[johnc]

With K-1

Torronsuo national park, Finland.

Lovely set!
John

[repaap]

Lovely set!
John

Thank you

[johnc]

Goathland station and North Yorkshire railway:



John

[Rondec]

Jaguar (DFA *70-200)



(cross posted)

[Rondec]

Mute Swan



Kookaburra and Lizard

[johnc]

D-FA* 70-200 Handheld by night (will maybe take a tripod next time.... though I am really lazy about using them, even if I have it with me )






John

[Rondec]

Cattle at Dawn (DFA *70-200mm)

[matroxication]

Hello Pentaxians,

This is a nice thread and lot of gorgeous pictures with the 70-200 lens. I have been advised by fellow Pentaxian to check with you folks to know more about the Pentax D FA 70-200mm f/2.8.

Am looking for a 70-200mm lens to compliment my K1 and lot of reviews point to the focus breathing issues with this lens. Recently cameraville also pointed this issue and highlighted that Pentax never fixed it. Hence wanted your thoughts on this since its a heavy investment in this lens category.

Also does anyone can compare the picture quality between this lens and the recently released 70-210 F4 lens. I will be primarily using it for family outing with kids and for portraits and I love the creamy bokeh. Does the extra weight and cost worth it for this lens?

[Rondec]

Hello Pentaxians,

This is a nice thread and lot of gorgeous pictures with the 70-200 lens. I have been advised by fellow Pentaxian to check with you folks to know more about the Pentax D FA 70-200mm f/2.8.

Am looking for a 70-200mm lens to compliment my K1 and lot of reviews point to the focus breathing issues with this lens. Recently cameraville also pointed this issue and highlighted that Pentax never fixed it. Hence wanted your thoughts on this since its a heavy investment in this lens category.

Also does anyone can compare the picture quality between this lens and the recently released 70-210 F4 lens. I will be primarily using it for family outing with kids and for portraits and I love the creamy bokeh. Does the extra weight and cost worth it for this lens?

I wouldn't worry over much about focus breathing. I think at normal distances it is pretty close the stated focal length. The issue is more when you focus really close.

The biggest negative to me is the size of the DFA *70-200.

I think @SandyHancock owns both of them.

[repaap]

I would not really put a lot of weight on cameraville about focusbreathing. It is there. Yes. If you shoot a lot of little things and close by, this is not the lens for you. Other than that, it is sharp from f2.8 so you can get nice bokeh even from 85 mm and up. Very nice colour too and contrast. You stop it down to 3.5 and it is really nice with sharpness. I really rarely go further than f 5,6 with this lens. What I’v seen the other you have to stop little down to get nice sharpness.

Then. Yes. 70-200/2.8 is big and heavy.

But if you are fine with that, then this is excellent option. Others has clearly stated why they went with DFA70-210. It is the weight. It could be faster at focusing too. Although I’v not really found any problem with my 70-200 at there either.

[Paul the Sunman]

Also does anyone can compare the picture quality between this lens and the recently released 70-210 F4 lens. I will be primarily using it for family outing with kids and for portraits and I love the creamy bokeh. Does the extra weight and cost worth it for this lens?

If you don't need the f/2.8-f/4, why carry the extra weight and pay the extra price?

I love the lens, but if the 70-210 covers your usage, I'd go with that.

As others have said, focus breathing is irrelevant for most. It's not a macros lens; you probably won't use it much for short distances.

[matroxication]

I wouldn't worry over much about focus breathing. I think at normal distances it is pretty close the stated focal length. The issue is more when you focus really close.

The biggest negative to me is the size of the DFA *70-200.

I think @SandyHancock owns both of them.

Thanks Rondec. When you mean normal distances, is it 2 meters are more from the subject?

---------- Post added 12-04-20 at 12:43 AM ----------

I would not really put a lot of weight on cameraville about focusbreathing. It is there. Yes. If you shoot a lot of little things and close by, this is not the lens for you. Other than that, it is sharp from f2.8 so you can get nice bokeh even from 85 mm and up. Very nice colour too and contrast. You stop it down to 3.5 and it is really nice with sharpness. I really rarely go further than f 5,6 with this lens. What I’v seen the other you have to stop little down to get nice sharpness.

Then. Yes. 70-200/2.8 is big and heavy.

But if you are fine with that, then this is excellent option. Others has clearly stated why they went with DFA70-210. It is the weight. It could be faster at focusing too. Although I’v not really found any problem with my 70-200 at there either.

Thanks repaap. I believe almost everyone highlighted the weight although the IQ on the 70-210 at F4 is not on same league as 70-200 at f4. But everyone are ok to compensate the slight image quality for the weight. Probably need to try it out before making a decision to purchase.

---------- Post added 12-04-20 at 12:48 AM ----------

If you don't need the f/2.8-f/4, why carry the extra weight and pay the extra price?

I love the lens, but if the 70-210 covers your usage, I'd go with that.

As others have said, focus breathing is irrelevant for most. It's not a macros lens; you probably won't use it much for short distances.

Thanks Paul. That is the hard decision to make since am not too sure

[repaap]

Amazing shots here!

Couple from me. I came to Danmark couple weeks a go with out 70-200 had just 85/1,4. Figured that I could have used it instead. I also had FA 77(by accident, because it is so small)but that is different thing. I was missing my DFA*70-200 from day 1. Now I have it with me. not using it every day, unless I know that I have opportunity to use it. And it won't let me down..

here is couple from today






(x-posted to K-1 thread)

Thanks Rondec. When you mean normal distances, is it 2 meters are more from the subject?

---------- Post added 12-04-20 at 12:43 AM ----------


Thanks repaap. I believe almost everyone highlighted the weight although the IQ on the 70-210 at F4 is not on same league as 70-200 at f4. But everyone are ok to compensate the slight image quality for the weight. Probably need to try it out before making a decision to purchase.

---------- Post added 12-04-20 at 12:48 AM ----------


Thanks Paul. That is the hard decision to make since am not too sure

Here that last shot is uncropped and as close as it does focus. If you wonder about shortest focus possibility. It does look nice. And there are better options for this kind of shots if you want to get closer. Althou you could crop it still from there. The thing is, if you think that you do like that 2.8-4 from the zoom, then there is no other way and this is really nice lens. Really. And it is not ’that’ heavy. It is nice to handle and you won’t notice it while you shoot. I have shoulder strap attached to handle. It balances nice and I can walk and shoot for example by sea for hours and capture things with out any more fatique than I’d get from other stuff I carry with me. Honestly. But I’m quite strong.

[Rondec]

Thanks Rondec. When you mean normal distances, is it 2 meters are more from the subject?

---------- Post added 12-04-20 at 12:43 AM ----------


Thanks repaap. I believe almost everyone highlighted the weight although the IQ on the 70-210 at F4 is not on same league as 70-200 at f4. But everyone are ok to compensate the slight image quality for the weight. Probably need to try it out before making a decision to purchase.

---------- Post added 12-04-20 at 12:48 AM ----------


Thanks Paul. That is the hard decision to make since am not too sure

My experience is that at 3 meters focusing it is still pretty close to stated focal length. Minimum focus distance is around 1 meter and certainly you don't get a lot of extra magnification at that distance, but this isn't a macro lens by any means and if that is the goal, probably look elsewhere. For portraiture or landscapes, it is really nice.

---------- Post added 12-05-20 at 06:55 AM ----------

Tractor Before Dawn (DFA *70-200)



Little House (DFA *70-200)

[Rondec]

Cattle at Sunrise (DFA *70-200mm)



Elise (DFA *70-200mm)