| Author: | | Showing Reviews 1-15 of 22 | | New Member Registered: May, 2012 Posts: 2 | | Lens Review Date: May 8, 2012 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Reach, f4.5 to 200mm, sharpness, weight, no zoom creep | | Cons: | AF hunting, rotating front element, hard to find a decent hood, some PF and CA in high contrast/wide open past 200mm | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-r
| |
I've been a bit surprised at how little respect this lens gets with the few photographers I know. This lens hardly ever comes off my K-r. My copy (a silver version) is sharp wide open up to 200mm, which essentially gives you a pretty nice f4.5 80-200mm, with an extra reach to 320mm as a bonus. Sharpness is fairly good up to about 280-300mm, with PF rearing it's ugly head after that. I've even used it with a circa 1980's 2x teleconverter with somewhat decent results (in that it gives me an effective 640mm lens, that stopped down to f9-11 gives decent sharpness and fairly low CA and PF).
Wide open, it is a bit soft at the long end, but either stopping down to f8 or backing off on the zoom to 250-300 and f7.1 sharpens things up with no problem. The auto focus is a bit slow, and tends to hunt a bit, which is a bit of a problem for birds in flight, but for larger or slower moving birds this isn't much of a problem, and can be somewhat mitigated by pre-focusing. Also, the bokeh isn't the best I've seen, but it still makes for am OK long portrait lens, and it's good for candid photography (provided the noisy AF isn't a problem). All in all, I'm very impressed with this lens, especially given the price I paid for it. If you have a chance, I'd definately recommend picking one of these up if you're looking for a fairly cheap long telephoto lens.
Here's a few shots taken with this lens. All were taken between 200-320mm, with the exception of the moon shot, which was taken with a cheap 2x teleconverter (640mm).
 | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2012 Posts: 21 | | Lens Review Date: March 8, 2012 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | IQ - Bokeh - Sharpness - Price | | Cons: | Focus hunting - No auto Av mode - Build quality | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: Pentax K7
| |
I bought this lens at a bargain price as I needed a long range telephoto. It has excellent IQ and the Bbokeh is really nice.
It feels very plasticy and the major drawback is focusing speed. It hunts a lot and doesn't always get the focus spot on.
Another thing is that for some reason I can not use this lens in Av mode as the camera wouldn't let me choose the aperture.
As I shoot mostly in Tv this is not an issue but it miht be for some people.
| | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: Zagreb Posts: 3 | | Lens Review Date: December 31, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $219.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Range (even more at APS-C), price, look, IQ in good light | | Cons: | rotating front element, IQ in low light, AF hunts | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| |
PROS:
inexpensive
excellent range (320mm FF / 480mm APS-C)
IQ at good light conditions
filter size
CONS
rotating front element
plastic feel
AF hunts a lot
no hood included
CA
I use this lens for wildlife! It is good when there's good light. But in low light it is hard to use without a tripod. There is a some CA when shoot to bright background.
Shoots:
 | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: June, 2011 Location: Near Sydney, NSW Posts: 98 | | Lens Review Date: July 8, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Good range, optics, light, looks serious, auto-everything, 5.6 at 320 isn't that slow... | | Cons: | Only the obvious like it's big, 80-320 what do you expect | |
My pros and cons pretty much say it all - I will add a small con and then go onto the pros in more detail:
At first I thought it was soft above 200 but I think it's more that the AF is a little bit out, and can get easily confused especially with 11 point AF, so my images on AF were a bit soft - I find you're better off pressing AF to get near the range and then flicking it off to get it exact with MF - that's what I do normally anyway, I haven't used many lenses where the AF is as sharp as it can possibly be.
So ok that's a con - AF isn't the best but it is a 10 year old lens, at least it HAS AF.
To me, things that some call cons I call pros. For example - the sound it makes when it's AFing - sounds like something out of James Bond, I love it. Another: I have the silver one. Looks a bit weird on a modern black DSLR... yeah so what? Did you buy your camera to look nice around your neck? Because I've got news for you - people with cameras around their necks look like newb tourists, it's just a fact of life. WE don't look good, we MAKE things that look good. To me, a big fat older looking lens makes you look serious and not like all the posers who buy SLRs to show their friends how cool and arty they are - even though they're not.
People saying it's a bit flimsy - well, honestly I'd rather that than it weighing a tonne, try keeping a heavy lens still at full reach.
