Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

A Pentax FA* 80-200 in good condition is listed on ebay with a BIN price of $999, which seems to be below the average selling price for this lens according to the lens reviews here.
Superb SMC Pentax FA FA 80 200 2 8 80 200mm F 2 8 F2 8 1 2 8 If Ed Lens w Hood 0027075036734 | eBay

[UncleVanya]

It is below what I have seen them sold for here and on ebay. I'm really surprised by the price honestly. I have been watching those lenses for a while now. The same seller had another item that seemed a little low also.

[normhead]

I noticed the price on this lens started going down when the D FA 70-200 was announced.

[UncleVanya]

I expected that - but even used the D FA 70-200 will be pretty expensive. I can't follow the pricing of this particular copy vs. the rest of them on ebay.

[Borrelli]

Would this be a good lens to replace a DA* 50-135 with? losing wr and gaining weight, but more reach, ff compatibility and better pq? probably faster also without the sdm.

[sholtzma]

How would this lens stack up against a Sigma EX APO 70-200mm f2.8?

[Borrelli]

How would this lens stack up against a Sigma EX APO 70-200mm f2.8?

If you look at the in-depth review, the FA* was compared to the Sigma and Tamron versions.

[Wild Mark]

Awesome lens and awesome price. Really cannot fault it. The new DFA 70-200mm must surely be better, but I do not expect it to be better by much (perhaps 5%). Mine cost me $400 more and I do not regret it.

[zbrueningsen]

I have no regrets buying my Tamron new for full $769 price and having a 6 year warranty. It is terrific all around, and lighter than the other lenses. All 70-200 are pretty top shelf lenses. I have both the Tamron 70-200 and Pentax 50-135. And quite frankly, the 70-200 is better all around, but the 50-135 is a lot lighter. So word of caution, if you change to the Pentax 80-200 from the 50-135 you gain a ton of weight. The Tamron is like 2x heavier and it is the lightest of the lot.

[sholtzma]

If you look at the in-depth review, the FA* was compared to the Sigma and Tamron versions.

actually, no. My Sigma lens is not DG and is not HSM; it is the original made-for-film, screw-drive (?) version, which therefore weighs less, has different autofocus response, and possibly different IQ.

So, again, I ask, how would my non-DG, non-HSM, version of the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO lens compare to the Pentax?

[UncleVanya]

All I can say is that I shot my DA* 200 Prime against the FA* 80-200 at 200 (both at various f stops including wide open) and I can't tell which lens shot what without digging into the EXIF data. Also in an interesting twist, the DA* had more purple fringing than the FA* did at f/2.8 on high contrast subjects. I was stunned.

Yes the lens is heavy - far heavier than the 60-250 f/4 (no surprise, it's a stop faster and full frame capable).

[johndny]

^^^Very helpful to know, as I've been considering getting the DA*200. Thank you.

[normhead]

I've been thinking of getting the DA*200 just because of the weight. It's 1/3 lighter than the 70-200s, a half pound. I'm thinking it's the perfect companion to an 18-135. Especially since I own a TC.

[UncleVanya]

To be clear the DA* 200 is wonderful. Light and easy to handle and quite sharp. I did not imagine liking this lens as much as I do. The purple fringing is very minor and easy to deal with by stopping down slightly or correcting in post.

[zbrueningsen]

actually, no. My Sigma lens is not DG and is not HSM; it is the original made-for-film, screw-drive (?) version, which therefore weighs less, has different autofocus response, and possibly different IQ.

So, again, I ask, how would my non-DG, non-HSM, version of the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO lens compare to the Pentax?

To be honest - Looking at the reviews of your lens, I've never seen a zoom lens get a consistent 9 or 10 across the board. There is usually somebody who gets a so so copy and bombs it. Yours is by far lighter than the newer sigma and this Pentax (300 grams or so), and less complex optical construction. It isn't weather sealed, and it is screw drive (same as the FA*), you get an extra 10mm on the short end, and you own it. I've never read much about the EX APO version, but reviews claim it is as good as any zoom in that range.

Your benefits to upgrading (I'm guessing, because I don't own one) is that you have a little bit better rendering and colors and better bokeh. Pentax * lenses render amazing, for sure, but I doubt you are upgrading that much. Everybody seemed to have produced an awesome 70-200 (or 80-200), I really don't know if there is such thing as an upgrade unless you want weather sealing and silent focus.

I wouldn't consider this a substantial upgrade.

My thoughts.

---------- Post added 08-27-15 at 01:22 PM ----------

Would this be a good lens to replace a DA* 50-135 with? losing wr and gaining weight, but more reach, ff compatibility and better pq? probably faster also without the sdm.

The 50-135 is super slow on AF. Image quality I think you probably gain because you have more reach. AF speed you will certainly upgrade. But I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Tamron 70-200 as an upgrade to the 50-135. I've wanted the 50-135 for a long time, shot with in a portrait shoot, and liked my pics better from the Tamron than I did the 50-135. The 50-135 does well on the short end, but on the long end if you want bang on shot LV is the best way to get it, and that is even slower. But it is a very light weight portrait lens and excellent at that and has wonderful character. However, all these 70-200, 80-200 2.8 lenses are truly the real deal. You just gain a lot of weight acquiring and using them.