| Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: February, 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 6,175
12 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 30, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $115.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Superb in its sweet spot | | Cons: | Not so good out of its sweet spot | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-1
| |
This is a difficult lens to rate, because the optical quality varies so widely. In the optical sweet spot (f8 to f15, 80mm to 150mm), it is little short of stunning. But it's only moderately sharp wide open (and then only at the wide end), and performance worsens as one zooms toward the long-end until, at 320mm, it never really gets sharp at all, even stopped down.
When the FA 80-320 was released back in 1997, it would not have been considered a consumer grade lens. According to the patent for the lens, the objective of the design was "to provide a small telephoto zoom lens having a zoom ratio around 4 and exhibiting a high performance over the entire zoom range." This is obviously a more ambitious lens than the other FA (and FA-J) variable aperture telephoto zooms Pentax introduced between 1991 and 2003. Build quality, despite the largely plastic exterior, is tight and solid—definitely a step up from the FA 100-300 f4.7-5.8 and the FA-J 75-300. The lens, despite the patent's claim to being a "small telephoto" does have some heft to it. But it's not nearly as large and heavy as pro-level zooms like the FA* 80-200 or more recent full frame telephoto zooms like the DFA 70-210. Although this is a variable aperture zoom, it's rather odd in that the camera recognizes it as an f4.5 zoom all the way to about 200mm, before jumping two-thirds of a stop to f5.6. The lens is obviously not relaying it's true aperture to the camera.
In the late nineties, expectations of lens performance was not nearly as high as it is today, so the FA 80-320 could pass for a mid-range lens twenty years ago — but today not so much. Which is a pity, because if you are willing to stop the lens down and avoid the long end, you will be treated with a lens that is not merely equal, but in some respects superior to, modern mid-range lenses (such as the aforementioned DFA 70-210). While I had expected the lens to perform reasonably well toward the wide-end stopped down, what I was surprised to discover is how well the FA 80-320 renders objects against backgrounds. It hardly matters whether those backgrounds are in or out of focus. Objects are rendered with a sense of dimension, of tactility, of presence and depth that is rare to find in any zoom lens, let alone a variable aperture zoom. Since acquiring the FA 80-320, I have lost all interest in the DFA 70-210 or any other modern telephoto zooms. The modern glass is better for wide-open shooting, but as a landscape shooter, even f5.6 is useless to me. Hence for landscape photography, this really is a superb option in the 80mm to 135mm range. Even at 200mm, it's still pretty good, although you'll give up some corner and far edge sharpness. The long end can be used for sunsets, where resolution usually doesn't matter much.
The problem, I suspect, with the FA 80-320 is many people buy it to photograph critters and other objects at a distance. This means shooting wide open toward the long end. But that's precisely where the lens does not perform well! This is just not a critter lens. It's a lens for landscapes and scenics. For that sort of photography, you may find, among modern options, lenses that are sharper wide-open or have a bit more contrast (because of advanced coatings) and better CA control (because of ED glass). But you won't find a lens that produces more beautifully rendered landscapes and general scenes.
At 80mm, f11:
At 80mm, f16:
At 90mm, f8:
At 140mm, f11:
At 320mm, f16:
 | | | | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: July, 2011 Location: Fareham, Hampshire Posts: 570
11 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 4, 2020 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Current price, lightweight, image quality | | Cons: | Noisy if that bothers you | |
I have just completed the May Single In Challenge with the K-1 and this lens. (Flickr album linked from image below)
 SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm by Warren, on Flickr
I bought the SMC Pentax-FA80-320mm F4.5-5.6 new in 2002 (approx $200 US) to use with my MZ30 for our regular family trips to the local wildlife park and since then it has seen peaks and troughs of use. I bought the 55-300plm in 2016 with a view to replacing the FA but since the arrival of a K-1 at the end of 2017 I’ve been dithering over which to use.
Overall I was pleased with the results from my “Silver Bazooka” at the end of the month. It’s no DA* 200 or 60-250 and it loses out to the 55-300PLM in AF speed; it is, however, light enough on the K-1 not to notice it in the backpack when cycling and that has provided a lot of extra opportunities this month.
