According to the repair tech, it's a beautifully made lens too. I paid $100 through Ebay for mine, then paid him another $100 to repair it (one of the guide bushings and retaining screws for the zoom control had come loose and fallen out). It was worth it. There was another that I found out about later that was in known mint condition that I could have gotten for $100. No one even bid on it, I talked to the owner afterwards. Oh well.
Personally, I find it a little heavy and a little slow in use. I'm not a huge fan of one-touch zoom lenses, prefer a two-ring control. But it has superb image quality.
Since I also acquired a Pentax F100-300/4.5-5.6 recently, as soon as I get a moment I'm going to set them up for a test. The 100-300 is lighter and handier than the 70-210. Although I'm fairly certain that it isn't quite the performer that the 70-210 is, in the range that I need (about 180-250mm), it might prove the better choice for my upcoming trip. I like its ergonomics more, although it's a little loose feeling on manual focus for my taste.
Godfrey
On Mar 19, 2005, at 5:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I think I was impressed with how light that lens felt given its physical
dimensions. Looks like it can produce an acceptably sharp image as well.
For a big zoom, it seems like a good option. IIRC, G. said it was not too
expensive, either.
Shel
[Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton
Yes, it is the same lens. I needed a zoom in that size/range for some of my wedding work - I find the 80-200/2.8 just too heavy for most of the wedding stuff. It is useful for other things, so both will get some use. I had originally hoped that the upcoming 50-200 would have been a constant f4, but no.
