Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-15-2009, 02:29 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 150
How much for the FA* 80-200?

I just came across a used copy of the FA* 80-200, and since I am on the look for such a lens I was wondering how much it was worth?

02-15-2009, 02:48 AM   #2
Damn Brit
Guest




How much was it for sale for?
02-15-2009, 03:13 AM   #3
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 150
Original Poster
12000 NOK, thats about 1770 USD
02-15-2009, 03:46 AM   #4
Damn Brit
Guest




Here are the reviews from the Lens Database here; Pentax Lens Review Database - 80-200mm F2.8 ED [IF]
your price is about $100 dollars over the average so price isn't bad. If it's worth it to you, go for it, it's a great lens. Or you could go for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which is $705 new from Amazon and equally as good.

02-15-2009, 03:54 AM   #5
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 150
Original Poster
Okay, thank you. I almost sold all my stuff to get this one. I'd rather have the Sigma if it's equally good.
02-15-2009, 03:58 AM   #6
Damn Brit
Guest




Here are the reviews for it, on this forum; PentaxForums.com Third-Party Pentax Lens Review Database - 70-200mm f/2.8
02-15-2009, 04:53 AM   #7
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
Nimrad, the old 80-200/2.8 is - in my view - heavily overpriced. The average price here in Germany is around 1500 Euros - and that is way too much.

I have bought the older Sigma 70-200/2.8 (non-macro) and that is a well-made and highly capable lens. One of the advantages over the old Pentax FA is the smaller size and reduced weight. When the FA 80-200 came newly onto the market I bought a couple of thee FA series lenses, the 85, the 24 and the 28-75 - but left out the 80-200, because I found it too big and heavy. I am highly satisfied with the Sigma, though.

Ben
02-21-2009, 01:31 AM   #8
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 150
Original Poster
Btw, isn't the pentax made for fullformat and therefore equivalent to 120-400 or something on APS-C dSLR?

02-21-2009, 01:42 AM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 3,195
1.5 crop factor for APS-C DSLR always applies, no matter what format the lens is for (yes, even lenses for 6X7 medium format).

80-200mm on APS-C sensor will give you a view of 120-300mm on 35mm film.
02-21-2009, 01:48 AM   #10
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 150
Original Poster
I know that, but the pentax 80-200mm is made for 35 mm... So, it will actually be 120-300mm on dSLR?
02-21-2009, 02:21 AM   #11
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 150
Original Poster
I'm sorry for the confusion. The FA* 70-200mm would be 50-135 mm on my K20D? But the sigma would be 70-200? So it can't really be compared? I'm a little bit confused cause the reason I don't want the DA* 50-135mm is that I want more tele.
02-21-2009, 02:45 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 730
QuoteOriginally posted by Nimrad Quote
I just came across a used copy of the FA* 80-200, and since I am on the look for such a lens I was wondering how much it was worth?
Nimrad,
I own FA*80-200/2.8 and it's a gem.
If you can find a good one, get it. Maybe you can offer him a discount. Who knows.
But one thing is that this lens has an amazing rendering that I've never seen in other zoom with similar range.
If I remember correctly, there was a review comparing between Sigma 70-200 vs Tamron 70-200, check online. Sigma 70-200/2.8's advantage is HSM (fast drive motor) but many found that it's not as sharp as Tamron 70-200/2.8 (no HSM, only regular pin).
Tamron is slower but sharper.
While FA*80-200 doesn't have HSM either just like Tamron but it has Power Zoom (nice feature that Pentax doesn't make anymore).
The most important thing is the rendering and the color produced by FA*80-200/2.8 is amazing.
Maybe you can try that lens from the seller first and see it yourself.

I just saw today on DP review somebody just bought one from Japanese store for around $1550.

Last edited by HermanLee; 02-21-2009 at 02:50 AM.
02-21-2009, 03:58 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Nimrad Quote
I'm sorry for the confusion. The FA* 70-200mm would be 50-135 mm on my K20D? But the sigma would be 70-200? So it can't really be compared? I'm a little bit confused cause the reason I don't want the DA* 50-135mm is that I want more tele.
No, that's all wrong.

The focal length of a lens is a physical property. IT DOES NOT CHANGE - on whatever camera you use it. The 80-200 is a 80-200 on a 35mm film camera and it is a 80-200 on a APS-C DSLR. Any other lens, including the Sigma 70-200 etc. behave exactly the same.

The difference is only, that the smaller APS-C sensor does not fully use the field of view, the lens provides, but cuts out a central part. That means, the angle of view of the 80-200 mounted on a APS-C DSLR is roughly equivalent to the angle of view of a 120-400mm lens mounted on a 35mm film or full-frame camera.

Ben
02-21-2009, 04:11 AM   #14
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 150
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
No, that's all wrong.

The focal length of a lens is a physical property. IT DOES NOT CHANGE - on whatever camera you use it. The 80-200 is a 80-200 on a 35mm film camera and it is a 80-200 on a APS-C DSLR. Any other lens, including the Sigma 70-200 etc. behave exactly the same.

The difference is only, that the smaller APS-C sensor does not fully use the field of view, the lens provides, but cuts out a central part. That means, the angle of view of the 80-200 mounted on a APS-C DSLR is roughly equivalent to the angle of view of a 120-400mm lens mounted on a 35mm film or full-frame camera.

Ben
I know that it doesn't change physically. My point is that the 80-200 mm will look like a 80-200mm on a 35 mm, but the sigma 70-200mm will look like a 105-300mm lens on a 35 mm. Or am I wrong?
02-21-2009, 04:50 AM   #15
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 150
Original Poster
Okay, this lens for $1170 is a sure buy?

Last edited by Nimrad; 02-21-2009 at 04:58 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
fa*, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tokina 80-200/2.8 KA; K 135/2.5; M 200/4; Tamron 70-150/2.8 soft thomasxie Sold Items 6 02-26-2010 11:08 AM
For Sale - Sold: M42 lenses (Takumar 200 3.5, Pentacon/Zeiss 135 2.8 and Vivitar 200 3.5) Skorzen Sold Items 1 06-10-2008 03:23 PM
For Sale - Sold: M 50/f1.4, Takumar 135/f2.5, Super Tak 28/f3.5, Tokina 80-200/f2.8, M 80-200/f loudbay Sold Items 11 03-07-2008 04:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top