I tried this today at Photoplus expo where FF suppose to be there but it's not. I tried and play with 70-200. It's not that heavy compare to canon and nikon but it is heavy because it doesn't have SR function in the lens while canon and nikon do. I can't say anything about optical quality, AF speed, and etc yet but I have one concern about SR. It's really hard and uncomfortable without IS while I used with canon and nikon 70-200. Pentax camera can't check it through the camera. idk how SR work exactly to prevent shake but they should have made this lens with SR like medium format lenses at least.

[UncleVanya]

Pentax SR is in the body.

[Imp]

Pentax moves the sensor to compensate for shake, instead of Canikon model of something in the lens moving to compensate for shake. Works fine, and lenses are, generally, lighter and cheaper, and all lenses can be stablized. With the K-3 II you can get 4.5 EV of shake reduction, or so they claim.

[JimmyDranox]

Pentax stabilization is in the body, but for longer focal lenses, OS is better, specially when you shot small objects far away, like airplanes, or birds in flight. The image with SR is shaking, and sometimes, that shake can fool the metering and even focusing system. For the price they are asking, Pentax could put OS in this lens, and let the user to choose what he wants to use.

[Adam]

The only way to get a stabilized VF image would be to get the Sigma 70-200mm OS HSM, which is now discontinued and was only available for a couple of years.

Pentax SR is in the body.

I know! Did you read my post carefully?

Pentax moves the sensor to compensate for shake, instead of Canikon model of something in the lens moving to compensate for shake. Works fine, and lenses are, generally, lighter and cheaper, and all lenses can be stablized. With the K-3 II you can get 4.5 EV of shake reduction, or so they claim.

They should make 70-200 more lighter than canon and nikon. But I assume that they made bigger for high resolution I guess.

Pentax stabilization is in the body, but for longer focal lenses, OS is better, specially when you shot small objects far away, like airplanes, or birds in flight. The image with SR is shaking, and sometimes, that shake can fool the metering and even focusing system. For the price they are asking, Pentax could put OS in this lens, and let the user to choose what he wants to use.

It's really hard to use telephoto lens WITHOUT OS or SR in the lens.

[UncleVanya]

I did read but your post confused me.

I don't agree with you. I used my 80-200 f2.8 handheld and my 400mm handheld with in body stabilization and I've used them with the hd 1.4x TC before. I find in body stabilization very effective even at these focal lengths and did not find it lacking in any way. Also 200mm on a Full Frame is a modest telephoto. Most of the OS VR advantages come from longer telephoto focal lengths I thought. On the plus side the pentax has more weight in glass not stabilization.

[VisualDarkness]

I used the long end of my Sigma 150-500 handheld at 1/50-1/200s with SR and no problem.

[rawr]

In lens VR can also eat battery power.

And there are those who say that in-lens VR can often contribute to lens softness or aberrations, since the additional lens group that moves around to do the VR obviously isn't fixed, increasing the scope for possible optical mis-alignments. In theory.

[zapp]

First of all: HE HAS SEEN THE LENS AND TOUCHED A WORKING PROTOTYPE!

Pentax stands for in body shake reduction, so OS is not really an option at the moment. Why the lens is that heavy, tests may show whether it is for the good. I want that lens for x-mas, but I want to see tests before I buy into a FF Pentax system..., so it should be out now. The 70-200 is on Pentax' lens chart for quite some time. Please deliver.

One could mention that Canon still makes a 2.8/70-200 msrp $1400 - this is the one without in lens stabilization. Suddenly Pentax' appraoch looks relly expensive, really heavy, ...

[zeitlos]

What about all the people who use (and love) the 50-135mm Pentax (Pentax DA* 50-135mm / F2.8 - Lens Club* • Pentaxians) and never had any problems concerning sharpness due to a missing optical stabilization? Equivalent focal length...

[Rondec]

Not having SR in the lens probably doesn't decrease the actual lens size that much. Lens size is more dependent on how well corrected it is, how sharp they designed the borders to be, and maximum aperture. The benefit of having SR in the body is still real, even if the lens size on a telephoto zoom doesn't decrease a lot by not having VR/OS absent.

[JimmyDranox]

In body SR was the main reason I've choose Pentax many years ago. And is a good system, anyway, good enough for common use. And lenses are, generally speaking, less expensive. Or it should be. By afraid, last sentence does not apply to those last two tele lens from Pentax. Lucky for Pentax, and unlucky for Pentaxians, there is no competition from Tamron or Sigma in 70-200 mm/2.8 and 150-450 mm range, with OS. If will be, those high prices must be cut in half, because OS is, at least in my opinion, better for tele than SR. And I had both Tamron and Sigma 70-200/2.8, Sigma 170-500, and I did a lot of handheld pictures with them. In fact. those was my must used lenses. But I saw how an OS lens works, and this year I bought a Canon. Sorry to say it, I like Pentax a lot, but I'm not married with them. And I don't have to say that SR is the best when is not. It's OK, but not the best.

And there are three reason for this.

1. When the sensor moves, the distance from its center to the center of the lens it changed. Very little, but especially at long focal lengths, and fast aperture, this difference can count.
2-3. An OS lens keep the image stable over the sensor, and over the focusing system. So, the source of some metering and big focusing error, that I have seen many times with SR, did not exist.

Of course. there are some side effects. Some lenses, because of the OS group of elements are not that sharp as those without OS. Tamron 70-200/2.8 non OS is sharper than Tamron 70-200 with OS. But that's not a rule. And prices are generally higher. Anyway, for Pentaxians sake, I hope that Tamron and Sigma will begin to make lenses for K mount again.

[UncleVanya]

Personally I'd like to see improved SR - the Olympus OM-D EM-5 has better in body stabilization by all accounts. Also I agree that OS can be good - but 200mm with IBIS is very effective most of the time. My point is that it is in no way totally useless or ineffective. Some earlier comments seemed to be saying that.

[monochrome]

Personally I'd like to see improved SR - the Olympus OM-D EM-5 has better in body stabilization by all accounts.

kenspo says there is another surprise inside the K-ff. IKN, but what if . . . . . 5-axis . . . . . .