[Bui]

So, owning quite a few lenses ranging from 10mm to 300mm, I'm quite happy with my lenses collection, they're far far exceeding my ability to make the most out of them anyway. I tend to shoot between 20mm and 90mm that's why the combination of the Pentax 14mm, 20-40mm and 70mm and/or 50-135mm has been my workhorse, especially when travelling. Now, I have to admit, I don't have a concrete need for telephoto, but I want to try it, and I really like the "telephoto look at high aperture" of some images in the forum, so I'm thinking about investing in an (used) 200mm 2.8-ish lens. Used because they tend to be quite expensive, and also in case we don't get a long I can sell it later to someone who deserves it better than me.

Some input:

- I already own the 50-135 and like it a lot.
- I also own the 55-300 PLM, very nice and sharp, but slow
- I don't like bulky and heavy lenses. In the past, even the 50-135 kind was too big for me. Since I bought a good sling strap I have been dealing much better with weight but still, smaller and lighter are better.
- I don't want to pay top money for something I just want to try for the time being.

With that being said, what would be my best option, according to you? My own shortlist:

- DA 300mm, Pentax DFA 70-200mm: out of the game, due to price and or weight
- Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm: versatile, good image quality, price not too expensive, but reliability and performance at 200mm? (since I already have the 50-135 I'm more interested in the 180-200 range)
- DA 200mm: great build, a bit more expensive, but also great image quality, but not very flexible. Autofocus is slow?

[normhead]

I love my 200, it's the lightest way to get 200mm and 2.8. But it's not small, and it's still bulky. And the auto-focus is average at best.
That being said, it's probably closest to what you're looking for.



And it has resolution to spare.. this one taken with the F 1.7x AF adapter for 340mm. I often go out with it with the 1.4 TC and 1.7x, so it's not as inflexible as you might think.

[Flanoman]

I love my 200, it's the lightest way to get 200mm and 2.8. But it's not small, and it's still bulky. And the auto-focus is average at best.
That being said, it's probably closest to what you're looking for.



And it has resolution to spare.. this one taken with the F 1.7x AF adapter for 340mm. I often go out with it with the 1.4 TC and 1.7x, so it's not as inflexible as you might think.

fantastic shots normhead. I have the same lens and optically it cannot be faulted its just up to the man behind the mirror of which I'm trying to learn.

[pcrichmond]

Greetings,
I had the Sigma 70-200/2.8 that I used for special venues of night sports photography.
Finally sold it, as I also have the slower F80-200 that works well enough for general purposes. The Sigma if very heavy.
Later rented the DA200 for another night venue and it performed very well and was much easier to handle.
Do you want the range of a zoom or will the 200 suffice for the telephoto needs.
Also, if possible, can you rent one or both to see if you will like them before you purchase?
If I was to go back to shooting night sports I would purchase the DA over the Sigma and know I had to work with the limitations of a fixed prime.

[PJ1]

You say

In the past, even the 50-135 kind was too big for me.

But the Tamron 70-200 is almost twice the weight and the Sigma even more. The DA200/2.8 weighs more than the 50-135 as well (825g against 685g).

All the 70-200 (or the Tokina 80-200) zooms are going to suffer a little bit towards the 200 end but that has never stopped anyone from getting some great shots at that length so don't be put off by that. You won't find it limiting in normal use. You just can't crop in on a bird's eyeball at 100 metres.

The cheapest of the bunch (the one you haven't mentioned) is the Tokina 80-200/2.8 ATX. People say it is heavy but at 1350g it is actually slightly lighter than the last version of the Sigma 70-200. It also tends to be the cheapest of the auto focussing f2.8 zooms. A manual lens will be quite a bit cheaper but not any lighter. The weight is in the glass so you just can't get a lightweight lens in this class.

I know this might not help much, but your question is a hard one.

So, owning quite a few lenses ranging from 10mm to 300mm, I'm quite happy with my lenses collection, they're far far exceeding my ability to make the most out of them anyway. I tend to shoot between 20mm and 90mm that's why the combination of the Pentax 14mm, 20-40mm and 70mm and/or 50-135mm has been my workhorse, especially when travelling. Now, I have to admit, I don't have a concrete need for telephoto, but I want to try it, and I really like the "telephoto look at high aperture" of some images in the forum, so I'm thinking about investing in an (used) 200mm 2.8-ish lens. Used because they tend to be quite expensive, and also in case we don't get a long I can sell it later to someone who deserves it better than me.

