Choosing a telezoom for motorsports ?

guillermovilas · 10-01-2010, 04:10 AM

Taken with my 50-135/2.8 , this will be so much easier with a 300mm reach

StevenVH · 10-01-2010, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by guillermovilas

I just came up with another option which could solve the 2 main problems which are REACH & WEIGHT

I've allready got a pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 so i'd buy a Pentax 200mm f/2.8 with a Teleconverter

I'd then have a 200mm f/2.8 & 280mm f/4 for a small size of 134mm long and 825gr heavy.

What do you think about this option

I've never used a teleconverter before , i suppose it will work with AF at 280mm

Which converter to buy and will the IQ still match the Sigma at 300mm

I'm in a similar situation, I have the 50-135 and need/want longer reach, and am searching for definitive info on using a 1.5x tele-converter. I think it's a good option as long as the IQ stays acceptable for publication and the AF works well for sports action. I've searched this forum and don't find the definite answer yet.
If I was making more $$ from my photo work I'd have 2 bodies with 50-135 on one and 60-250 on the other and maybe the DA*300 in the bag as well. In the meantime a fully functional tele-converter seems like the best option for me.

cheers

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-01-2010, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by StevenVH

I'm in a similar situation, I have the 50-135 and need/want longer reach, and am searching for definitive info on using a 1.5x tele-converter. I think it's a good option as long as the IQ stays acceptable for publication and the AF works well for sports action. I've searched this forum and don't find the definite answer yet.
If I was making more $$ from my photo work I'd have 2 bodies with 50-135 on one and 60-250 on the other and maybe the DA*300 in the bag as well. In the meantime a fully functional tele-converter seems like the best option for me.

cheers

This is where the design of a lens system is important at the onset.

When I look at the options, I consider that if you don't do wildlife or perhaps sports, then the 50-135 makes sence, but if you are into something that needs a sound and fast approach to 300 or 400mm, you are limited to really 2 options,
option 1, within the pentax line up get the da300F4, and if you need more reach with that lens get a TC that will work with the lens, or add the 1.7x AF TC as many forum members have done.
option 2 forego the 50-135 F2.8 in favour of a heavier 70-200F2.8 and add 1.4 and 3x TCs.

I have option 2 using the sigma 70-200F2.8EX (non DG non macro) which is excellent alone or when used with sigma's 1.4x and 2x TCs.

I think adding a TC to the 50-135 will still leave you short in many occasions, and slower than what you can do with a 70-200. Just my $0.02

guillermovilas · 10-01-2010, 08:11 AM

This must sound like a stupid question but i've never used a teleconverter before

Is it easy to put on and off

There isn't a switch that allows you to go from one focal to the other

if it isn't the case imagine if this was possible

StevenVH · 10-01-2010, 08:21 AM

Hi Lowell and thanks. I agree with you in general. As I said, if was making any real money from sport photos I'd buy a longer lens. For now I need a cheaper option and a 1.5x TC will do I think. I'm just shooting local kids sport for the local paper. I have all access, so the 50-135 works most times. Cropping is fine usually, but night games often result in a noisy background that just gets worse without doing more PP than I'd like to do in this case.
It feels like if I just had 50 or 70mm more I could just use the in-cam jpegs and let the editor do the crop.
The 60-250 would be perfect except maybe for indoor basketball, but the 50-135 works fine for that.

So then, does the 1.7x AF TC you refer to work with the 50-135? And is that the Pentax TC? The one in the LensDB: SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter Lens Reviews - Pentax Lens Review Database

I'm looking at the Kenko 1.5x AF that Tom has FS in the marketplace:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/116532-sale-k...worldwide.html

cheers

StevenVH · 10-01-2010, 08:25 AM

guillermovilas, it's basically a small lens. You mount it on the lens then mount to the camera.

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-01-2010, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by StevenVH

Hi Lowell and thanks. I agree with you in general. As I said, if was making any real money from sport photos I'd buy a longer lens. For now I need a cheaper option and a 1.5x TC will do I think. I'm just shooting local kids sport for the local paper. I have all access, so the 50-135 works most times. Cropping is fine usually, but night games often result in a noisy background that just gets worse without doing more PP than I'd like to do in this case.
It feels like if I just had 50 or 70mm more I could just use the in-cam jpegs and let the editor do the crop.
The 60-250 would be perfect except maybe for indoor basketball, but the 50-135 works fine for that.

