[Mastaff]

Dear All,
I need a medium telephoto lens to get shots of my son at indoor swimming meetings and rugby matches (from the touchline)
After much research and endless reading of fora, I'm afraid I'm not really any further on. I've pretty much narrowed down to 2 contenders
Pentax DA* 200
Pro's - smaller, lighter, pentax brand, well rated, should be very sharp at 200mm
Cons - prime, not flexable like zoom, does'nt seem to have much interest on this forum, more expensive

Sigma 70-200mm HSM II Lens
Pro's - cheaper, more flexable
Cons - heavy, ?softer at 200mm and 2.8 (where I expect I would use most)

BAsically is the Sigma at £600 a better bet than the pentax at £750.
Generally leaning towards the pentax but would be interested to know what those better informed than me think.
Apologies if this has been covered before.

Thanks in advance

[elho_cid]

You can also look for Sigma 180mm macro. It's not much slower at f3,5 and serves me very well. I do not miss zooming and even if someone would offer, I'd not trade it for either of your options.

[Ubuntu_user]

Have you considered the Tamron 70-200mm? It has excellent IQ!

Also, I highly recommend the Sigma 50-150mm, which would offer a perfect combo IMHO with the DA* 200mm.

[sterretje]

I think you will get quite frustrated with a prime as you more than likely don't have options to 'zoom with your feet' and therefore to frame your shots.

Just my thoughts. I love primes but for situations like wildlife I prefer a tele zoom.

[Mastaff]

Many thanks for your thoughts.
I had thought about the sigma 50-150 - but thought that maybe it would be too short for some situations.

I think you will get quite frustrated with a prime as you more than likely don't have options to 'zoom with your feet' and therefore to frame your shots

It would certainly be difficult to 'zoom with my feet' by the side of a swimming pool. Maybe the zoom would be a better bet in this situation.
Does anybody have experience of using both lenses in this setting?
Also thinking of Sigma 100-300mm F4, but not sure if this is still available in UK for pentax

Thanks Again

[Lowell Goudge]

you can also look at the used market.

the origonal Sigma APO70-200F2.8 EX (non DG non macro goes for less, and is the sharpest at max FL of all the sigma's)

also, what about used MF lenses?

[GaryH]

I spent 17 years with my son and his swimming career. It was before we had Digital SLR cameras. I mostly used video but in his later years swimming in large events, I used my camera some with a Takumar 135mm lens. It was great for the indoor pools 90% of the time. In looking at what is available today, I would suggest considering the Pentax 50-135, Sigma 50-150, and the 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma and Tamron. If you have a K5, I think the 60-250 would be very useful both at the pool and in other areas of your photography too considering the k5's very good high ISO performance.

[Lowell Goudge]

I spent 17 years with my son and his swimming career. It was before we had Digital SLR cameras. I mostly used video but in his later years swimming in large events, I used my camera some with a Takumar 135mm lens. It was great for the indoor pools 90% of the time. In looking at what is available today, I would suggest considering the Pentax 50-135, Sigma 50-150, and the 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma and Tamron. If you have a K5, I think the 60-250 would be very useful both at the pool and in other areas of your photography too considering the k5's very good high ISO performance.

but if a Tak 135 worked way back then, why not today too?

while I don;'t disagree with the suggestions youpost, there are a lot of capable MF lenses which would work well. especially in a pool environment. Rugby would be a lttle harder, but from the touch line a 135 would also work well.

[GaryH]

but if a Tak 135 worked way back then, why not today too?

while I don;'t disagree with the suggestions youpost, there are a lot of capable MF lenses which would work well. especially in a pool environment. Rugby would be a lttle harder, but from the touch line a 135 would also work well.

I agree that the Tak 135 would still work. Most folks want autofocus today though. Heck, I started pool photography with a Pentax 100 f4 Macro. It was a little faster than my Tokina 70-210 atx zoom. If I were doing the same today I would use one of the lenses I suggested.

[atupdate]

but if a Tak 135 worked way back then, why not today too?

It might be a little long or a little short for rugby, the other end of the OP's sporting needs. I think a zoom works best when there isn't a fixed swim lane to work with.

Tim

[Wombat]

If you're certain you're going to need a FL of 200mm, you might want to get a zoom with a slightly longer reach, say 250mm, bearing in mind you rarely get the sharpest shots at the extreme ends of zooms.

[sterretje]

but if a Tak 135 worked way back then, why not today too?

Field of View on APSc ?

[DreTAX]

Hi Mastaff,
I too have been down this path and in the end i based my choice on the most important Pro's to me; Image quality, Focus speed, Aperture/Weight ( large heavy lenses can be the first to get left behind), WR (shoot in the rain), Build quality (Lens is for life-body's for xmas)............................................................Brand and Price. The wether sealing is a big plus for winter sports etc.
Obviously i got the DA*200 and i'm very happy, no i can't zoom, i choose my positions carefully but i also get great tight shots that i might not have taken when the action comes too close. The DA*60-250 wasn't around for me at that time and i don't even want to think about which lens i would choose now.
With every lens there is going to be a compromise, just make sure it's one you can live with.