Some input:

- I already own the 50-135 and like it a lot.
- I also own the 55-300 PLM, very nice and sharp, but slow
- I don't like bulky and heavy lenses. In the past, even the 50-135 kind was too big for me. Since I bought a good sling strap I have been dealing much better with weight but still, smaller and lighter are better.
- I don't want to pay top money for something I just want to try for the time being.

With that being said, what would be my best option, according to you? My own shortlist:

- DA 300mm, Pentax DFA 70-200mm: out of the game, due to price and or weight
- Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm: versatile, good image quality, price not too expensive, but reliability and performance at 200mm? (since I already have the 50-135 I'm more interested in the 180-200 range)
- DA 200mm: great build, a bit more expensive, but also great image quality, but not very flexible. Autofocus is slow?

I wrote it before: I think that a Pentax camera deserves a Pentax lens. And I guess that you think of buying a 200mm to use outdoors. Well, than the 55-300 can do the job for you. You wrote yourself that it is sharp. My advice would be that if you want to buy a lens, buy a Pentax. I do not read that you do not like the images that the lenses you own from Pentax produce. So stick with what you got.
Buying a new lens will not make you more seriously taking telephoto images. First make good use of what you got. Learn with what you got, use your 55-300 and find out at what is the focal length you use most. The 55-300 will assist you with that. After a while you can decide on what to spend your money on or keep it in a savings account.

[Sidney Porter]

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. it is a great lens but I am using mainly it for high school and youth lacrosse and swimming as well as indoor school music performances. It also makes a nice portrait, candid and event lens, but It is close to 3lbs. I don't have a desire to carry it around for miles hiking.

If bulk and weight is an issue. I would go with a prime or the 55-300 zoom you already have

[caliscouser]

If size/weight is an issue then the answer is the DA*200. That said, it is the same size as the 50-135 so that may be a deal breaker for you.

It is a lovely bit of glass though. When I finally got one I thought it was much smaller in real life than I had always imagined from seeing pictures of it.
Mine is screw drive and the AF is just fine. You can really obliterate the background with this lens.

On APS-C though the use cases for me are limited. If you want to shoot wildlife go straight for the DA*300. For portrait and general purpose, the 50-135 that you already have.

It is a great lens though and I can understand well why people want to experience it. I couldn't resist.

[SpecialK]

I had the Tamron 70-200 and loved it. Gets heavy pretty quickly, so I frequently used a monopod. A bit noisy but pretty good focusing, including a close focus capability.

[Bui]

I love my 200, it's the lightest way to get 200mm and 2.8. But it's not small, and it's still bulky. And the auto-focus is average at best.
That being said, it's probably closest to what you're looking for.



And it has resolution to spare.. this one taken with the F 1.7x AF adapter for 340mm. I often go out with it with the 1.4 TC and 1.7x, so it's not as inflexible as you might think.

Thank you, Normhead, great photos! I don’t do birding, but looking at yours I want to do so. Also the one with the 1.7 TC looks very nice, a pleasant surprise. I should have mentioned I also own that little adapter. If I have the DA*200 can I pretend it will be a DA*340 f4.5 with the TC, or not even close?

---------- Post added 03-07-20 at 12:39 AM ----------

Greetings,
I had the Sigma 70-200/2.8 that I used for special venues of night sports photography.
Finally sold it, as I also have the slower F80-200 that works well enough for general purposes. The Sigma if very heavy.
Later rented the DA200 for another night venue and it performed very well and was much easier to handle.
Do you want the range of a zoom or will the 200 suffice for the telephoto needs.
Also, if possible, can you rent one or both to see if you will like them before you purchase?
If I was to go back to shooting night sports I would purchase the DA over the Sigma and know I had to work with the limitations of a fixed prime.

I do not have Pentax rental option in my country, also there are not many Pentaxians in the region to even think about this borrow and try activities. In fact, since I don’t use telephoto range a lot, I tend to think a zoom is better, since it offers more flexibility and the ability to go back to standard range (70-100mm) if needed. Problem is they are big as you said, and I don’t know if I will be eager to bring them along. 200mm alone is a bit rigid I assume but with the 50-135 it becomes less of an issue I also assume?