So then, does the 1.7x AF TC you refer to work with the 50-135? And is that the Pentax TC? The one in the LensDB: SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter Lens Reviews - Pentax Lens Review Database

I'm looking at the Kenko 1.5x AF that Tom has FS in the marketplace:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/116532-sale-k...worldwide.html

cheers

the pentas SMC-F 1.7x AF TC is what I am referring to, it will work with any pentax lens, and it will force you to close focus manually with the lens itself, and then the TC will do the fine focus. The range of focus that the TC can provide itself is a function of focal length, as the range of motion in the TC is limited.

I use mine almost exclusively with my SMC-Pentax 300mmF4 lens and if you are considering getting beyond 300mm, and have AF this may be a way to go. This is especially true if it is for a local paper, yoou can shoot higher ISO and JPEGs since it is going into a paper, (their resolution will be much worse than the shots you give them at 1600ISO) and really get some shots.

You could start with the adaptor, but they are not cheap. (selling in the $300-$400 range now I think) you could also look in the used lens market for an SMC- 300F4. one of the best bang for buck lenses out there.

StevenVH · 10-01-2010, 08:37 AM

Excellent, thanks again.

Do you know about the Kenko TC? It's half the price you mention for the Pentax 1.7.

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-01-2010, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by StevenVH

Excellent, thanks again.

Do you know about the Kenko TC? It's half the price you mention for the Pentax 1.7.

I have been wondering about this, I don't own one but it is reported to function with SDM lenses as is the tamron 1.4x PZ teleconverter.

Both were made for use on the power zooms and the pentax KAF2 mount.

The reason I like the pentax (aside from the fact that I own it

) is that I get not only more reach, but I get AF when used on my manual focus lenses.

having an AF 500mm lens is a nice thing.

as to price, I don't recall now what I paid, and it is a shame because I bought it new in 1991.

StevenVH · 10-01-2010, 08:54 AM

And, if my copy of the A70-210 was sharper on the long end I'd just use it. I don't mind the MF and the one-touch style zoom works great for action.
I used to shoot a lot of motor sport in the film days and didn't need AF, so the OP may want to consider MF lenses as well. Kids field and court sports on the other hand seems much harder for me to follow these days with MF, but most of the time the 70-210 is usable.

cheers

guillermovilas · 10-01-2010, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Mike.P®

I actually have all 3 lenses you list (except my 300mm is the F* 300mm f4.5).

I use the 300mm with the 1.7 TC when birding
I use the 60-250mm in good light where fast AF is not needed and I want superb IQ
I use the Sigma 100-300mm if fast AF is needed along with the extra length.

If I had to keep just one it would be th Sigma as it is pretty good with the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter (for birding), it has very good IQ (although not quite as good as the 2 Pentax lenses) and the AF is super speedy compared to the other two.

Would the AF of the 60-250 be fast enough for motorbike racing , considering using it in bright light

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-01-2010, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by StevenVH

And, if my copy of the A70-210 was sharper on the long end I'd just use it. I don't mind the MF and the one-touch style zoom works great for action.
I used to shoot a lot of motor sport in the film days and didn't need AF, so the OP may want to consider MF lenses as well. Kids field and court sports on the other hand seems much harder for me to follow these days with MF, but most of the time the 70-210 is usable.

cheers

along those lines what about the Vivitar Series 1 70-201 F3.5. Nice and sharp at all focal lengths, one touch zoom, and with 180 degree focus throw, short enough to track focus on moving subjects, long enough to be accurate.