Oh and people saying it's slow... what? f5.6 at 320mm... that's ONE stop slower than the Pentax 300 f4 - which cannot pull back, and is about 5 times the price. Then compare it with things that cost maybe $200 on eBay like the Sigma 100-300 which finishes up at 6.7 at the long end... and it's not as long, or as wide at the wide end... and it's optics are worse.
OK enough ranting - if you can find one of these for $300 or less, I'd recommend it. I've used it for birds a lot and it goes very nicely, I love it.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: July, 2009 Location: High Desert, California Posts: 218 | | Lens Review Date: May 5, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Good IQ, Responsive, Inexpensive | | Cons: | Build feels a bit loose | |
Count me along with those who think this lens is under appreciated. I recently spent a day with this lens on my K5 and shot over 400 pictures in shade, bright sun, mixed lighting, action and stills and overall was very happy with the results. The lens was responsive and the AF quick. My copy was the silver version in pristine condition and had obviously seen little use. As others have said the build feels a little loose and plasticky but it handles well so I don't think normal use will cause many problems over the long run. No hood is made for this lens and there were a few shots where one would definitely have helped but for the most part the lens handled the lighting very well. IQ-wise I have no problem endorsing this lens, the problem in actually recommending it comes when considering the other options available new. Tamron makes a 70-300 that retails under $200, the Sigma APO 70-300 for just over $200 (would not personally consider the non APO version), and of course the Pentax DA-L 55-300 now selling on ebay between $200-$250. I also own the last two, the Sigma is built like a tank and the DA-L has the extra range on the wide end which I find very useful. Never used the Tamron so I can't comment. They are all consumer level lenses and while there are differences they all compete roughly equal IQ-wise. My pristine copy of the FA 80-320 was $150 and that's as much as I would spend for it. At that price or less it's a good viable option for anyone on a budget. Any more than that and it's hard to justify not spending the extra for a brand new lens. Especially when the DA-L 55-300 can sometimes be had for as little as $199
| | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2009 Location: Singapore Posts: 22 | | Lens Review Date: December 3, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $150.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp, light with great Pentax color rendition | | Cons: | not IF, small aperture | |
I've owned this lens for half year, very satisfied with it. Before I bought it, I have read all the reviews from this forum, especially the negitive ones, but I was persuaded by those positive review together with the photos. And I was not disappointed.
I like the color most, it's so mch nice than third party lenses (by the way, this is my only Pentax lens, the rest are all third party lens), you don't have to do any PS, very enjoyable.
The lens is light, solid build, AF very fast in good light condition, sharp from 80-200mm, still very good 200mm onward, I'm satisfied with all focal lens.
This lens is very good for flower, portrait photo. I strongly recommend to thos who wants to try tele-shooting.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 27 | | Lens Review Date: October 5, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $105.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Pretty sharp through most of range, light, cheap | | Cons: | On my copy, the zoom is sticky; others complain it creeps | |
I really like this lens, and I use it much more than my DA 50-200. Shortened to 200mm, it is as sharp as the 50-200 at full length, and that extra 120mm is a lot of fun to work with. It was certainly worth what I paid for it.
I use the metal hood that came with my Super Takumar f/4 200mm, and I've never noticed any vignetting, even at 80mm, although I rarely use it at that length. The front tube on my copy is a little loose, but I've never noticed any focus problem that I can associate with that.
Any lack of sharpness at 320 isn't extremely noticeable until you enlarge the photo. I think in most such cases my softer shots are a result of hand shake on my part. This moth/butterfly photo was taken at 320mm at about six feet. This is a 3:2 enlargement.
Last Saturday I handheld the lens to photograph a high-performance driving school at Sebring International Raceway. This shot was at 200mm.
This is a crop of the last shot in a sequence of six shots of the car rounding a curve and approaching. I used continuous focus and high continuous drive mode, and the lens had no trouble keeping up with the car and staying in focus. The whole sequence can be seen at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nparson...7625100733664/.
I highly recommend this lens to anyone who wants a long zoom but is working with a short budget.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: January, 2010 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 1,270 | | Lens Review Date: September 20, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $200.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Good length, Light Weight | | Cons: | Feels a little cheap | |
I enjoyed my copy of this lens. I only sold it because I had the DA-L 55-300 which was a slightly more useful length on the short side.
I produced some great images with this lens and long hikes are no trouble because of its' light weight.
Remember I am saying this as it is a $200 lens (not a $1000 FA*) but with autofocus and a nice range, this is a great low-cost purchase for someone who is just getting into birding.
I found the auto-focus ok for what it was.
You can use the lens hand-held, but you need great light at shutter speeds of 1/450-1/640. This should be enough to stop any shutter shake!