---------- Post added 03-07-20 at 12:44 AM ----------

You say But the Tamron 70-200 is almost twice the weight and the Sigma even more. The DA200/2.8 weighs more than the 50-135 as well (825g against 685g).

All the 70-200 (or the Tokina 80-200) zooms are going to suffer a little bit towards the 200 end but that has never stopped anyone from getting some great shots at that length so don't be put off by that. You won't find it limiting in normal use. You just can't crop in on a bird's eyeball at 100 metres.

The cheapest of the bunch (the one you haven't mentioned) is the Tokina 80-200/2.8 ATX. People say it is heavy but at 1350g it is actually slightly lighter than the last version of the Sigma 70-200. It also tends to be the cheapest of the auto focussing f2.8 zooms. A manual lens will be quite a bit cheaper but not any lighter. The weight is in the glass so you just can't get a lightweight lens in this class.

I know this might not help much, but your question is a hard one.

I should have been clear I mean I prefer smaller and lighter lenses, but of course I’m not expecting a DA 35 limited form in a 200mm 2.8 package. It’s true the 50-135 kind was a problem for me in the past when I still used neck strap with a Kx and Ks2, very light cameras that make it awkward. Now with a Kp and a K5, and a sling strap, it feels much better and I can live with a 50-135 given its bulkiness due to its quality. The point is, 1kg for example, for my next lens is fine, but I’m still torn between lightweight + IQ + WR of the prime versus flexibility + IQ of the zooms

---------- Post added 03-07-20 at 12:48 AM ----------

I wrote it before: I think that a Pentax camera deserves a Pentax lens. And I guess that you think of buying a 200mm to use outdoors. Well, than the 55-300 can do the job for you. You wrote yourself that it is sharp. My advice would be that if you want to buy a lens, buy a Pentax. I do not read that you do not like the images that the lenses you own from Pentax produce. So stick with what you got.

Buying a new lens will not make you more seriously taking telephoto images. First make good use of what you got. Learn with what you got, use your 55-300 and find out at what is the focal length you use most. The 55-300 will assist you with that. After a while you can decide on what to spend your money on or keep it in a savings account.

Rationally I can’t disagree with you, I think this is a combination of LBA, curiosity, and a lot of nice images in this forum that urge me I should use my 55-300 more, yes yes. But but, you know, sometimes in the dusk, 200mm 2.8 is 2.8, and 55-300mm @200 is 5.6 I can get away with it sometimes, but the creamy look of this aperture + this focal length is uncompensable.

---------- Post added 03-07-20 at 12:51 AM ----------

If size/weight is an issue then the answer is the DA*200. That said, it is the same size as the 50-135 so that may be a deal breaker for you.

It is a lovely bit of glass though. When I finally got one I thought it was much smaller in real life than I had always imagined from seeing pictures of it.
Mine is screw drive and the AF is just fine. You can really obliterate the background with this lens.

On APS-C though the use cases for me are limited. If you want to shoot wildlife go straight for the DA*300. For portrait and general purpose, the 50-135 that you already have.

It is a great lens though and I can understand well why people want to experience it. I couldn't resist.

For the moment, I don’t have any birding or wildlife yet, I just want to extend my current 135mm range a bit. And yes, concerning the kind of DA 200mm, I want to experience it. A sideway question, you said you were using it as a screwdrive, meaning if SDM fails, conversion can be done as with some other lenses?

[kypfer]

My Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 + 2x was bought "back in the day" when I bought my *ist film camera. It's a fine lens and has recently found a new lease of life as an "astro" lens for use with my recently acquired O-GPS1.


One point to consider, for a "walkabout" lens, having something as heavy as this mounted on the camera really needs a shoulder/neck strap fastened to the lens, to take the strain off the lens-mount on the camera whilst it's all being carried. The Sigma EX doesn't have a suitable fastening point for a strap, neither is the tripod "foot" really big enough to use as a practical carrying handle ... I don't know about newer options.

[aslyfox]

. . . One point to consider, for a "walkabout" lens, having something as heavy as this mounted on the camera really needs a shoulder/neck strap fastened to the lens, to take the strain off the lens-mount on the camera whilst it's all being carried. The Sigma EX doesn't have a suitable fastening point for a strap, neither is the tripod "foot" really big enough to use as a practical carrying handle ... I don't know about newer options.

