i'd compare the Sigma and Pentax before putting down the money. yes, the Sigma is a lot cheaper, but there is a reason for it. is it worth the extra money? depends on if you care about the visible difference or not. for me, none of the 3rd party lenses were in the running. Sigma lenses have a quality which i have a hard time describing other than graininess. the lenses i have used seem to have a grainy bokeh.
Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:35 AM Subject: Re: Pentax 80-200 FA* Opinions > I assumed that it was heavy at 1510g but the two lenses I currently use, > Tokina ATX 100-300 f4 and ATX 80-200 f2.8 (both MF) are heavy > themselves. The 300, I always use the monopod with but I have taken to > handholding the 200. I haven't weighed either but the new ATX 80-200 is > around 1300g so I'm betting the ones I have are that or heavier, most > likely the latter. So that actually didn't concern me greatly. Though > lighter would be easier on my aging back and shoulders and arms and > feet...oh well...Of course the Sigma 70-200 which I am considering is > 1200-1300g, so while lighter, it is no featherweight but lighter is > lighter...