It also works well with the AF adaptor and gives a 360mm F5.6 AF lens

pickles · 10-01-2010, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by StevenVH

And, if my copy of the A70-210 was sharper on the long end I'd just use it. I don't mind the MF and the one-touch style zoom works great for action.
I used to shoot a lot of motor sport in the film days and didn't need AF, so the OP may want to consider MF lenses as well. Kids field and court sports on the other hand seems much harder for me to follow these days with MF, but most of the time the 70-210 is usable.

cheers

Agree, Like I said in my earlier post, I did quite a lot of M.S. photography, & that "A"70/210 did a great job. 210 was plenty for me as I was always able to get trackside with all the other press guys.
I had, & still have, a 300mm, but never used it for m/sport....too inflexible and depth of field was always a problem....in manual focus anyway!
Dunno about those teleconverters.....wouldn't one loose a bit of speed & clarity with such an item?
Cheers, Pickles.

guillermovilas · 10-08-2010, 08:06 AM

I've added another potential lens on my list , the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6

From what i've read it's got good IQ and fast AF , only problem is the weight 1.7kgs.
They discontinued the non OS version and i found a shop who have just one left at a bargain price :

€600

, i've got to make up my mind fast

What's the point of buying the OS version with a Pentax body

Question is , Sigma 120-400mm or Pentax 60-250mm + TC

guillermovilas · 10-21-2010, 02:27 PM

Well after testing both Sigmas 120-400mm and 150-500mm in my local shop , i found that both lenses produced equivalent optical results , neither lens producing sharper pictures no better AF one over the other and this handheld with body stalilisation

.

What made me choose the 120-400m is ergonomics , it is better in hand , better balanced and the zooming ring was smoother and easier to manipulate

.

Allthough i would have liked the extra 100mm reach , the 120-400mm really was the better choice for me , it`s big but still not too big,no problem using it handheld , the 150-500mm really felt too massive

.

10-01-2010, 08:53 AM	#39
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by StevenVH Excellent, thanks again. Do you know about the Kenko TC? It's half the price you mention for the Pentax 1.7. I have been wondering about this, I don't own one but it is reported to function with SDM lenses as is the tamron 1.4x PZ teleconverter. Both were made for use on the power zooms and the pentax KAF2 mount. The reason I like the pentax (aside from the fact that I own it) is that I get not only more reach, but I get AF when used on my manual focus lenses. having an AF 500mm lens is a nice thing. as to price, I don't recall now what I paid, and it is a shame because I bought it new in 1991.

10-01-2010, 08:54 AM	#40
StevenVH Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 475	And, if my copy of the A70-210 was sharper on the long end I'd just use it. I don't mind the MF and the one-touch style zoom works great for action. I used to shoot a lot of motor sport in the film days and didn't need AF, so the OP may want to consider MF lenses as well. Kids field and court sports on the other hand seems much harder for me to follow these days with MF, but most of the time the 70-210 is usable. cheers Last edited by StevenVH; 10-01-2010 at 09:35 AM. Reason: clarification

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Machinery Motorsports with the DA* 50-135mm	Gaelen	Post Your Photos!	19	10-21-2010 08:51 AM
Not liking the K7 for motorsports rant	r0ckstarr	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	34	11-04-2009 06:34 AM
For My Next Trick: Motorsports	Mike Cash	Photographic Technique	3	02-14-2009 05:31 PM
Motorsports shooting with K100D	smcclelland	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	07-09-2007 12:53 AM
Anyone else shoot motorsports?	GirlsGoneRacin	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	02-02-2007 02:11 PM

10-01-2010, 04:10 AM	#31
guillermovilas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hasselt , Belgium Posts: 224 Original Poster	Taken with my 50-135/2.8 , this will be so much easier with a 300mm reach

10-01-2010, 07:46 AM	#32
StevenVH Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 475	Originally posted by guillermovilas I just came up with another option which could solve the 2 main problems which are REACH & WEIGHT I've allready got a pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 so i'd buy a Pentax 200mm f/2.8 with a Teleconverter I'd then have a 200mm f/2.8 & 280mm f/4 for a small size of 134mm long and 825gr heavy. What do you think about this option I've never used a teleconverter before , i suppose it will work with AF at 280mm Which converter to buy and will the IQ still match the Sigma at 300mm I'm in a similar situation, I have the 50-135 and need/want longer reach, and am searching for definitive info on using a 1.5x tele-converter. I think it's a good option as long as the IQ stays acceptable for publication and the AF works well for sports action. I've searched this forum and don't find the definite answer yet. If I was making more $$ from my photo work I'd have 2 bodies with 50-135 on one and 60-250 on the other and maybe the DA*300 in the bag as well. In the meantime a fully functional tele-converter seems like the best option for me. cheers

