[RussAnton]

I'm kind of new to Pentax. Looking at these lenses for nature shooting, much of it in the woods (dim lighting), birds and wildlife (action) as-well-as still life scenery. Which way should I go? Primes? or top quality zoom? I own none of these and am leaning toward primes simply because "you can't beat primes". In my early 35mm days I wouldn't own a zoom and juggled primes just fine, but I only shot manual back then as well, times change. Maybe the 70-200 is as good as these two lenses for my purposes and under the conditions I mentioned?

[jatrax]

"you can't beat primes". In my early 35mm days I wouldn't own a zoom

Time to let that go. Modern zooms, at least the 'pro' level ones produce images indistinguishable from primes. At least the primes available today. The current modern zooms are competing against 20 plus year old film era primes. Maybe when Ricoh delivers the next generation DFA* lenses that might change.

But right now, buy the lens that works for the job regardless of whether it is a prime or zoom. And the DFA*70-200 is very good. But it also weighs a lot. I decide what lens based on the characteristics of the lens, not whether it is a zoom or a prime. If you want f/1.4 then you need a prime. Macro, then you need a prime. But the basic, use everyday, kit is centered on quality zoom lenses like the DFA 24-70 or the DFA*70-200.

[Scorpio71GR]

I agree on the prime verses zooms issue. When I started in photography primes were king but those days have long been gone. For me the DA*60-250 is the lens that best fits this bill. The DFA 70-200 is just too heavy for me to carry around.

[twilhelm]

For the K70, I would lean toward the 60-250, considerably lighter than the 70-200. I use the 77 and DA*200 on a regular basis, two of my favorite lenses, but I also shoot film and can interchange them between the bodies.

[hcc]

While we may debate on prime vs zoom lenses on many things, there are a couple of basic truths:
-prime lenses are smaller and lighter than zoom lenses, for the same focal length and aperture; look at the Pentax DA Limited pancake prime lenses as a 'prime example';
-for the same IQ level, a zoom lens will be more complicated and cost more than a prime lens;
-a zoom lens is more convenient to use than a prime (or a couple of prime, with lens interchange);
-a good lens is worth 'every penny'; that is, a good IQ lens (prime or zoom) is an excellent investment, well worthwhile IMHO.

The first point is particularly important if you hike/bushwalk and carry your equipment. For me, this is important because I carry my equipment in the field. In addition Pentax made excellent small WR camera body and IMHO a small lens (+camera) system is more balanced.

Hope that the comment may help.

[robgski]

Then again, if you didn't own a zoom, and were happy using a prime, it may be that is your style. Zoomz have their place, no doubt, but can make a photographer lazy. Why move closer to the subject when one can just zoom, and quickly move on to the next subject?
I am a bit biased, because the 77mm is for me an all day wlk around lens that produces such great results, and moving around, rather than zooming, causes me to consider the composition much more.

[UncleVanya]

The DA* 200 was not significantly different from the FA* 80-200 @200mm. The FA* in fact had lower purple fringing and was just as sharp. I would expect based on discussions of those owning the DFA 70-200 with experience with the FA* 80-200 that the DFA outperforms the DA* 200 by quite a lot.

[clickclick]

I understand wanting a fast lens, but for a K70 and wildlife, I'd look really hard at the PLM 55-300. It's AF is really pretty quick, and if you back it off 300 just a hair, you open up to f5.6, and the K-70 does well at high ISO. I think I'd be looking at the 70-200 if I was going to full frame in the near future, and even then, I'd still be tempted to grab the PLM. It's a great travel size too. Heck, I think it's even still on sale at B&H for a really nice price.

[btnapa]

I'm kind of new to Pentax. Looking at these lenses for nature shooting, much of it in the woods (dim lighting), birds and wildlife (action) as-well-as still life scenery. Which way should I go? Primes? or top quality zoom? I own none of these and am leaning toward primes simply because "you can't beat primes". In my early 35mm days I wouldn't own a zoom and juggled primes just fine, but I only shot manual back then as well, times change. Maybe the 70-200 is as good as these two lenses for my purposes and under the conditions I mentioned?

Welcome to the forum.

