Originally posted by 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.
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 ----------
Originally posted by 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.
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 ----------
Originally posted by PJ1 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 ----------
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 ----------
Originally posted by 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.
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?