FA 80-320 Pentax lens

jgredline · 03-30-2008, 05:21 PM

Hi Folks.
I found this lens on EEKBAY for $225.00 and frankly from what I have seen so far, it is pretty good.....

ryan s · 03-30-2008, 06:26 PM

As my only AF lens and (technically) longest lens, I'd have to agree that it's not bad indeed. If people use the long end more often, it would be wise to put more money into a lens.

For $150 (what I paid), it does the job. Would have been nice to get a black one, but whatever...

Abbazz · 03-30-2008, 06:29 PM

Congrats Javier, the 80-320 is a fine lens, the best telezoom in the FA (no star) series. It is also quite rare, as most current owners don't want to part with theirs. Your pictures illustrate very well the qualities of this lens: nice colors, good contrast, sharp images, little chromatic aberrations.

Cheers!

Abbazz

selar · 03-30-2008, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by ryan s

For $150 (what I paid), it does the job. Would have been nice to get a black one, but whatever...

The silver version is supposed to be the better version.

**xs400** · 03-30-2008, 09:35 PM

I also have a FA 80-320mm. I am quite happy with the lens, and your shots nicely demonstrate what a great lens it is.

selar · 03-30-2008, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Abbazz

Congrats Javier, the 80-320 is a fine lens, the best telezoom in the FA (no star) series. It is also quite rare, as most current owners don't want to part with theirs. Your pictures illustrate very well the qualities of this lens: nice colors, good contrast, sharp images, little chromatic aberrations.

Cheers!

Abbazz

I dumped mine in favour of the SA50-200 for the following reasons:

1. Too long when fully extended. The reason why its called the "Paparazzi Lens" though I think that honorific applies specially to the gold painted version (eeeeek!)
2. Suffers quite badly from zoom creep.
3. Is soft from 250mm onwards, no matter how much you stop it down.
4. Quite average build quality, means that elements can or not be in alignment depending on how much it was knocked around.

But it is the best consumer FA zoom in the 100-300mm range, and is better than both 100-300mm FA versions.

No sellers remorse whatsoever - I am glad I kept the SA50-200.

jgredline · 03-30-2008, 09:46 PM

I saw another one sell on e bay today for $150.00 bucks, but I do n ot feel bad in anyway paying what I paid. It also seems to working well with all my TC's so only a shooting day will tell me for sure. I am thinking about going out tomorrow to one of the local ponds to test it.

Big Dave · 03-30-2008, 11:11 PM

Javier,
I picked one up a couple months ago and I am really impressed with it. It is quite small for its reach and low cost used. Since I use digital, I was able to install a 58-52 step down ring and use my existing filters etc.

Dave

Fritz · 03-31-2008, 07:28 AM

I'm looking for a lens in the 300mm range, so it's nice for me to see these photos. Looks like it is a decent performer to me!

BTW I really like the close up shot of the Jesus with the children statue, nice job.

ryan s · 03-31-2008, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by selar

The silver version is supposed to be the better version.

I wasn't aware that there was a difference due to the color of the barrel

jgredline · 03-31-2008, 01:53 PM

Folks,
Thanks for all the comments. I too did not know there was a difference in performance due to color. Infact, I did not even know there was black ones.

Nels · 03-31-2008, 02:12 PM

I have a good opinion of this lens in the siver version as well. It was the first lens I purchased with my k10d last April and I have used it extensively at college soccer games for two seasons now. It is always in my bag when traveling.

jbarnhart · 03-31-2008, 02:30 PM

I have a silver one, but I don't believe there are any differences in this lens with respect to color. The lens is a very good performer, but it does suffer a bit at the longest reach. The only other aspect I don't like is that it rotates the front element as you focus -- makes it harder to use a polarizer or ND filter.

Folks on DPR sometimes call it the "Bejersey zoom" because of the efforts of an avid owner of this lens. He used to shoot _everything_ with his beloved FA 80-320. He ultimately moved on to another system. (Indeed, he is somewhat of a vagabond, moving from camera system to camera system seemingly at random. But a good guy and an enthusiastic poster.)

selar · 03-31-2008, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by jbarnhart

Folks on DPR sometimes call it the "Bejersey zoom" because of the efforts of an avid owner of this lens.

I scratched my head in vain trying to remember that name, thanks for reminding me.

Bejersky zoom and Paparazzi zoom are two names for this lens. Now which other lens actually has not one, but two nicknames?

jgredline · 03-31-2008, 04:09 PM

I bought a rubber screw on hood for mine yesterday and it seemed to have helped.
I will post picks of it when I get home tonight.