10-01-2010, 08:00 AM	#33
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by StevenVH I'm in a similar situation, I have the 50-135 and need/want longer reach, and am searching for definitive info on using a 1.5x tele-converter. I think it's a good option as long as the IQ stays acceptable for publication and the AF works well for sports action. I've searched this forum and don't find the definite answer yet. If I was making more $$ from my photo work I'd have 2 bodies with 50-135 on one and 60-250 on the other and maybe the DA300 in the bag as well. In the meantime a fully functional tele-converter seems like the best option for me. cheers This is where the design of a lens system is important at the onset. When I look at the options, I consider that if you don't do wildlife or perhaps sports, then the 50-135 makes sence, but if you are into something that needs a sound and fast approach to 300 or 400mm, you are limited to really 2 options, option 1, within the pentax line up get the da300F4, and if you need more reach with that lens get a TC that will work with the lens, or add the 1.7x AF TC as many forum members have done. option 2* forego the 50-135 F2.8 in favour of a heavier 70-200F2.8 and add 1.4 and 3x TCs. I have option 2 using the sigma 70-200F2.8EX (non DG non macro) which is excellent alone or when used with sigma's 1.4x and 2x TCs. I think adding a TC to the 50-135 will still leave you short in many occasions, and slower than what you can do with a 70-200. Just my $0.02

10-01-2010, 08:11 AM	#34
guillermovilas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hasselt , Belgium Posts: 224 Original Poster	This must sound like a stupid question but i've never used a teleconverter before Is it easy to put on and off There isn't a switch that allows you to go from one focal to the other if it isn't the case imagine if this was possible

10-01-2010, 08:21 AM	#35
StevenVH Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 475	Hi Lowell and thanks. I agree with you in general. As I said, if was making any real money from sport photos I'd buy a longer lens. For now I need a cheaper option and a 1.5x TC will do I think. I'm just shooting local kids sport for the local paper. I have all access, so the 50-135 works most times. Cropping is fine usually, but night games often result in a noisy background that just gets worse without doing more PP than I'd like to do in this case. It feels like if I just had 50 or 70mm more I could just use the in-cam jpegs and let the editor do the crop. The 60-250 would be perfect except maybe for indoor basketball, but the 50-135 works fine for that. So then, does the 1.7x AF TC you refer to work with the 50-135? And is that the Pentax TC? The one in the LensDB: SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter Lens Reviews - Pentax Lens Review Database I'm looking at the Kenko 1.5x AF that Tom has FS in the marketplace: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/116532-sale-k...worldwide.html cheers

10-01-2010, 08:25 AM	#36
StevenVH Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 475	guillermovilas, it's basically a small lens. You mount it on the lens then mount to the camera.

10-01-2010, 08:29 AM	#37
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by StevenVH Hi Lowell and thanks. I agree with you in general. As I said, if was making any real money from sport photos I'd buy a longer lens. For now I need a cheaper option and a 1.5x TC will do I think. I'm just shooting local kids sport for the local paper. I have all access, so the 50-135 works most times. Cropping is fine usually, but night games often result in a noisy background that just gets worse without doing more PP than I'd like to do in this case. It feels like if I just had 50 or 70mm more I could just use the in-cam jpegs and let the editor do the crop. The 60-250 would be perfect except maybe for indoor basketball, but the 50-135 works fine for that. So then, does the 1.7x AF TC you refer to work with the 50-135? And is that the Pentax TC? The one in the LensDB: SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter Lens Reviews - Pentax Lens Review Database I'm looking at the Kenko 1.5x AF that Tom has FS in the marketplace: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/116532-sale-k...worldwide.html cheers the pentas SMC-F 1.7x AF TC is what I am referring to, it will work with any pentax lens, and it will force you to close focus manually with the lens itself, and then the TC will do the fine focus. The range of focus that the TC can provide itself is a function of focal length, as the range of motion in the TC is limited. I use mine almost exclusively with my SMC-Pentax 300mmF4 lens and if you are considering getting beyond 300mm, and have AF this may be a way to go. This is especially true if it is for a local paper, yoou can shoot higher ISO and JPEGs since it is going into a paper, (their resolution will be much worse than the shots you give them at 1600ISO) and really get some shots. You could start with the adaptor, but they are not cheap. (selling in the $300-$400 range now I think) you could also look in the used lens market for an SMC- 300F4. one of the best bang for buck lenses out there.