1. Optech USA sell a lens support strap that fits around the barrel of the lens

https://www.optechusa.com/lens-loops.html

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=OP%2fTECH+USA+1301412+Lens+Loops+-+Syst...BF33&FORM=VIRE

____________________


2 if the OP has not read the In Depth Review of the star 70-200mm F2.8
It is worth the time since it covers the other competing lens as well

HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW
Vs. Other 70-200mm Lenses
It is not our custom to compare reviewed lenses with equivalent offerings from other manufacturers in a standalone review. The lack of interchangeability makes such an exercise pointless since our reviews are targeted for current Pentax users.
However, the introduction of the K-1 Full Frame camera, along with a groups of professional lenses, has the potential to draw the attention of photographers not familiar with Pentax. Because of this, we have created a section of the current review dedicated to comparing the D FA 70-200mm F2.8 with other similar lenses.
This comparison will concentrate on features, specifications, lens design. Except for the Tamron lens, which is available new in Pentax mount and will be fully analyzed later in the review, no optical comparisons will be performed.

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-d-fa-star-70-200mm-f28/vs-oth...#ixzz6G0IClbtb

[normhead]

Thank you, Normhead, great photos! I don’t do birding, but looking at yours I want to do so. Also the one with the 1.7 TC looks very nice, a pleasant surprise. I should have mentioned I also own that little adapter. If I have the DA*200 can I pretend it will be a DA*340 f4.5 with the TC, or not even close?

I do all the time, I also use the 1.7 with my Tamron 300 2.8 to get 510 4.5. Personally I don't think you can tell it's not a 500mm ƒ4.5 lens. But I also use both with the 1.4 TC. The ability to avoid the partial maual focus with the 1.7 will cost you half the images available with the 1.4.

[Austro-Diesel]

... so I'm thinking about investing in an (used) 200mm 2.8-ish lens. [...] I don't like bulky and heavy lenses. In the past, even the 50-135 kind was too big for me.

You have an unsolvable problem.

The DA* 200/2.8 is nearest to your needs and it's a fine lens with a few flaws (low AF speed, some CAs, reduced contrast at high contrast scenes at wide open aperture, bokeh sometimes a bit busy -- everything getting visible much better at f/4) but it is something special, absolutely not very versatile for most circumstances.

The lens by itself is not large, but the strongly recommended lens hood is bulky.

Another idea: Did you ever concider a D-FA 70-210/4? Much more versatile, faster AF, better than the 55-300 PLM.

[Bui]

If the OP has not read the In Depth Review of the star 70-200mm F2.8
It is worth the time since it covers the other competing lens as well




Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-d-fa-star-70-200mm-f28/vs-oth...#ixzz6G0IClbtb

Hi aslyfox yes I did read that review, the DFA looks like a winner, a kind of “ultimate” solution that people will go for. The problem is, even if I’m ready to deal with its weight, its price is far out of my reach at the moment, used or new. Maybe one day, when I know this focal length is really for me, and I’m willing to invest more.

---------- Post added 03-08-20 at 12:32 AM ----------

I do all the time, I also use the 1.7 with my Tamron 300 2.8 to get 510 4.5. Personally I don't think you can tell it's not a 500mm ƒ4.5 lens. But I also use both with the 1.4 TC. The ability to avoid the partial maual focus with the 1.7 will cost you half the images available with the 1.4.

Thank you for your confirmation. In that case with a 200mm I will have a working “backup” 340mm using the adapter just in case, sounds very interesting. I have never been able to find a real use for it, except for occasional play with some legacy lenses.

---------- Post added 03-08-20 at 12:41 AM ----------

You have an unsolvable problem.

The DA* 200/2.8 is nearest to your needs and it's a fine lens with a few flaws (low AF speed, some CAs, reduced contrast at high contrast scenes at wide open aperture, bokeh sometimes a bit busy -- everything getting visible much better at f/4) but it is something special, absolutely not very versatile for most circumstances.

The lens by itself is not large, but the strongly recommended lens hood is bulky.

Another idea: Did you ever concider a D-FA 70-210/4? Much more versatile, faster AF, better than the 55-300 PLM.

Yes I admit that but if the lens is good I’m willing to deal with its weight as consequence :-) the 70-210 would be great, but since it’s new it’s impossible to find used one with lower price.