03-30-2008, 05:21 PM	#1
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	FA 80-320 Pentax lens Hi Folks. I found this lens on EEKBAY for $225.00 and frankly from what I have seen so far, it is pretty good.....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax FA 80-320 4.5/5.6 (6 IMGS)	pcarfan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-16-2009 07:20 AM
Where can I get lens hood for my FA80-320?	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	05-16-2008 09:39 AM
Pentax FA 80-320 4.5-5.6	tux08902	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	12-16-2007 10:39 AM
Pentax FA 80-320	Mojo_fish	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	11-13-2007 08:21 PM
Lens hood for Pentax 80-320?	Arpe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	02-23-2007 02:50 PM

03-30-2008, 06:26 PM	#2
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	As my only AF lens and (technically) longest lens, I'd have to agree that it's not bad indeed. If people use the long end more often, it would be wise to put more money into a lens. For $150 (what I paid), it does the job. Would have been nice to get a black one, but whatever...

03-30-2008, 06:29 PM	#3
Abbazz Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 667	Congrats Javier, the 80-320 is a fine lens, the best telezoom in the FA (no star) series. It is also quite rare, as most current owners don't want to part with theirs. Your pictures illustrate very well the qualities of this lens: nice colors, good contrast, sharp images, little chromatic aberrations. Cheers! Abbazz

03-30-2008, 09:31 PM	#4
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by ryan s For $150 (what I paid), it does the job. Would have been nice to get a black one, but whatever... The silver version is supposed to be the better version.

03-30-2008, 09:35 PM	#5
xs400 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,929	I also have a FA 80-320mm. I am quite happy with the lens, and your shots nicely demonstrate what a great lens it is.

03-30-2008, 09:44 PM	#6
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by Abbazz Congrats Javier, the 80-320 is a fine lens, the best telezoom in the FA (no star) series. It is also quite rare, as most current owners don't want to part with theirs. Your pictures illustrate very well the qualities of this lens: nice colors, good contrast, sharp images, little chromatic aberrations. Cheers! Abbazz I dumped mine in favour of the SA50-200 for the following reasons: 1. Too long when fully extended. The reason why its called the "Paparazzi Lens" though I think that honorific applies specially to the gold painted version (eeeeek!) 2. Suffers quite badly from zoom creep. 3. Is soft from 250mm onwards, no matter how much you stop it down. 4. Quite average build quality, means that elements can or not be in alignment depending on how much it was knocked around. But it is the best consumer FA zoom in the 100-300mm range, and is better than both 100-300mm FA versions. No sellers remorse whatsoever - I am glad I kept the SA50-200.

03-30-2008, 09:46 PM	#7
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	I saw another one sell on e bay today for $150.00 bucks, but I do n ot feel bad in anyway paying what I paid. It also seems to working well with all my TC's so only a shooting day will tell me for sure. I am thinking about going out tomorrow to one of the local ponds to test it.

03-30-2008, 11:11 PM	#8
Big Dave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 547	Javier, I picked one up a couple months ago and I am really impressed with it. It is quite small for its reach and low cost used. Since I use digital, I was able to install a 58-52 step down ring and use my existing filters etc. Dave

03-31-2008, 07:28 AM	#9
Fritz Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Tillamook, OR Posts: 1,222	I'm looking for a lens in the 300mm range, so it's nice for me to see these photos. Looks like it is a decent performer to me! BTW I really like the close up shot of the Jesus with the children statue, nice job.

03-31-2008, 01:38 PM	#10
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Originally posted by selar The silver version is supposed to be the better version. I wasn't aware that there was a difference due to the color of the barrel

03-31-2008, 01:53 PM	#11
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Folks, Thanks for all the comments. I too did not know there was a difference in performance due to color. Infact, I did not even know there was black ones.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2008, 02:12 PM	#12
Nels Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Collinsville, Ok. Photos: Gallery Posts: 218	I have a good opinion of this lens in the siver version as well. It was the first lens I purchased with my k10d last April and I have used it extensively at college soccer games for two seasons now. It is always in my bag when traveling.

03-31-2008, 02:30 PM	#13
jbarnhart Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 99	I have a silver one, but I don't believe there are any differences in this lens with respect to color. The lens is a very good performer, but it does suffer a bit at the longest reach. The only other aspect I don't like is that it rotates the front element as you focus -- makes it harder to use a polarizer or ND filter. Folks on DPR sometimes call it the "Bejersey zoom" because of the efforts of an avid owner of this lens. He used to shoot _everything_ with his beloved FA 80-320. He ultimately moved on to another system. (Indeed, he is somewhat of a vagabond, moving from camera system to camera system seemingly at random. But a good guy and an enthusiastic poster.)

03-31-2008, 02:41 PM	#14
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by jbarnhart Folks on DPR sometimes call it the "Bejersey zoom" because of the efforts of an avid owner of this lens. I scratched my head in vain trying to remember that name, thanks for reminding me. Bejersky zoom and Paparazzi zoom are two names for this lens. Now which other lens actually has not one, but two nicknames?

03-31-2008, 04:09 PM	#15
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	I bought a rubber screw on hood for mine yesterday and it seemed to have helped. I will post picks of it when I get home tonight.