10-01-2010, 08:37 AM	#38
StevenVH Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 475	Excellent, thanks again. Do you know about the Kenko TC? It's half the price you mention for the Pentax 1.7.

10-01-2010, 09:56 AM	#41
guillermovilas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hasselt , Belgium Posts: 224 Original Poster	Originally posted by Mike.P® I actually have all 3 lenses you list (except my 300mm is the F* 300mm f4.5). I use the 300mm with the 1.7 TC when birding I use the 60-250mm in good light where fast AF is not needed and I want superb IQ I use the Sigma 100-300mm if fast AF is needed along with the extra length. If I had to keep just one it would be th Sigma as it is pretty good with the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter (for birding), it has very good IQ (although not quite as good as the 2 Pentax lenses) and the AF is super speedy compared to the other two. Would the AF of the 60-250 be fast enough for motorbike racing , considering using it in bright light

10-01-2010, 10:14 AM	#42
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by StevenVH And, if my copy of the A70-210 was sharper on the long end I'd just use it. I don't mind the MF and the one-touch style zoom works great for action. I used to shoot a lot of motor sport in the film days and didn't need AF, so the OP may want to consider MF lenses as well. Kids field and court sports on the other hand seems much harder for me to follow these days with MF, but most of the time the 70-210 is usable. cheers along those lines what about the Vivitar Series 1 70-201 F3.5. Nice and sharp at all focal lengths, one touch zoom, and with 180 degree focus throw, short enough to track focus on moving subjects, long enough to be accurate. It also works well with the AF adaptor and gives a 360mm F5.6 AF lens

10-01-2010, 04:33 PM	#43
pickles Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: melbourne Posts: 937	Originally posted by StevenVH And, if my copy of the A70-210 was sharper on the long end I'd just use it. I don't mind the MF and the one-touch style zoom works great for action. I used to shoot a lot of motor sport in the film days and didn't need AF, so the OP may want to consider MF lenses as well. Kids field and court sports on the other hand seems much harder for me to follow these days with MF, but most of the time the 70-210 is usable. cheers Agree, Like I said in my earlier post, I did quite a lot of M.S. photography, & that "A"70/210 did a great job. 210 was plenty for me as I was always able to get trackside with all the other press guys. I had, & still have, a 300mm, but never used it for m/sport....too inflexible and depth of field was always a problem....in manual focus anyway! Dunno about those teleconverters.....wouldn't one loose a bit of speed & clarity with such an item? Cheers, Pickles.

10-08-2010, 08:06 AM	#44
guillermovilas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hasselt , Belgium Posts: 224 Original Poster	I've added another potential lens on my list , the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 From what i've read it's got good IQ and fast AF , only problem is the weight 1.7kgs. They discontinued the non OS version and i found a shop who have just one left at a bargain price : €600 , i've got to make up my mind fast What's the point of buying the OS version with a Pentax body Question is , Sigma 120-400mm or Pentax 60-250mm + TC

10-21-2010, 02:27 PM	#45
guillermovilas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hasselt , Belgium Posts: 224 Original Poster	Well after testing both Sigmas 120-400mm and 150-500mm in my local shop , i found that both lenses produced equivalent optical results , neither lens producing sharper pictures no better AF one over the other and this handheld with body stalilisation . What made me choose the 120-400m is ergonomics , it is better in hand , better balanced and the zooming ring was smoother and easier to manipulate . Allthough i would have liked the extra 100mm reach , the 120-400mm really was the better choice for me , it`s big but still not too big,no problem using it handheld , the 150-500mm really felt too massive .