[zapp]

I like my D-FA 70-200, I enjoy it on my K1 and did enjoy it on K3 with even smaller pixel pitch. In real world situations you can notice a slight drop in performance wide open at 200mm. What I do not like is size and weight of the lens. The big two can make lenses with same basic specs 200-300g lighter with no lack in performance. What really made me stumble is the Ephotozine Review of the two latest 2.8/70-200 lenses - shall we call them rivals. Nikon and Pentax and both tested on 36MP cameras, D810 vs, K1. Ok, they only publish numbers and I already like what i see from Pentax, but the Nikon resolves a lot more detail than the Pentax especially in the center of longer focal length. We are talking 10-20% higher resolution here and more. CAs are also just half of Pentax CAs.
Blame Ephotozine, blame me, blame Pentax. Considering that the Nikon lens is 325g lighter, or almost 20% less compared to Pentax, we can only clap and shear. Pricewise both play in the same league at least in the long run. If you calculate the weight difference between D810 and K1 you end up at more than a pound advantage for Nikon here.
my $.02

[awscreo]

I like my D-FA 70-200, I enjoy it on my K1 and did enjoy it on K3 with even smaller pixel pitch. In real world situations you can notice a slight drop in performance wide open at 200mm. What I do not like is size and weight of the lens. The big two can make lenses with same basic specs 200-300g lighter with no lack in performance. What really made me stumble is the Ephotozine Review of the two latest 2.8/70-200 lenses - shall we call them rivals. Nikon and Pentax and both tested on 36MP cameras, D810 vs, K1. Ok, they only publish numbers and I already like what i see from Pentax, but the Nikon resolves a lot more detail than the Pentax especially in the center of longer focal length. We are talking 10-20% higher resolution here and more. CAs are also just half of Pentax CAs.
Blame Ephotozine, blame me, blame Pentax. Considering that the Nikon lens is 325g lighter, or almost 20% less compared to Pentax, we can only clap and shear. Pricewise both play in the same league at least in the long run. If you calculate the weight difference between D810 and K1 you end up at more than a pound advantage for Nikon here.
my $.02

I thought the new Nikkor is 2800$, a whole thousand dollars more expensive than Pentax equivalent.

[Adam]

Nikon just released the mark III 70-200mm lens, so it does have the advantage of having the latest and greatest tech, and like @awscreo said, it costs about 70% more.

That said, I'd take these tests with a grain of salt. If the lens effectively facilitates your work without getting in the way, then it's doing its job. While I haven't tried the mark III Nikon, I did compare the Pentax lens to my mark II Nikon 70-200mm and it seemed to have an edge.

[Heie]

The lens of this genre that interests me the most is the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2.

That lens is one of the single best 70-200's ever made. And it may take that #1 spot when you factor in its price.

And again, not in K mount...

-Heie

[rawr]

I thought the new Nikkor is 2800$, a whole thousand dollars more expensive than Pentax equivalent.

Very true. The Pentax is relatively cheap.

If one wants to make further comparisons, look at the latest Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS (USD $2600, 1500g weight) or the new A-mount Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM II lens (USD$2998 and 1300g). And the weight difference seems marginal - 10-15% - with any of these big lenses.

I would also add that ePhotozine's lens testing doesn't seem (to me) as technically comprehensive as other review sites like Lenstip, dxomark, imaging resource etc. Let's wait and see for tests by those sites of the Pentax lens before we draw conclusions about it's resolution, CA levels etc.

[awscreo]

Very true. The Pentax is relatively cheap.

If one wants to make further comparisons, look at the latest Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS (USD $2600, 1500g weight) or the new A-mount Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM II lens (USD$2998 and 1300g). And the weight difference seems marginal - 10-15% - with any of these big lenses.

I would also add that ePhotozine's lens testing doesn't seem (to me) as technically comprehensive as other review sites like Lenstip, dxomark, imaging resource etc. Let's wait and see for tests by those sites of the Pentax lens before we draw conclusions about it's resolution, CA levels etc.

Lol what was the last pentax lens tested by dxo? they have more important things to do these days!

[skierd]

What is more important to you, resolution on paper or how the lens renders a scene?

If you like the rendering you get, keep the Pentax and move on to more important things like taking photos.

If it will constantly bother you that your lenses and gear aren't the absolute best technically available, then sell off and invest in a different system every couple months as new lenses and bodies are released.

One of the best ways I've found to cure GAS and avoid cares about technical reviews is to avoid review sites and browse my Flickr feed instead. When I find images that really speak to me, I check the exif data if it's available and see what that person was shooting with... there's a lot of 5dMkii's out there making great images despite being crushed technically by the Nikon D6xx and D8xx, FF Sony, and now the K1.

[gatorguy]

Lol what was the last pentax lens tested by dxo? they have more important things to do these days!

As I have understood it DxOMark doesn't test cameras or lenses out of the goodness of their heart, choosing which lenses to review. They're paid for their testing and advice on request (and subsequent public report if the buyer of the service wishes) by the lens/camera company.

I always keep in the back of my mind when reading one of their reviews that DxOMark is a for-profit consulting company for camera/ lens makers along with being a vendor of software for the imaging market. When a company submits a device for testing it may actually be tuned for maximum scoring specifically for DxO's benchmarking. DxO may actually be doing the tuning themselves, no promises to the contrary. The testing equipment and procedures/algorithms are not well described, Now this in no way is implying they are not being honest in their reviews. But note that DxO derives profit as a consultant to camera makers, and that would obviously include helping them get the "best results" possible when their camera gear tests are performed.