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2010 Location: Paris | | Lens Review Date: July 19, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $80.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Relatively small, light , sharp until 200 wide open, price | | Cons: | need to stop down for 320 to about f8, no macro function. | |
Very good lens for its price , IMO a very honnest 300mm zoom with decent performance on shiny day. DO NOT expect any nice performance at night handheld you need a tripod.
The only big disapointment that i have concerning this zoom is the absence of the macro feature that makes it very hard to take close ups. Hence i am saving up either for the Tamron macro 70-300 or the Sigma macro APO 70-300.
Here is a shot taken either at f8 or f11 at 320.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46315660@N06/4377416330/ | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2007 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 477 | | Lens Review Date: June 17, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $120.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Extra reach, value for money, light weight | | Cons: | Lens creep | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 5
Handling: 8
Value: 10
| |
Easily one of the most under rated zooms in the database IMO, maybe I've just got a good copy compared to those that rated this 4 or 5, or maybe it's a much better lens than that.
What's not to like? It's light weight, gets you past 300mm without breaking the bank, stop it down a little to around f8 and wind it back a little from 320mm and you'll be very happy with the results.
100% crop at 260mm f8?
100% crop at 300mm f8
 | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: September, 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 2,909 | | Lens Review Date: December 18, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Weight and size, focal length, price | | Cons: | Sometimes busy bokeh, needs bright condition. | |
I also own the Sigma 100-300 F4 EX DG, arguably one of the best zooms out there. I also own the FA43 limited and the FA77 limited. So, I know what an excellent lens should be like and this is not in there league, but still a very nice lens.
This lens easily fetches the 8 I gave, the total scores here of 6 something is not indicative of this lens at all.
It needs to be stopped down to F8 in use, so needs bright light to work well. But, weighs pretty much nothing for a 320mm lens. With post processing it can deliver very high quality images. So lets go to that...I took it only for one 3 hour outing and this is what I got.
So, at 320mm is the lens too soft to be used, you tell me...
First one, no sharpening added and at 320mm
A couple of more images at shorter focal lengths
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2009 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 1,270 | | Lens Review Date: June 16, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: No |
Price: $144.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | no zoom creep, decently sharp under 200mm, little PF/CA | | Cons: | soft, even stopped down, compared with similarly-priced Tamron | |
Soft, soft and soft when passing 200mm... low contrast, too.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: May, 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 27 | | Lens Review Date: January 11, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: No |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 5 |
|
Bought one about 6 years ago but did'nt use it that much because, as stated above, it is very soft at the long end (which is where I needed to use it).
Worst problem is that the barrel has become VERY wobbly, and I can find no-one in the UK who was prepared to try to repair it ("cheap plastic lens", "not sure if anything can be done", "not prepared to try", etc.)
Anyone know how to take it apart and fix the problem - otherwise it stays in the cupboard?
(and I now have a DA55-300 and a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 for my Samsung GX10, so it is rather redundant anyway)
John
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: September, 2006 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,308 | | Lens Review Date: September 24, 2008 | I can recommend this lens: No |
Price: $150.00
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | f/4.5 up to 200mm, sharp up to 200mm | | Cons: | Zoom creep, low contrast, low sharpness over 200mm | |
This is a decent budget zoom. It is quite nice up to 200mm: sharpness is good, and it keeps constant f/4,5 aperture up to 200mm. Howeve colour rendition isn't very good and contrast is too low.
Sharpness gets worse when you get over 200mm. Lens becomes really soft at 300mm.
I got this lens instead of DA 50-200mm because of longer reach and I must say that DA 50-200 optically was better lens. If I would do this now, I would choose new DA 55-300mm zoom instead.
And avoid black version of this lens. Very often it has defect when aperture information is not provided to camera body. I haven't heard about such problem with silver version.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: May, 2008 Location: S.E. Michigan Posts: 1,637 | | Lens Review Date: June 13, 2008 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | good price, light weight | | Cons: | construction issues | |
This lens was purchased used from ebay, and may be a case of buying someone else's reject. The lens performs adequately but feels pretty bad when zooming in or out. It also suffers badly from lens creep when pointed down. Additionally, the front element turns when zooming. That's not an issue with digital polarizer but is a nuisance when using the lens on a film camera with a polarizing filter. For those reasons, I rated it a 4, but if you get a chance to examine one before you buy it and it behaves better than mine, I would recommend it.
Hopefully new, this is a better lens than the example I have!
| | |
