[patriotap]

Ive read the best bang for buck lens is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for sports photography. Is that still the case or something better? I have a da 55-300, but dont think it will work well enough in low light (or how it will work in the day either), but maybe with the k5 high iso settings, it may? Im looking at outdoor sport lens.

---

Last edited by patriotap; 11-21-2010 at 01:19 PM.

[Miguel]

Depends on the particular sport. Soccer, football, and maybe baseball benefit from 400+mm. If I were shooting sports with a Pentax, then the Sigma 100-300mm f4 + 1.4x TC would provide flexibility.

For under the lights the f2.8 you cited will work for closer in shots; the Tamron would too. Anything longer with f2.8 & AF is tough to find in K-mount.

M

[Pentaxor]

if you have the K-5, I believe the 55-300 will do well. AF is suspect though, so it's better to use the quickshift during focusing. outdoor on a good day works with the 55-300.

[twitch]

Im looking at outdoor sport lens.

Then I think your 55-300 is more than capable of fitting this role. If you've got $1k burning a hole in your pocket the DA*60-250 is probably the ultimate outdoor sports zoom in Pentax land. With a K-5 it's probably usable indoors too.

Disclosure: I have a DA*50-135 and a DA 55-300, I only use my 55-300 now when I need the reach, the 50-135 is a stunning lens.

[patriotap]

Then I think your 55-300 is more than capable of fitting this role. If you've got $1k burning a hole in your pocket the DA*60-250 is probably the ultimate outdoor sports zoom in Pentax land. With a K-5 it's probably usable indoors too.

Disclosure: I have a DA*50-135 and a DA 55-300, I only use my 55-300 now when I need the reach, the 50-135 is a stunning lens.

Now that you mention it, my pocket is quite warm

But I have both the da* 50-135 and the 55-300 w/the k5, so for say football, you would use the da*?

[patriotap]

if you have the K-5, I believe the 55-300 will do well. AF is suspect though, so it's better to use the quickshift during focusing. outdoor on a good day works with the 55-300.

thats why i heard the sigma was the better one.

[Miguel]

Are you going to be shooting from the sidelines?

M

[twitch]

Now that you mention it, my pocket is quite warm

But I have both the da* 50-135 and the 55-300 w/the k5, so for say football, you would use the da*?

I use the DA* whenever 135 is enough reach. I'm from a part of the world where "football" is aussie rules which is a game played on huge grounds and even 300mm is no where near enough much of the time. Since you own both those lenses you should be able to judge for yourself whether 135 is enough for football in your part of the world.

[patriotap]

Are you going to be shooting from the sidelines?

M

Yes I'll be on the sidelines. A friend is getting me on the fields with him for some American football games

[Miguel]

Yes I'll be on the sidelines.

Good, and in that case I'd either use a lens with a very wide focal range, or what I prefer is to have two bodies. One has the longer zoom telephoto with camera support. The other has a wider fast zoom for capturing action closer. The DA* 50-135mm may do the trick, it's an excellent lens. But it's heavy and maybe not suitable for carrying around your neck during the game. A fast 50mm may be easier, plus they are always useful for events.

M

[patriotap]

Good, and in that case I'd either use a lens with a very wide focal range, or what I prefer is to have two bodies. One has the longer zoom telephoto with camera support. The other has a wider fast zoom for capturing action closer. The DA* 50-135mm may do the trick, it's an excellent lens. But it's heavy and maybe not suitable for carrying around your neck during the game. A fast 50mm may be easier, plus they are always useful for events.

M

So the AF will be fast enough on the da*

[Miguel]

So the AF will be fast enough on the da*

I think so. I've never thought there were any issues with that lens' performance of any sort. Just a matter of predicting the action and making the attached camera accessible quickly. If you are using a K-5, it should work better than my K20D ever did. I would spend some time prior doing AF testing and perform an adjustment if necessary. Mine needed some minor tweaking, but it is well worth doing.

If you are serious about capturing action, don't even think about manual focus alternatives.

M

[patriotap]

I think so. I've never thought there were any issues with that lens' performance of any sort. Just a matter of predicting the action and making the attached camera accessible quickly. If you are using a K-5, it should work better than my K20D ever did. I would spend some time prior doing AF testing and perform an adjustment if necessary. Mine needed some minor tweaking, but it is well worth doing.

If you are serious about capturing action, don't even think about manual focus alternatives.

M

Yes, I just upgraded fm the k20 and thats why i was asking since, the 55-300 didnt work that well.

[patriotap]

hmmm, would the f4 be ok on the da* for night sports? or forgo that and just go with the 2.8?

[Miguel]

55-300 didnt work that well.

Yep, well that's more of a consumer type of lens and it's going to be less precise in a number of ways. I'm sure it's great for what it is, but sports shooting pushes your gear to its limits or thereabouts.

Please report back on the performance of the Sigma or the DA* or something similar if you go that way. I'm scheduled to shoot boys U-11 indoor soccer in January for three months. I've never shot that sport, but have watched it played by adults and it's non-stop and fast panning.

I'm planning on using the Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 which is the sister lens to the DA* on my Canon 7D. I've also been advised to consider a fast 70-200mm f2.8. If I could save a few shekels by going with Sigma or Tamron rather than the Canon, I'd be happier. My usual lens is the Canon 100-400 IS L, but at f 4.5-5.6 it is for outdoors only.

M