Cotty wrote: > Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a > prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available > (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the prime) ?
Mainly because I feel that's a whopper of an assumption. :-) The FA* 200/2.8 is /sooooo/ good, I'd expect a zoom that can match it's quality would be horrifically expensive. I understand that even the vaunted FA* 80-200/2.8 is only close but not quite there. I've never used the 80-200/2.8, though. But, /if/ the quality was there, I'd often use a 70- or 80-200/2.8 zoom. I'm not sure I'd get rid of the 200/2.8, though, because it ought to be a bit lighter than a zoom that reaches 200mm at f/2.8. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
