50 - 200 DA

Have any of you used one of these extensively? Might I be disappointed? I'm thinking of buying one to replace my Pentax-F 70 - 210, which isn't stopping down reliably anymore. I was using my DS at the weekend snapping my wife running in a 10K race. Put the camera on 'sprinting person' mode and I was impressed by its performance but noticed (and all this is totally subjective) that the 18-55 seemed nowhere as sharp but much more contrasty than the 70-210. I've always thought that the 70-210 was sharp but flat but I'd be interested to hear some other opinions.

Ken

We bought a Pentax 50-200 which Sue has been using on our recent trip to Suffolk. The results are excellent, and the lens handles beautifully as well.

Recommended.

I second John,

It's a decent consumer zoom, sharp enough and really compact.

You can browse some of my photos with this one here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13185735@N00/sets/72057594055863748/

And the first eight here were taken with it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13185735@N00/sets/72057594141008090/

Hope that helps

Have you considered the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320mm, a bit longer focal length at the wide end, massive (for a compact zoom) at the long end and a great lens. Lacks the additional coatings of the DA series though.

Thanks for all the helpfull suggestions. Loved the pic of the elephant's eye, Fernando.

Ken

Thanks Ken

The F 70-210 is a great lens. Had you considered trying to get it fixed?

G

good point George, I'll give Harrow Technical a ring. I've got another lens (a 28mm Shift) that needs looking at as well - the whole front half is slightly loose although its stunning performance isn't affected. Certainly wont be using Pentax UK who still have my 645 after almost 5 months!

Ken

I bought the 50-200 today (Jessops actually had it in stock), for the money it appears to an excellent performer and just about the perfect walkabout lens. What swayed me to get this lens instead of keeping my F 70-210 (and my other FA zooms) is the ability to manually focus (as has been mentioned) without moving the switch on the body and then auto back to AF, I've got real used to that on the 12-24 and 16-45 and now find it a pain with the F/FA's, its also quite small and light compared to the 70-210 and seems to focus a bit quicker too, although that may be just my imagination.

Here are a couple of examples taken this afternoon with DA50-200.

Brian,

I have the 50-200, 80-320 and Sigma 70-300 APO Macro in addition to other lenses for my DS2. I am thrilled with the Sigma 70-300 but last night I used the 50-200 with the AF360FGZ to photograph my grand daughter's school closing ceremonies (closing, tearing down and rebuilding). Working from the 2nd row of the audience I was able to get good pictures of the speakers, etc. from around 60' - I was surprised at the flash coverage as well - what was nice was the weight and portability of the 50-200.

I have used the 80-320 many times on my MZ6 and DS2 with consistently good results. I am trying the 70-300 Macro as I like the macro feature between 200-300. A little heavier than the 80-320 but so far excellent. I will either keep the 80-320 or it will go to one of my daughters who already has my MZ7.

Mike

HI Mike

I've just sold my 80-320 (70-210 is also up for grabs) as I wasn't really using it, for the longer reach I tent to use my Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 APO DG with a Sigma EX 2x converter. The 50-200 is definately faster focusing and a lot quieter too (compared to the F70-210), if I have time this evening or tomorrow (off on vacation on Sunday morning) I'll do some comparison shots but I don't think there is much difference in the optical performance from the limited shots I've taken (I'm not a pixel counter).

BTW, the Sigma 2x does NOT fit the 50-200.

Brian,

I also have the Sigma 170-500 which although it is big is a good lens. I do better with it on my DS2 than I did on my MZ6 - I need to find out if the Sigma converters will work on it, I don't think so. Also have the Sigma 105 Macro which is superb on either camera.

I am going to give the Sigma 70-300 a good testing tomorrow at a major league baseball game, I will let you know.

Have a great vacation.

Mike

50-200 is an awfullly long range for a zoom. I can't beleive that it is as crisp as the 16-45 or the 70-210, or even the 45-125 across the full range.

Has anyone tried to produce an A3 with this lens? How much processing is needed?

I think I'll stick with my 16-45, 70-210, and 45-125 for now!

The old rules and expectations are being flouted daily by new lens designers. One reason is the smaller APS-C sized sensor, which is easier to design for in some respects. There are lots of other reasons - new glasses, aspheric elements, etc.

I've seen Sue's pics from her new 50-200 and it's just fine. Just use it and enjoy it. One thing is certain, it's a lot more convenient than the 45-125 on digital SLRs. I would expect it to be better as well as that lens is a very early zoom not at all designed with the requirements of digital sensors in mind.

Thanks for all the advice.

The 50-200 is half the weight of the 70-210. I was going to go on holiday with the S50 but...

I've just thown the CC at Jessops web site who are selling the 50-200 for £169 today

Ken