On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:27:27AM -0500, Doug Franklin wrote: > 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.
Indeed. That's one reason why I've kept the A* 200/2.8, even though the FA* 80-200/2.8 is such a good all-rounder. -- 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.
