fast 2.8 lens

I am on the look out for a 70-200/ 80-200 2.8 AF lens either tamron sigma or tokina atx not having used a fast lens don't now which one to get have tryed a da*60-250 a very good lens but to pricey for me
Won't be able to fund until the end of march /early April advice and recondations very welcome and a rough guide to used prices would be good

Phill

Of the modern lenses, the Tamron [pentax fit] 70-200 f2.8 can be had for 475 new and seems to be the best bang for buck [for a zoom] in this range

Obviously primes will be better IQ, such as DFA 100mm or DA* 200 both f2.8... but it seems the Tamron is no slouch... the only negatives I can see of the Tamron are its size/weight and no WR

Hi Reso,

I use the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 on a K3, and am absolutely delighted with its performance. It's certainly not light to carry all day, but it is superb optically.

Loads of images taken with it on My Flickr

Cheers,

Simon.

I have a Tokina 2.8 135mm Manual that I don't use. Not quite in the same league as the expensive jobbies mentioned above but it's a prime, takes excellent pictures and is very clean and tidy indeed.

It has an excellent review on the other site:
pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tokina-rmc-135mm-2-8.html

Would have to be the Sigma 70-200 for me, fast silent HSM autofocus, & image stabilization, plus all focus/zoom is purely internal, so the lens doesn't grow.
Excellent quality too....
You still might find a new one out there, but SRS seem to have some really nice 2nd hand ones......

+1

Would you really rate the Sigma 70-200mm over the Pentax DA* 60-250mm which is a similar price?

Sure the Pentax is not f2.8 but I would imagine in every other department it is hard to beat (?)

And then the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is half the price of both those...

I've noticed a few people mentioning a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, which is a good lens on full frame cameras. The equivalent on APS-C is 50-135mm f/2.8 and Pentax have a superb lens already.

Do we really mean 70-200mm in this context?

Another vote for the Tamron from me - simply a superb lens and nothing to touch it at the price. I bought mine intending to 'trade up' to a Pentax 60-250 when funds became available. No chance - you would need a crowbar to get this lens off me - I can honestly say that since the day I bought it, all thoughts of the 60-250 have vanished.

Carl

The Sigma is much the faster lens & to be honest the two copies of the DA* 60-250 I have handled, (one was brand new) were both stiff and cumbersome to use compared to the Sigma, and I really don't think that there is a lot in the IQ, so yes I do rate the Sigma as the better lens.

OP asks about 70-200 / 80-200 and even mentions 60-250. So yes, I think that we're talking about a 70-200 and not a 50-135.

I take your point sterretge, but what I'm really asking is do we all realise that the 70-200mm that many see being used on FF cameras is already catered for in the Pentax range. The same field of view is offered by the 50-135mm.

I only ask because many of the photographers I talk to do get confused over the intricacies of focal length and format.

This focal length / format matter is always a discussion point isn't it ..... To me, I see focal length as relating directly to the idea of ' reach' ...ie how far forwards we can see with a lens of each focal length. This is of course exactly the same for any focal length on any format, as it is a product of the lens optics. The lens projects exactly the same thing from its rear element regardless of what camera it is attached to.

The sensor size affects the proportion of the total image area that any given object occupies ... Any single object, say a bird, photographed at a single focal length, will be exactly the same size when protected from the rear element ... But on a smaller sensor it will occupy a larger percentage of the total image area, and so the impression (illusion really) is of a higher magnification, interpreted as ' equivalent ' to a longer focal length on a larger format, when the reality is that it's not at all ....

I believe that the 70-200mm is the best selling Canon lens to both FF and crop owners, I would imagine it is considering they currently make a F4, F4 IS, F2.8 and F2.8 IS MKII. I use my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 a lot more than the DA* 50-135mm even though the Pentax lens is sharper.

I've used 70-200ish zooms since the Spotmatic days and always found them to be badly lacking in coverage at the 70mm end. It was always a pain removing a big zoom just to put a 50mm standard on. A 50-200mm makes a lot more sense for FF, but I don't think anyone does one.

Edit: Canon seem to have made some 55-200mm's such as the
Canon EF 50-200mm f/3.5~4.5L AFD Standard-to-Telephoto-Zoom

--