[scottyinfrisco]

I am a Pentax newbie. I recently got the K-50 and just ordered the K-3, due in no small part to the handling and performance of the K-50. I would really like to use the K-3 for action and sports shooting, but I am not sold on the 60-250 for this mainly because of the "slow to focus" comments. I really don't mind spending the money on the FA 70-200 if the results are there for this kind of shooting. I really don't plan on going FF in the future. I know, famous last words. But, have been down that road some, and for a hobbyist, even an avid one, I really didn't see the value except at super high ISO.

Secondly, does Pentax charge the early adopter tax like everyone else? If I wait a while will the price come down? Thanks

[Stavri]

I'm awaiting the reviews on the D-FA* 70-200 from the early adopters as well. From the images I've from the D-FA 150-450 (which is not a * rated lens) I cannot even imagine how the engineers could improve the performance on the 70-200/f2.8 model. That said, it's an expensive piece of glass for my amateurish usage, I don't expect to sell my Sigma 70-200 HSM II anytime soon. The true test would be to compare the D-FA* zoom at 200 with the DA* 200/f2.8, one of the sharpest (non-macro) primes out there, if it matches even 90% of the prime's IQ its going to be another masterpiece.

[disconnekt]

There's always the option of getting the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for $769.

[Stavri]

There's always the option of getting the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for $769.

Or better yet, a DIY 70-200/f2.8 zoom made of bottle glass and paper machete.

We don't want cheap Chinese knock-offs (I don't care how sharp the Tamron is at 200mm), we want the real thing!!

[VoiceOfReason]

Or better yet, a DIY 70-200/f2.8 zoom made of bottle glass and paper machete.

We don't want cheap Chinese knock-offs (I don't care how sharp the Tamron is at 200mm), we want the real thing!!

I got it and I seriously doubt the Pentax is worth over 3 times the price of a new one. You may want to rephrase what you wrote there.

Actually, I'm fine with both of my Made in Japan Tamron lenses, the 70-200 f/2.8 and 17-50 f/2.8. http://www.productfrom.com/products/0/Tamron/Lenses/

That's probably better than made in Vietnam...

[Stavri]

I got it and I seriously doubt the Pentax is worth over 3 times the price of a new one. You may want to rephrase what you wrote there.

Actually, I'm fine with both of my Made in Japan Tamron lenses, the 70-200 f/2.8 and 17-50 f/2.8. http://www.productfrom.com/products/0/Tamron/Lenses/

That's probably better than made in Vietnam...

You already have the Tamron so you should in theory have no interest on the new d-FA*

I do wonder how much a fast DC motor would cost, the AW feature by itself, or the Aero II coating. Wish one could just add it to the Tamrons like you do when buying a laptop from the manufacturer's website.

[scottyinfrisco]

I would probably buy either the Sigma or Tamron version if the former was still available and the latter was the USD version. I have used the non USD version of the Tamron on Nikon kit and thought the focusing was slow. Is Pentax better in this regard with this lens?

[Kunzite]

Perhaps Canon and Nikon should stop selling their expensive 70-200, because they're not worth the money compared to some Tamron? Or is this only for Pentax?

What a product is worth it's a personal decision. You might decide that buying a high-end lens is not worth the money and go with a cheaper alternative; but this doesn't mean the said high-end lens should not exist. Others might decide they're worth the money and avoid the cheaper alternatives. Surprisingly, that's fine too.

[VoiceOfReason]

I would probably buy either the Sigma or Tamron version if the former was still available and the latter was the USD version. I have used the non USD version of the Tamron on Nikon kit and thought the focusing was slow. Is Pentax better in this regard with this lens?

On the K3 it is quite fast focusing. At least my copy is.

[monochrome]

It is important to remember the Pentax 70~200/2.8 is targeted at true, full-time professional wedding shooters (and the 24~70 that will go with it).True professionals can write off or lease this high $ equipment because they produce revenue with it - more than 50% of their income through use of the tool. If the new lens does anything the Tamron doesn't do (espeically when coupled with the FF) then true, full-time wedding professionals will buy both.

Our enthusiast decisions - or professional decisions for other segments of the industry - may be different for these and various other reasons.

Pentax's lens is $2,300 LIST
Canon's like lens is $2,100 street
Nikon's like lens is $2,400 street

[Stavri]

I would probably buy either the Sigma or Tamron version if the former was still available and the latter was the USD version. I have used the non USD version of the Tamron on Nikon kit and thought the focusing was slow. Is Pentax better in this regard with this lens?

The early adopters of the new d-Fa telephoto zooms have confirmed the AF to be very quick and responsive on the K3, (faster than the new Sigma Sport 150-600 on the Nikon D700*)


* D700 is said to have an inferior AF to the D7200, expect results with the latter to be the same

[kooks]

I love my Tamron, great images, sharp, fast with my K3.. perfect for my shooting...

If the Pentax reviews show that this new 70-200 is WAY better than the Tamron, i could consider to change it, but if not mmmm i will not be really interested, at least for now. Pentax should show with this new lens performance at the new FF matches at every aspect the highest 70-200 lenses, something sholud justify the 3x price difference.

[RobA_Oz]

Monochrome's reasoning is what people should be taking notice of. It's all a matter of what boils down to value, not price. If you're on a budget, then price dominates. If you earn your living from it, then value encompasses more than price, and for the Pentax offering that probably includes factors such as weather-resistance, handling, AF speed and critical IQ demands that the Tamron doesn't offer for that lower price. Please note that I said "probably".

Note also the Standard (short) definition of Quality: "Fitness for Purpose". We can talk all we like about how a certain lens or camera suits our purposes, but others have different purposes that demand different methods and equipment.

I also think the AIV versus MIJ debate is over-emphasised. We don't hear any grumbles about camera bodies (much more sophisticated than lenses) that are Assembled in Philippines.

Notwithstanding, the first results from this new Pentax lens should be interesting, although it'll take a lot more than weather resistance to tempt me into giving up my FA*80-200/2.8.

[scottyinfrisco]

I love my Tamron, great images, sharp, fast with my K3.. perfect for my shooting...

If the Pentax reviews show that this new 70-200 is WAY better than the Tamron, i could consider to change it, but if not mmmm i will not be really interested, at least for now. Pentax should show with this new lens performance at the new FF matches at every aspect the highest 70-200 lenses, something sholud justify the 3x price difference.

This is right where I am at. Except I don't have the Tamron. For me there is no reason to spend this $$$ on the Tamron, if Pentax 70-200 is better. Albeit 3X better is highly subjective.

[Stavri]

The D-Fa* 70-200 f2.8 is going to be a harder sell compared to the new 24-70 or the 150-450 because of the 3rd party alternatives and the niche range it occupies ( wedding photogs and wealthy enthusiast) As much as i love the Pentax built and IQ (AW, contrast, colors) I imagine many like me won't be able to justify selling their Tamron and Sigma lenses valued at 1/4 of the price of the D-Fa* 70-200. Perhaps Canonikon converts used to paying high prices wouldn't think twice of buying the new d-Fa lenses. The FF system is going to be a very expensive proposition.