Images - they’re good enough for posting online and 6x4 prints but maybe not so much for bigger prints unless you’re using it for landscapes in the 100-200 range.
The bokeh is nice from the 8 blades, OOF areas render smoothly and the one occasion I pointed at the sun (top of frame) it handled the flare pretty well.
* Use this lens between F8-16 in the centre of its range and the results are pleasing and sharp across the frame.
Just to run counter to the norm; the lens is perfectly useable above 240mm and is still good at 320mm - but not away from the centre of the frame if shooting at range.
* Use the longer end for closer work with subject isolation and then you get decent pop with that smooth bokeh.
One other “feature” is the aperture.
* The lens acts as a constant aperture (f4.5) zoom in the range of 80-200mm.
* 220mm (my copy has never registered a focal length between 200-200mm) through to 320mm is f5.6.
Being used for a whole month bought some challenges, especially with current restrictions on visitor attractions; the long MFD of 1.5m made for some frustrations and I rarely got the lens out to infinity focus. For those days when I needed to be closer to the subject I found the Raynox M150 played well with the lens (I imagine a close-up filter would serve equally well too) so it can double as a pseudo-macro if you really needed it to.
With regard to contrast there were no issues with the images; I do use a third party 58mm rubber hood that looks very similar to the recommended Pentax hood.
To conclude; this is a decent lens when used to it’s strengths and I have found it more comfortable to use on the K-1 than the newer APSC-design 55-300PLM (vignettes badly on FF). Also - it’s silver and matches the silver K-1 very nicely thank you 😊
Favourites from the month
 Benches and Bokeh by Warren, on Flickr
 One Month Later by Warren, on Flickr
 Breakwater by Warren, on Flickr
 Upon Reflection....... by Warren, on Flickr
 Evolution by Warren, on Flickr
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: May, 2012 Location: Mission, B.C. Posts: 166
10 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 8, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Reach, f4.5 to 200mm, sharpness, weight, no zoom creep | | Cons: | AF hunting, rotating front element, hard to find a decent hood, some PF and CA in high contrast/wide open past 200mm | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-r
| |
I've been a bit surprised at how little respect this lens gets with the few photographers I know. This lens hardly ever comes off my K-r. My copy (a silver version) is sharp wide open up to 200mm, which essentially gives you a pretty nice f4.5 80-200mm, with an extra reach to 320mm as a bonus. Sharpness is fairly good up to about 280-300mm, with PF rearing it's ugly head after that. I've even used it with a circa 1980's 2x teleconverter with somewhat decent results (in that it gives me an effective 640mm lens, that stopped down to f9-11 gives decent sharpness and fairly low CA and PF).
Wide open, it is a bit soft at the long end, but either stopping down to f8 or backing off on the zoom to 250-300 and f7.1 sharpens things up with no problem. The auto focus is a bit slow, and tends to hunt a bit, which is a bit of a problem for birds in flight, but for larger or slower moving birds this isn't much of a problem, and can be somewhat mitigated by pre-focusing. Also, the bokeh isn't the best I've seen, but it still makes for am OK long portrait lens, and it's good for candid photography (provided the noisy AF isn't a problem). All in all, I'm very impressed with this lens, especially given the price I paid for it. If you have a chance, I'd definately recommend picking one of these up if you're looking for a fairly cheap long telephoto lens.
Here's a few shots taken with this lens. All were taken between 200-320mm, with the exception of the moon shot, which was taken with a cheap 2x teleconverter (640mm).
 | | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2016 Posts: 2
8 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 20, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $120.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Zoom range, IQ, size, weight | | Cons: | rotating front element, no dedicated hood | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K3II
| |
This lens (gray version) is better by far than my 55-300 that will be sold. Maybe the focal range with APS-C is worst but but that depends on the use:
-Is a bit longer.
-Is a bit faster, aperture and focus.
-Has a bit better IQ.
-Has less vigneting.
-Has less distorsion.
-Has 8 blades so bokeh is better.
-Cormatic aberrations are similar.
-Is more solid, like the most old stuff.
-If someday you upgrade to K1 you will can use.
I have to microadjust the AF to -5 to get a perfect focus.
Mine has a problem, cant focus to infinity but that is so easy to fix.
