Pentax 70-200 too heavy?

<p>Just compared weights of the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and the Pentax 70-200 f/2.8 (from specs). One is 40.6 oz/1151g and the other is 61.76oz//1755g. I think my Tamron is heavy! Another 2 lbs (almost a kilo) and I wouldn't have to worry about weight exercises.<br>

Canon 50.6 oz, Nikon 70-200mm 54.4 oz, Pentax 61.6 oz. What do you think?<br /></p>

 

<p>Indeed, rather unusual considering that modern lens design tends towards lighter, yet better (..?). It would make the new lens even heavier than Canon's latest 100-400mm IS II zoom. Both are weather sealed. But if the lens performs better by, say, at least 20% than does the (rather light, in my opinion) Tamron, I might still go for it. Of course it will take some time, up to 6 months perhaps, for <em>competent</em> test results to help make an educated decision.<br /> Time will tell.</p>

<p>Yikes! - I rechecked the German Pentax site: "Ca. 1.755 g / Mit Blende, ca. 1.835 g / Mit Blende und Stativadapter, ca. 2.030 g"<br>

I believe: That lens wasn't made to be bought; it was made to sell cameras, by stressing their professional potential with its availability.<br>

My 135mm f2.8 weighs barely less than 500g (with an aftermarket hood, filter and rear cap) and focuses as close as 0.7m - The new zoom: 4x the weight and 2m minimum distance(!). - That means: it is not very usable as a portrait lens and requires the user to bring another camera with 70-something mm limited along, to work around that shortcoming.<br />All in all I would probably switch or mix systems if I wanted a f2.8 zoom. - Nikon focuses as close as 1.4m and maybe even faster than Pentax? But: I am very reluctant to buy a 3kg camera. Thats more like "total weight of everything carried" for my taste. <br>

Of course Pentax might have performed an engineering miracle and eleminated the shortcoming of others' 70 - 200 zooms and created something durable? - Lensrentals.com claim all their 70-200s tend to need an overhaul after 50 weeks rented out.<br>

The biggest challenge after getting convinced to need such lenses (200mm isn't that long on FF, so why not add a 300mm f2.8 or Canon's praised 200 - 400mm with built in 1.4x TC?) seems to be bungeeing a wheelbarrow to the back of your compact car, to move the gear to the sports field or wherever you need it. - Once there shooting shouldn't be too inconvenient, if you use a monopod. - Early muskets were shot in a similar way. </p>

<p>Wow. The original Pentax 80-200mm FA* I think was around 1500g, and I used to think that was too heavy!</p>

 

<p>Doug - it was 1600g</p>

<p>I don't see using that for self-powered backcountry adventures! But that wouldn't have been my intention for a FF anyway. Crop shines in those situations. </p>

<p>The minimum focus <a href="http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses/HD_PENTAX-D_FA*_70-200mm_F2.8ED_DC_AW#!product-specs">is quoted</a> at 3.9' (1.2m) on the USA Ricoh site. That seems more reasonable...where did you see 2m, Jochen?</p>

<p>Agree that if it's actually 2m that would be rather poor.</p>

<p>@ Andrew: http://www.ricoh-imaging.de/de/k-bajonett/technische-details/hd-pentax-dfa-70-200mm-f2.8ED-dcaw.html - Let's hope "1." got eaten during sloppy translation.</p>

<p>The Canon 70-200 f2.8 II, is only 46.5 Oz without the collar, so "YES" I consider the Pentax very heavy.</p>

<p>Wouldn't U know ..."Ricoh Imaging today released the info. that a design change has been required <em>"in order to achieve the extremely high quality of the star lens."</em>... The Co. apologizes to customers who are waiting for the new 70-200mm. <br />Availability date now <strong>Autumn 2015.</strong> Let's hope they'll find a way to make it lighter as well, without compromising quality.<br /> Time will tell.</p>