers of the above "stuff" buy it on credit (I'm in the boat business and 85% finance their boat purchase). It isn't a sin to buy large ticket photo items on credit (easy to say now that mine are all paid off).

35mm System
FA*28-70/2.8
FA*80-200/2.8
FA*200/4 Macro
FA*250-600/5.6
FA*600/4

67 System
M*300/4
M*400/4

Previously owned but sold:
A*200/4 Macro sold because I have an FA* and didn't need both
A*300/2.8 sold to contribute to 67II system and I prefer my bigger glass
FA*24/2 sold because my copy was not sharp--FA 20/2.8 beat it noticeably
FA*300/4.5 sold because lack of tripod collar didn't fit my shooting style

And PZ, you must have had a bad copy of the 80-200. Even rags like Pop Photo documented it has better IQ than either Canon or Nikon. Yes, it's heavy as all get out--a plus for me...real glass, real aluminum (I can't go magnesium as I'm on the coast a lot--in boats and on sand--and salt water destroys magnesium very quickly--days--good luck to all the Canonites with their new lightweight magnesium telephotos).

By the way, the M* lenses for Pentax 67 are pretty impressive like the FA* for "small format".

I'll put in a plug for the FA*250-600 being the better "get" than the 1200/8. Love mine!

*séamuis* · 05-14-2008, 12:03 PM

god I couldn't imagine selling any A* lens for any reason... what i wouldnt give to have an A* 85mm 1.4 attached to the front of my superA or my MX.

*davef* · 05-14-2008, 01:44 PM

FA* 200 f2.8
F* 300 f4.5

Wonderful lenses for shooting swim meets... Dave

*barondla* · 05-15-2008, 06:50 AM

CertEdFriday, how about a pic of the Pentax 2000? Would also love to see a few shots taken by it too. Don't see that lens often.

thanks
barondla

*Lance B* · 05-15-2008, 08:01 PM

I currently have:
FA*28-70 f2.8
FA*80-200 f2.8
FA*300 f4.5
DA*300 f4
All of these lenses are *superb* and are worthy of their * rating. I cannot speak highly enough of these lenses.

I used to have:
A*200 f2.8
A*300 f4.
Both of these lenses are also superb, with the A*200 being one of the most beautiful lenses I have ever owned. It was such a masterpiece of the lens makers art.

I wouldn't mid owning:
FA*85 f1.4 or'
A*85 f1.4
A*135 f1.8
DA*200 f2.8

Other * lenses I have are but not included in your survey:
DA*16-50 f2.8
DA*50-135 f2.8