1-Take off the bubber front ring
2-Take off the 3 screws
3-Take off the plastic ring
4-Zoom at 320 and rotate focus ring to infinity
5-Now you can see 3 more screws with something like rails.
6-Loose this 3 screws then rotate a bit the front barrel to left.
7-Try if now can focus to infinity
8-YES? Mount it again NO? Rotate a bit more to left the front barrel.
Now you have a good telezoom!!
9-Buy a hood
Now you have a GREAT telezoom!!
| | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: January, 2011 Location: zagreb Posts: 668
7 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 12, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $101.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Nice range, lightweight size, good value, overall IQ and fantastic range (320mm) for money | | Cons: | The dispute, there is no original hood, crawling with zoom-autofocus, rotating front element | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 7
Value: 9
Camera Used: K1
| |
The silver version, not black,bought used on ebay , later purchased a metal hood from ebay because there was no original 58mm and 62mm was added on her later , it was necessary to calibrate, done in house work, I found a description of the action and succeeded from the first.
The lens is lightweight and it looks quite firmly and surprisingly large optical IQ as it is a lens kit with such a low price. After calibration satisfyingly sharp across the full range and nominal apertures, the hey f5.6 to 320mm is super. With the replacement hood contrast throughout the range is super, neglected with vignettes, it also suffers from creaking / pulling the lens when it is facing down, focusing is fairly quick and decisive in good light but loud, at low / poor light the focus is pretty bad because a lot of it goes first to the maximum and then returns to the minimum and then searches for the focus - that's the only bad thing (very noticeable and sometimes frustrating) high-capacity lens with low price.
Successfully focuses on good light and via a Pentax AF x1.7 adapter (at maximum nominal aperture f5.6), * sometimes you need to zoom in / pre-focus on the lens itself to make the focus fast and reliable via the adapter (satisfactory quality in FF on Pentax FA lens with 550mm and maximum aperture f8 -We have to be aware of the compromise for the autofocus for that mm and such a price )
Before I used K-x / r / 3/30 with Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED or Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro now FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 on K1 I look sharper and with a better focus in good light
I would like Ricoh to have / make a Pentax DFA 70-320 / 4,5-5,6 ED PLM WR RE with quiet / fast and determined autofocus (equivalent to approx. 550 ~ 600 euro in Europe) .
Then there would be a telephoto zoom lens sequence for FF = beginner / advanced / professional series (70-320 / f4,5-5,6 + 70-210 / f4 + 70-200 / f2,8)
My recommendation to use at K1 if you need a long / optically decent / cheap lens.
The look of the old used about 19 years with ebay lenses with a replacement hood:
 
 
Some examples of photos with Pentax FA 80-320 / 4,5-5,6 + Pentax K1
PENTAX K-1
ISO : 100
Shutter Speed: 1/250 sec.
Aperture: 1: 6.3
glass/length: 128 mm
in 35 mm: 128 mm
PENTAX K-1
ISO : 1250
Shutter Speed: 1/1250 sec.
Aperture: 1:8
glass/length: 170 mm
in 35 mm: 170 mm
PENTAX K-1
ISO: 500
Shutter Speed: 1/500 sec.
Aperture: 1: 8
glass/length: 180 mm
in 35 mm: 180 mm
PENTAX K-1
ISO : 800
Shutter Speed: 1/80 sec.
Aperture: : 1:6.3
glass/length: 200 mm
in 35 mm: 200 mm
*PENTAX K-1
ISO: 100
Shutter Speed: 1/160 sec.
Aperture: 1: 5.6
glass/length: 260 mm
in 35 mm: 260 mm
PENTAX K-1
ISO: 100
Shutter Speed: 1/125 sec.
Aperture: 1: 5.6
glass/length: 320 mm
in 35 mm: 320 mm
PENTAX K-1
ISO: 6400
Shutter Speed: 1/320 sec.
Aperture: 1:11
glass/length 320mm + af x1,7 adapter
in 35 mm: 550 mm | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 2,978
7 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 19, 2009 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Weight and size, focal length, price | | Cons: | Sometimes busy bokeh, needs bright condition. | |
I also own the Sigma 100-300 F4 EX DG, arguably one of the best zooms out there. I also own the FA43 limited and the FA77 limited. So, I know what an excellent lens should be like and this is not in there league, but still a very nice lens.