But in any event if Pentax wants a lens tested and reviewed all they have to do is pay them to do so. DxOMark even has software and services for sale that can assist in getting the best benchmarking scores for that product.

[awscreo]

As I have understood it DxOMark doesn't test cameras or lenses out of the goodness of their heart, choosing which lenses to review. They're paid for their testing on request (and subsequent public report if the buyer of the service wishes) by the lens/camera company. I always keep in the back of my mind when reading one of their reviews that DxOMark is a for-profit consulting and software company for camera and lens makers. Yes they're paid for what they publish.

Then it's odd that Pentax chose to pay for K-1 test, and not the 3 pro zooms that are designed for it.

[gatorguy]

Then it's odd that Pentax chose to pay for K-1 test, and not the 3 pro zooms that are designed for it.

We don't know that they didn't ask DxOMark to test them. All that's know for certain is that no publically available report is shown for them, right? Of course nothing says DxO might not occasionally test a product for free that didn't take advantage of DxO's services simply to shame 'em into using their consulting to improve on it.

Anyway the point I was making is that absence of a testing review is not evidence that any particular lens or camera isn't worthy of one. They're a for-profit corporation.

[Nicolas06]

I like my D-FA 70-200, I enjoy it on my K1 and did enjoy it on K3 with even smaller pixel pitch. In real world situations you can notice a slight drop in performance wide open at 200mm. What I do not like is size and weight of the lens. The big two can make lenses with same basic specs 200-300g lighter with no lack in performance. What really made me stumble is the Ephotozine Review of the two latest 2.8/70-200 lenses - shall we call them rivals. Nikon and Pentax and both tested on 36MP cameras, D810 vs, K1. Ok, they only publish numbers and I already like what i see from Pentax, but the Nikon resolves a lot more detail than the Pentax especially in the center of longer focal length. We are talking 10-20% higher resolution here and more. CAs are also just half of Pentax CAs.
Blame Ephotozine, blame me, blame Pentax. Considering that the Nikon lens is 325g lighter, or almost 20% less compared to Pentax, we can only clap and shear. Pricewise both play in the same league at least in the long run. If you calculate the weight difference between D810 and K1 you end up at more than a pound advantage for Nikon here.
my $.02

Honestly the difference in performance on the review is irrelevant. They are both more than good enough and the additionnal center performance would be only relevant if you where to use that 70-200 with a 2X TC and crop for wildlife.

The elephant in the room for all theses tests is that there as much variations between samples of the same model than between differents models and that different camera will have different default settings on the raw converter meaning different numbers. Want to increase your numbers by 20-30%, just add a bit more sharpening in your raw converter and its done. If you know how to do it well this will look natural. This is cheating? Well that the result that count and you have no idea how much "sharpening" is applied by default. Many things are involved there: the raw converter, the camera profile, the jpeg or even raws that may be sharpened directly in camera, a tiny difference in focus...

What is true on the opposite, is the size/weight aspect as well as the price. You could have 90% of what the Nikon or Pentax do offer with the old tamron screwdrive, avaible new for 600€, used for 450€ here. And it is 1kg instead of 2kg.

You have to understand where your priority. The best absolute performance, a great price, or the conveniance of something that isn't too big/heavy. A zoom already is conveniance. You may get better result on APSC with the Fuji 90mm f/2 wide open for 1/4 of the weight, 1/2 of the length and 1/2 of the price...

And really we spend lot of time on gear, comparing performance etc. But that because we look at 100% crop and so on. But this is completely irrelevant to the final product. People will not look at them on 8K screen for 10" away or print them 40x60" with a magnifying glass to look for small issues...

[LensBeginner]

How was it?
Cheap, light, high-quality: pick two

[awscreo]

We don't know that they didn't ask DxOMark to test them. All that's know for certain is that no publically available report is shown for them, right? Of course nothing says DxO might not occasionally test a product for free that didn't take advantage of DxO's services simply to shame 'em into using their consulting to improve on it.

Anyway the point I was making is that absence of a testing review is not evidence that any particular lens or camera isn't worthy of one. They're a for-profit corporation.

When I made the comment I thought dxomark just sets the priorities to the more popular or sought after products, look how little time it took them to test Art 85 1.4. Canikon having a much larger user base would be their primary target.

[Rondec]

It's a nice lens. A whole lot cheaper than the Canon and Nikon alternatives, at least in the US. One of the sharpest lenses I have used throughout its range. The only negative is the size and all of the lenses that cover this focal range are big. Some are just a little bigger than others.

B and H pricing shows Canon at 1900 USD, Nikon at 2800 USD, Pentax at 1600 USD, and Tamron at 1300. To me, that's pretty reasonable for the Pentax.

Biggest problem with testing on a lot of these products is that there is a lot of variation in them and if a testing site gets a good copy or a not so good copy it makes a huge difference. Better to use Roger Cicala's testing because he tends to average multiple copies to give a result and copy variation analysis.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/03/just-the-lenses-the-great-200mm-shoot-out/

[troika]

I'd really like to see some constant f4 zooms in this range ... and frankly most ranges. With higher ISO capabilities, could we produce an excellent lens that was cheaper and smaller if we gave up that one stop?

My Tokina AT-X 100-300/4 is a phenominal lens, would love some modern AF options like this.