[Driline]

It's not about "need" it's about use. It took me a long time to get around to buying this lens. I have a DA*60-250, which has been putting on weight. I used to be able to carry it but it's too heavy now. And Tess prefers primes to zooms. Having a couple of TCs really helps get over the "it's not a zoom" thing, but, I do miss shots I wouldn't miss with the 60-250. But overall, I think the focus is a little snappier and more decisive, the sharpness is definitely DA*, it's a half pound lighter, and because I can't stack and still have auto focus the TCs on 60-250, it's functionally longer than my 60-250, 476mm with the 200 and stacked TCs as compared to 425 for the 60-250 and 1.7.

It fits into my Lowenpro Slingshot, on the camera, the 60-250 doesn't. This is for me a big issue. I've pretty much settled on this pack as my camera bag of preference. There's room in there for the 200, both TCs, the 18-135, one of the Sigma 8-16 or Sigma 70 macro, the 21 ltd , 40 XS and FA50. Using the same set up, there isn't room in the camera bag for the 60-250 and camera body at the same time.

So there are a lot of things that make it functional for what I do. But I could do without it by doing things i don't want to do. Use a bigger heavier pack (thanks but no thanks), carry a heavier lens like a 70-200 or 60-250, (thanks but no thanks), carry a physically bigger lens (thanks but no thanks).

Those are all needs..... I'm not searching for reasons, they are right there in front of me. I didn't invent any of them. They just arise out of my work flow. You look at what you do and you think "something like this might be better than what i'm doing now". SO, once I bought this lens it surprised me. I looked at it before I bought my 60-250 and wasn't impressed by the teeny tiny little bit better it might be, so I passed on it. Here we are 5 years later and I'm taking it out everyday. Sometimes with he 60-250, but usually without. It's not that people are looking for needs, it's that they are trying to understand what a lens might do for them.

My opinion at this point is that this lens ha sa lot more to offer than people give it credit for.

Norm, what model slingshot bag do you have?

[normhead]

I think its an AW 200. And it's about as large as I'd ever want to carry for the hikes I do.

[asp1880]

Sports. It works for sports.




I've never really understood this "which focal length for what subject"? discussion. Either the focal length follows from the distance and the desired framing, or it follows from the kind pf perspective you desire. I've also shot sports with an UWA and it's completely different but sports nonetheless. Like this:


Regards,
--Anders.

[normhead]

I guess the correct answer would be I use it when 135 is too short and 300 is too long. That pretty much covers it all.

[pacerr]

Aside from the objective 'technical' issues of lens FL there's a subjective aspect of lenses that's equally or more important. Some lenses are simply more pleasant to use.

In my kit bag the DA*300 is one. The Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 180/2.5 was one of mine in the 200mm range. The size, shape, weight, balance, uses and FOV simply 'worked' for me.

In my case, the DA*200 didn't 'fit' - the DA*300 did. Brings a smile to my face whenever I mount it. If you find one like that treasure it.

[normhead]

A few more images from today.

[slip]

thanks everyone for the help. in the process of negotiations of price

Randy

[normhead]

Aside from the objective 'technical' issues of lens FL there's a subjective aspect of lenses that's equally or more important. Some lenses are simply more pleasant to use.

In my kit bag the DA*300 is one.

My DA*200 with the 1.4 TC is 280mm ƒ4. But take off the converter and it;s an ƒ2,8 lens. This was a huge factor in my DA*200 vs DA*300 decision. And with the 1.4 on I can still add the 1.7 to make a 2.4x stacked TCs package at 476mm. So not to shabby on the long end either.

[slip]

just pulled the trigger... $500 Canadian plus $35 to ship

Randy

[UncleVanya]

just pulled the trigger... $500 Canadian plus $35 to ship

Randy

That's a deal!

[Craig66]

Great lens. Very sharp. Good for putting a little distance between you and your subject, good for Portraits, good for that more natural camera not in your subjects face shots, good for landscapes. What ever you want to shoot. Add a TC and you have more reach. Good for sports, etc, etc. Great all round lens i think.

[fwcetus]

Not the FA* 200/2.8, but not totally off topic either -- I've found the optically similar (or even identical ?) FA* 200/2.8 makes for a good "beach lens" sometimes.

You might check a fairly recent thread, The FA* 200/2.8 goes to the beach, for some examples. Admittedly, most of the pix are of birds (mostly ~big~ birds), but there are a few non-bird pix, too -- at least you might get an idea of FOV and of FL (the shots were taken on a K-3). Of course, a lot depends on what sort of subjects you're looking for...

[originalwinger]

Randy, how is the new to you 200 ? any pictures ?

[slip]

Randy, how is the new to you 200 ? any pictures ?

I have only tried it for bird pics and a casual people pic or two. it is really sharp wide open but the purple fringing is terrible.
The autofocus is good but not stellar but the focus is dead on without any micro adjustment.
will try to put up a pic once I get some time

Randy

[Nicolas06]

Sports, portraiture, distant landscapes, flowers, air shows, anything that benefit of perspective compresssion.

I agree that on APSC half of theses things can be done quite well too with a 135mm with the benefit of smaller/ligher/cheaper lens at time but on an FF you'd really want 200mm at least.