This lens easily fetches the 8 I gave, the total scores here of 6 something is not indicative of this lens at all.
It needs to be stopped down to F8 in use, so needs bright light to work well. But, weighs pretty much nothing for a 320mm lens. With post processing it can deliver very high quality images. So lets go to that...I took it only for one 3 hour outing and this is what I got.
So, at 320mm is the lens too soft to be used, you tell me...
First one, no sharpening added and at 320mm
(Non working link removed)
A couple of more images at shorter focal lengths
 | | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: October, 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,650
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 4, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $115.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Very good on the Pentax K5. Sharp between 80 and 240 mm. Very good contrast. | | Cons: | Performance weakens somewhat at longer focal lengths. | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K5
| |
P.S. My FA 80-320 mm just died on me. When the lens is set on "A" so the camera body governs the diaphragm setting, the body can no longer read and adjust the f-stop. When I permit diaphragm activation in the Menu, it works only @ f/4.5 whichever manual f/stop I try to use. I replaced it with a demo DA 55-300 mm HD I found cheap on eBay. It's the first time I have to say "adios" to any lens I ever purchased (SNIFF !).
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: May, 2016 Posts: 3,726
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 16, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | range, size, KAF mount | | Cons: | build | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 5
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-1II
| |
I wanted a longer zoom that was small and had autofocus. This was my choice, and despite the lower points I'm giving it, I like it.
It's less sharp than my other lens in this range (Vivitar S1 70-210), however, it's sharp enough especially under 200mm and around f8-f11. Build quality is ok except that both zoom and focus are loose, but I don't know if that's from use or it is supposed to be like this. The color and overall rendering is nice, there's something pleasant about the images, which is why I like this lens.
320mm
180mm
108mm
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: May, 2020 Location: Cabo San Lucas Posts: 53
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 12, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $115.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | zoom range, weight, sharp, good focus, construction | | Cons: | no dedicated hood, no WR | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-3 II
| |
I bought this lens for wildlife and astrophotography, i had it for two years and still like it, i know there are better zoom lenses than this, but for what i paid for it and what i used for i think is a good value. Mine is a second hand lens the silver version, everything on the lens works really good and the condition of the lens overall is great, the focus is good although a bit noisy, sometimes gets purple aberrations but really not to noticeable. Overall i´m happy with the lens, for the price i would recommend it, but if you have the budget to get a more expensive one then go ahead.
 | | | | | New Member Registered: July, 2016 Posts: 1
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 4, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $120.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Acceptable price for the received quality | | Cons: | IQ, sharpness and built qualtiy | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 6
Value: 8
Camera Used: K1
| |
For the paid price it's okay but it's not a great lens. You can take good pictures with it but at full extend the IQ is getting worse and can't be denied.
The AF isn't to my satisfaction either, it's to slow and sometimes not reliable. I know that's a good deal of focal length but it's just to slow for any kind of fast moving objects.
Sharpness is good at center but decrease a good deal to the corners.
The Bokeh isn't bad but not really impressive either.
Zoom creep is a thing and the built quality is plastic. It feel still robust and like a good lens to handle mistreating but I dislike this rattling construction.
The colours didn't look beautiful as with some other lenses, it's a bit dull.
The good point of this lens is a good deal of focal length for a fair price. When you can avoid to shoot high contrasts it's a good lens even at 320mm.
What I can't recommend shoot with it are birds. 1. Sky = high contrast, 2. fast moving objects.
It's probably a lot more robust than it feel but I'm upgrading to a used DA*300mm f4 which impressed me in all matters.
| | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2014 Posts: 14
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 26, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | colores, contraste, tamaño contenido | | Cons: | velocidad de enfoque, construccion | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: k50, k5, k200
| |
Muy buen lente. Teleobjetivo largo, con definición destacable, colores vivos y contraste suficiente. Si bien a mas de 250mm decae un poco el rendimiento, sigue siendo usable hasta en la focal mas larga. El enfoque es algo lento, pero nada preocupante. La version color gris, tiene rendimiento optico y mecanico superior (inexplicablemente porque en teoria son identicos) El peso es contenido y el tamaño tambien. Combinado con los altos isos que permite el sensor sony de 16mpx permite olvidarse de aperturas de 2.8, del 70-200 y poder trabajar en interiores sin problemas, incluso en focales mucho mas largas.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: Zagreb Posts: 32
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 31, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $219.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Range (even more at APS-C), price, look, IQ in good light | | Cons: | rotating front element, IQ in low light, AF hunts | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| |
PROS:
inexpensive
excellent range (320mm FF / 480mm APS-C)
IQ at good light conditions
filter size
CONS
rotating front element
plastic feel
AF hunts a lot
no hood included
CA
I use this lens for wildlife! It is good when there's good light. But in low light it is hard to use without a tripod. There is a some CA when shoot to bright background.
Shoots:
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: September, 2015 Location: Hampshire Posts: 50
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 11, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $140.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Good zoom range with long focal length on APS-C camera | | Cons: | Large and heavy(ish) | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-S2
| |
I have the silver version, made in Taiwan bought secondhand from SRS Microsystems with a one year guarantee.
I'm really enjoying using the lens when out in the countryside. Using the TAv setting on my K-S2 it's possible to get some cracking long distance shots fully zoomed out, obviously DoF can be quite shallow then.
I'm still experimenting with settings but find for animals/birds anything around F9-F16 and 1/320-1/500 give good results. You can also get pretty good close-ups (flowers etc.) using similar F settings and slower speeds around 1/160.
The focusing is quite noisy, but very fast, usually locking on without hunting when using the viewfinder - I've not tried LV with it.
Overall I'm very happy with the lens and probably won't need anything longer (APS-C = 480 35mm equivalent focal length).
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2014 Posts: 4
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 21, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $140.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheap | | Cons: | Bit soft at maximum zoom, bad manual focus | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-r
| |
I bought this as a cheap lens to shoot some of my cricket action. Image sharpness at maximum zoom is acceptable and pretty good at lower zoom levels. Haven't have a problem with auto focus, though the manual focus ring fells like thin plastic which it is.
Bottom line is, I always keep this lens in my kit bag due to the large zoom range and acceptable results.
Here are some shots taken with this lens at 320mm;
 
at 80mm;
The originals and few more examples at various zoom ranges can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kosalabandara/sets/72157640006349435/ | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: June, 2011 Location: Near Sydney, NSW Posts: 331
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 8, 2011 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Good range, optics, light, looks serious, auto-everything, 5.6 at 320 isn't that slow... | | Cons: | Only the obvious like it's big, 80-320 what do you expect | |
My pros and cons pretty much say it all - I will add a small con and then go onto the pros in more detail:
At first I thought it was soft above 200 but I think it's more that the AF is a little bit out, and can get easily confused especially with 11 point AF, so my images on AF were a bit soft - I find you're better off pressing AF to get near the range and then flicking it off to get it exact with MF - that's what I do normally anyway, I haven't used many lenses where the AF is as sharp as it can possibly be.
So ok that's a con - AF isn't the best but it is a 10 year old lens, at least it HAS AF.
To me, things that some call cons I call pros. For example - the sound it makes when it's AFing - sounds like something out of James Bond, I love it. Another: I have the silver one. Looks a bit weird on a modern black DSLR... yeah so what? Did you buy your camera to look nice around your neck? Because I've got news for you - people with cameras around their necks look like newb tourists, it's just a fact of life. WE don't look good, we MAKE things that look good. To me, a big fat older looking lens makes you look serious and not like all the posers who buy SLRs to show their friends how cool and arty they are - even though they're not.
People saying it's a bit flimsy - well, honestly I'd rather that than it weighing a tonne, try keeping a heavy lens still at full reach.
Oh and people saying it's slow... what? f5.6 at 320mm... that's ONE stop slower than the Pentax 300 f4 - which cannot pull back, and is about 5 times the price. Then compare it with things that cost maybe $200 on eBay like the Sigma 100-300 which finishes up at 6.7 at the long end... and it's not as long, or as wide at the wide end... and it's optics are worse.
OK enough ranting - if you can find one of these for $300 or less, I'd recommend it. I've used it for birds a lot and it goes very nicely, I love it.
| | |
