[MegaPower]

old thread......

FA*80-200, lower in contrast, better 3D rendering, sharp from f4, heavier
DA*60-250, higher in contrast(digital feel), sharp from f4, WR

Both of the lens are recommended.
I never use tamron so I cannot comment on that.

[builttospill]

I am on a verge of saving enough money for either DA* 60-250 F4 or FA* 80-200mm F/2.8, cant really decide since I cant test them. From far and sample photos FA 60-200 seems slightly better lens though. Any experiences with both?

No one has yet mentioned the SDM plague here, which would remove the DA* lenses from my choices. The FA* 80-200 is a very capable lens in many different situations, and really the only zoom I use. Here's a few examples:

MX and FA* 80-200





K10D and FA* 80-200

[bass3587]

After using my Tamron 70-200 for this past year I'm thinking about selling it and maybe trying the Sigma 70-200 HSM or the Pentxas 60-250 for sports. I've used the Tamron for football and basketball and found that the focus speed was a little to slow unless there was a lot of light. Same thing happened when I shot some portraits in low light, the Tamron would hunt trying to achieve focus. I must say that the Tamron is one sharp lens. It taken some of my best photographs so I'm torn about testing out something new. Why can't they make one lens that will do it all

[builttospill]

I've used the Tamron for football and basketball and found that the focus speed was a little to slow unless there was a lot of light.

The FA* 80-200 focuses as you Power Zoom. It works when zooming in or out. This is a huge advantage to getting an action shot.

[felixkh]

I have the DA*50-135 and it's a great lens. The other lens to look at is the DA*200 for portraiture.

DA*50-135/2.8


DA*200/2.8