As far as prime vs. zooms, years ago I thought the same way. However, with today's zooms especially with high-end zooms, that has changed. I own the FA77 and ended up getting a Tamron 70-200 for more versatility. Just for my own curiosity, I shot both lenses at a similar focal length at f4 on my K3 and to my surprise the Tamron was noticeably sharper! This is not to say the 77 is not good. Far from it. the 77 is lighter by miles and can go to f1.8 which the zoom cannot. For max versatility I use the zoom a lot more than the prime. If you are shooting wildlife, namely birds and such, you may need the 150-450 more than the 70-200 as it gives you a lot more reach. In my Nikon days, I shot with a 400mm f3.5 lens on a Fuji S1 APSc crop body (effectively giving me a 600mm lens) and for bird photography, I felt it was short and I needed a longer lens.

You will also need a wider zoom for your other nature work. There are many choices in the wide to medium tele range for crop bodies. I do not own any of them so I'll leave the recommendation to forum members who own one. BTW, for my K1, which is what I shoot now, I bought the 28-105 and is a fantastic all-around lens. Just my .02.

[clickclick]

Another nod to the 150-450 if you are really after the wildlife. And if you are thinking of leveraging for full frame, then I'd think that works best too. Of note, I have the 150-450, PLM and K3II and K1. Truth is for birds, I go for the K3II and usually the 150-450, but if I'm on foot, the PLM is really nice. I go back and forth depending on the situation. The PLM focuses faster than the 150-450. I like the crop form factor for the small stuff. The K70 would work well with either of those lenses, albeit not what you originally asked about.

[aslyfox]

I'm kind of new to Pentax. Looking at these lenses for nature shooting, much of it in the woods (dim lighting), birds and wildlife (action) as-well-as still life scenery. Which way should I go? Primes? or top quality zoom? I own none of these and am leaning toward primes simply because "you can't beat primes". In my early 35mm days I wouldn't own a zoom and juggled primes just fine, but I only shot manual back then as well, times change. Maybe the 70-200 is as good as these two lenses for my purposes and under the conditions I mentioned?

have you looked at the resources here at the forum

under " lenses " above, you will find reviews by users and in some cases " in depth reviews " of lenses

both Pentax and third party lenses

I was lucky enough to find " experienced " lenses - both a D FA 150-450mm zoom and a D FA * 70-200mm F2.8 zoom for good prices in the forum's market place " buy/sell "

I have also bought other " experienced " lenses from the market place as well

____________________

for me they make sense

for you, well that depends on your ability to handle their weight and size and what you intend on using them for.

better than the 77 and 200 primes, well for me, I think so but then I didn't have a chance to buy either of those

good luck

we hope to see your photos posted here when you decide to do so

________________________

BTW

should you choose to spend the $, since you live in the US you could always look at renting lenses and do your own testing

LensRental.com is a company I have used, there are others as well I believe

[kenspo]

Maybe the 70-200 is as good as these two lenses for my purposes and under the conditions I mentioned?

Its not maybe. D-FA* 70-200 is one of the sharpest and best lenses available for Pentax today.

[Sandy Hancock]

From personal experience, the DFA*70-200 at the long end is much better than the DA*200. In every way except weight and size. It's sharper wide open, focusses faster, and has dramatically less purple fringing.

At the short end its portrait rendering can't really match the FA77, and obviously it's a stop and a half slower. Still it's no slouch. And you get a prime quality 85/2.8, 105/2.8, 135/2.8 and 200/2.8 included in the price. Plus all the lengths in between. As a one stop shop in that range it is the gold standard for K-mount.

If the priority is outdoor and action/wildlife shooting, I'd go the zoom every time.

[D1N0]

The D FA* 70-200 is easily as good as the DA* 200 from what I have seen. No need to get a 200mm prime when you have that one. I wouldn't use it as my main portrait lens on account of it being so large and F2.8. The FA77 is a great compact lens which is specialized in portraiture. The 70-200 may just be too sharp for that. The FA77 will render skin much more nicely.

[BarryE]

Maybe the DFA 70-200 is as good as is reported in use, but when I handled it I came to the conclusion that I'd find myself being limited by its weight and size. OK if the OP wants to set up and wait for wildlife, but for wandering around and snapping, it might be a struggle. Maybe the 55-300 plm would be better as an interim, before a 70-200 f4 comes out ... sometime. The DA* 200 is sharp but I found it slow to focus, heavy and it fringes. Rather the DA*300, than the 200, I'd say, if going (long) prime. Yes, it's heavy, but it is a sharp lens and is FF too.