Weight and size, and optical quality. I had a FA*200/2.8 on loan for a while, and it is considerably smaller than the Sigma 70-200/2.8. If you still recall that lens... :-) I would say the optical quality is a notch or two higher in the prime too.
Yesterday I got to compare size and weight of the FA* with the DA* directly. They are, as far as I could tell, exactly the same size and weight. The optical formula is different, though. The DA* has a couple of other things going for it too. The SDM works wonders for AF; it is practically silent compared to the FA*. I don't know about speed and accuracy. Both seemed good enough for me in broad daylight...:-) Then there is weather protection. This, and the SDM, is not currently found in any xx-200/2.8 zoom. Nor does Pentax have plans for any 2.8 zoom in this range. The nearest you get is the planned 60-250/4 due in June/July. 2008/2/14, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > DA*200/2.8. > > 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) ? > > I can understand a 300 or 400 at 2.8, but not a 200. > > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > -- > 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. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
