[pcrichmond]

Greetings, I'm looking at picking up a 200mm for sporting events and am wondering about the reviews of the DA*200 and CA's.
I would be shooting mostly at f5.6 (occasionally at f4 & f8) and would like some input from users of either lens on the performance of each.
For the past few years I've been using my Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM but am looking for something a little easier to hand hold.
I also already own the FA300 so that reach is covered. Also being for sports I'm only interested in a lens with AF.
The FA*200 shows less issues with CA in the reviews here but I find other reviews online that mention the problem is as bad as with the DA so wondering if this is more of an open aperture issue on both lenses and corrected by stopping down or if one is actually better than the other in this regard.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Forgot to mention I'm shooting with the K-1.

---

Last edited by pcrichmond; 05-04-2018 at 10:36 PM. Reason: added info

[LennyBloke]

I'm 99% certain that these 2 lenses are the same optical formula so there should be very little difference between them in terms of IQ. The coatings should be improved on the DA* as it is a later version in a WR body with SDM (and screw drive) Autofocus. Personally I would go for the DA* for the benefits I've just mentioned, CA can be removed fairly successfully in PP so I wouldn't discount either lens for that reason.

Hope that helps

[Billk]

My DA 200 was fairly unloved until I got the K1. It has been getting much more use lately. I think it is a great focal length on FF and pretty good on APS-C.

Here's a shot with it on the K3ii.

[UncleVanya]

I wish I could give you a definitive answer. I have seen purple fringing in high contrast situations with the DA* 200. In head to head shooting vs. the FA* 80-200, the FA* zoom out performed the DA* at 200mm in terms of handling high contrast. Perhaps this is due to the more complex optics and cost.

However the problem is rarely an issue that I notice and I wouldn't hesitate to use the DA*.

[normhead]

The DA* is water resistant. That was reason enough for me to buy it for me.

[KDAFA]

Greetings, I'm looking at picking up a 200mm for sporting events and am wondering about the reviews of the DA*200 and CA's.
I would be shooting mostly at f5.6 (occasionally at f4 & f8) and would like some input from users of either lens on the performance of each.
For the past few years I've been using my Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM but am looking for something a little easier to hand hold.
I also already own the FA300 so that reach is covered. Also being for sports I'm only interested in a lens with AF.
The FA*200 shows less issues with CA in the reviews here but I find other reviews online that mention the problem is as bad as with the DA so wondering if this is more of an open aperture issue on both lenses and corrected by stopping down or if one is actually better than the other in this regard.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Forgot to mention I'm shooting with the K-1.

Hi, I use the DA*200 only, so I'm sorry, I can't compare it against the FA* for you.

I love the images I get from my DA*, but I would just like to raise one point for your awareness. This lens isn't the fastest around in terms of its AF speed. I find it adequate for my use, but you mentioned sports, so I would recommended that you do some checks on that aspect, to ensure its ok for you.

[pcrichmond]

Thanks everyone for the input. It does look like both lenses share the same optic formula including the two ED elements.

Weather/water resistance isn't as critical for me though it does come in handy for the dust in our area. I wouldn't turn down the option if available.
IQ & AF speed would be more of a focus point. I've found my HSM isn't really much faster than either the FA135 or FA300 and I've never minded the sound of the screw drive.
Does anyone know how the SDM and screw compare for speed? Is this something that could be converted to screw if it proves to be the better focusing option?

I can rent a DA for an event coming at the end of the month to give it a hands on try but the FA I would need to purchase outright in the next week, thus my wondering of the comparisons.
UncleVanya, I had looked at the 80-200 but saw it was in the same weight range as my 70-200. Great IQ and minimal CA with all that glass (the Sigma also) but it does get tiresome very quickly for hand held shooting. Maybe I just need to build up my muscles more instead.

[mikesbike]

My DA* 200mm is a fine lens providing excellent results in my experience, and its f/2.8 is great in low light. But as to AF speed, it is not too hot. Adequate for most needs, including nature, birds, etc. but my FA* 300mm f/4.5 screw-driven has noticeably faster AF. My impression is also that its SDM motor seems to draw more battery power than most others, including my DA* 50-135mm SDM lens, and as the camera's battery becomes low in reserve power, the AF becomes slower yet.

[UncleVanya]

There DA* 200 can easily be converted to screw drive in a non invasive, reversible, software only way.

As for speed, I'm of mixed mind here, it has less lag on initial start up in screw drive mode, but I don't think when sdm is working well that it is much slower if at all than screw drive. But dying sdm can be very slow.

[pcrichmond]

Thanks everyone, I managed to rent a DA200 to see if it would work for my needs before purchase.
What a beautiful lens and great performer on the K-1.
Sadly though, the sports I'm focused on is rodeo and horse shows and the 300 proves to be a better focal length.
If I ever need an autofocus 200mm there will be no hesitation on the DA.
IQ is superb and so much lighter than carrying my Sigma 70-200.

[RonHendriks1966]

The da* is sharp from f3.2 so why only using f4-f5.6?

[normhead]

Thanks everyone, I managed to rent a DA200 to see if it would work for my needs before purchase.
What a beautiful lens and great performer on the K-1.
Sadly though, the sports I'm focused on is rodeo and horse shows and the 300 proves to be a better focal length.
If I ever need an autofocus 200mm there will be no hesitation on the DA.
IQ is superb and so much lighter than carrying my Sigma 70-200.

If you owned a 1.4 TC you could have gone for the 200, and you might want one for the 300 in any case.

[pcrichmond]

The da* is sharp from f3.2 so why only using f4-f5.6?

Hi Ron, I've found f4 - 5.6 seems to be ideal for DOF. There can be a good bit of distance between the face of a horse or bull and its rider, even more from a steer to the roper.
If I'm focusing more on portraiture than the event, then I'd use the 300 anyway. I do have an m200/4 I use on occasion but was looking at the faster lens for speed in autofocus.

If you owned a 1.4 TC you could have gone for the 200, and you might want one for the 300 in any case.

Hi Normhead, I do have an older Tamron AF 1.4 TC I couple with the FA300. It is a great combination when shooting from the fence line, as most of the time I'm not allowed in the actual arena anyway.