I have very similar feelings about my 28-200 Pentax, plus I was annoyed from
the start with the cheap feel/build quality of the lens. When I updated to AF
in 1997, I thought "Great! I can carry just one lens now.", but soon found
that wasn't true. At infinity focus, it's more like 180mm, while at short
distance it's about 110mm, as the article in Pop Photo mentioned a few years
ago. Add in the slow 5.6 aperture and it's a
travelling-very-light-for-the-afternoon lens, also good at dinner parties (I
once shot a very sharp picture of a fellow diner with it.), but that's about
it.
Anyway, I bought a Sigma 70-200 APO 2.8 and never regretted it. It's big,
heavy, expensive (but a lot cheaper than the FA* 80-200 2.8) and doesn't focus
much under six feet, but it's much brighter to look through in a dim studio,
the camera autofocusses much faster, it's a true zoom, not varifocal, it looks
and feels like a quality lens, and the pictures are much sharper. I was
surprised that you could see the difference in sharpness between the Sigma and
the 28-200 in a 4x6 picture of my house (f9.5, 80mm). Also, it gets you
nearer a true 200mm, and with a teleconvertor it's a practical 140-400 5.6.
The rotating tripod mount also makes verticals very convenient. It's my
favorite portrait lens.
For the shorter end, I used an F 50 1.7 (nice lens), but decided I needed a
constant-aperture zoom to use with studio flash and bought a used FA 28-70 f4
and was very pleased. It's sharp, light, acceptably fast, focusses very
close, and makes a great partner for the Sigma. Only bad points: rotating
front element, and no dedicated lens hood (most rubber ones vignette on this
lens).
So that's my recommendation: 28-70 f4 Pentax plus 70-200 f2.8 Sigma. For top
results, one lens won't cover this range at present. Hope this helps.
Pat White
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
