Quick Answer Needed! Telephoto...

**DRabbit** · 05-17-2011, 09:05 PM

Unexpectedly, I just found out that my niece is playing Lacrosse this weekend (her last game!) and I want to be able to take some really good pictures of her, but I'm going to need a telephoto lens quick!

My choices are this...

Buy a 50-200 or 55-300 (which is better?)

Buy a 50-135mm, which I was planning on eventually buying -- but not right now. Financially, I'd likely have to return the DA*55 to fund it (so I'd rebuy the DA*55 later on instead). I'm not sure it'll be long enough for outdoor Lacrosse either.

Rent a 60-250 f/4 for 3 days ($50) - I will likely NEVER buy one because of it's size and price! I'm not sure I'd even be happy with the size of it for the one day...

Rent a 200 f/2.8 for 3 days ($30) - Might fall in love with it... danger will robinson!

I'm thinking my best option is to just go the cheapest route here... I don't shoot telephoto a lot...

Guidance please! I need to buy or reserve rental tomorrow so it's here in time!

...off to look at marketplace! LOL...

selar · 05-17-2011, 09:12 PM

Didnt you also buy a 18-135, why dont you shoot with that and crop. I'd hate to return a DA* 55 that I accidentally bought.

krp · 05-17-2011, 09:15 PM

The 55-300mm is definitely a good lens if you're buying a telephoto. I love mine although I haven't tried taking sports pictures with it yet. The autofocus isn't the fastest. Most people agree it's better than the 50-200. Check the weather forecast and if it's supposed to be cloudy maybe renting the 200mm f2.8 would be the best option.

**DRabbit** · 05-17-2011, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by selar

Didnt you also buy a 18-135, why dont you shoot with that and crop. I'd hate to return a DA* 55 that I accidentally bought.

Returned it yesterday. Wasn't happy with sharpness of it, and definitely wouldn't be happy cropping photos taken with it, because of lack of sharpness (especially at long end). Agree, I don't really want to return the DA*55!

Originally posted by krp:

The 55-300mm is definitely a good lens if you're buying a telephoto. I love mine although I haven't tried taking sports pictures with it yet. The autofocus isn't the fastest. Most people agree it's better than the 50-200. Check the weather forecast and if it's supposed to be cloudy maybe renting the 200mm f2.8 would be the best option.

Right now, sunny and 70 is the forecast...

gebco · 05-17-2011, 09:20 PM

I used my 55-300 last week at my son's football game and my Sigma 50-150 at his football game today. I found both lenses focussed quickly enough, especially if I pre-focussed before the play began. I used AF-C and centre point. The Sigma pics came out sharper, but the light was better and I was using lower ISO. In both cases I was sitting on the sidelines. In most pics I didn't go beyond 100mm, but then again it was flag football, so the whole field is not used..

twitch · 05-17-2011, 09:30 PM

Rent the 60-250, it's the perfect situation for when you would rent rather than buy. I wish I had the option in Australia to rent that lens as the number of times I'd need to use it in a year would be 2 or 3, so I can't justify buying it.

selar · 05-17-2011, 09:31 PM

How close can you get to the action? I know I'd rather shoot a one off game with whatever lens I have rather than selling a top notch lens to buy some consumer telephoto zoom that I knew I'd not be happy with.

selar · 05-17-2011, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by DRabbit

Rent a 60-250 f/4 for 3 days ($50

My pick. I didn't realize you were willing to rent.

Lurch · 05-17-2011, 09:35 PM

There is always something like the 70-300 Sigma. I'm loving mine.

acrollet · 05-17-2011, 09:52 PM - **1 Like**

The 55-300 is a really nice lens, and actually fairly fast for a variable aperture consumer zoom. You should be able to pick up the DA-L version for ~$200, and then you'd have it for whenever you need it... just throwing that out there.

**DRabbit** · 05-17-2011, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by acrollet

The 55-300 is a really nice lens, and actually fairly fast for a variable aperture consumer zoom. You should be able to pick up the DA-L version for ~$200, and then you'd have it for whenever you need it... just throwing that out there.

Great advice... and the advice I took

I purchased through Amazon and got it for exactly $200, which is perfect. Like you said, for that price I can just keep it for whenever I need it. I don't shoot a lot of outdoor sports or wildlife, but it's certainly not a bad thing to have a longer zoom once in a while.

Thanks!

acrollet · 05-18-2011, 06:35 AM

You're welcome! I really think you're going to like the results

you might also want to pick up a cheap hood...

lkjr · 05-18-2011, 06:49 PM

I am not a pixel peeper so in my little world the 55-300 has been a workhorse for me...I got a 28-75 Tammy a few months ago and quite frankly I only think its better in low light cause of the f2.8. In good light I love my 55-300...I think you will too! Here are some "action" shots...all hand held and straight out of the camera. Not bad IMHO.

newarts · 05-18-2011, 07:41 PM

For the cost the DA (L) 55-300 is hard to beat. So far I have not found a teleconverter that effectively extends its range but even so it is a gem.

Blue · 05-18-2011, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by newarts

For the cost the DA (L) 55-300 is hard to beat. So far I have not found a teleconverter that effectively extends its range but even so it is a gem.

That 5.8 max aperture on the long end is a large part of the reason for that.

05-17-2011, 09:05 PM	#1
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Quick Answer Needed! Telephoto... Unexpectedly, I just found out that my niece is playing Lacrosse this weekend (her last game!) and I want to be able to take some really good pictures of her, but I'm going to need a telephoto lens quick! My choices are this... Buy a 50-200 or 55-300 (which is better?) Buy a 50-135mm, which I was planning on eventually buying -- but not right now. Financially, I'd likely have to return the DA55 to fund it (so I'd rebuy the DA55 later on instead). I'm not sure it'll be long enough for outdoor Lacrosse either. Rent a 60-250 f/4 for 3 days ($50) - I will likely NEVER buy one because of it's size and price! I'm not sure I'd even be happy with the size of it for the one day... Rent a 200 f/2.8 for 3 days ($30) - Might fall in love with it... danger will robinson! I'm thinking my best option is to just go the cheapest route here... I don't shoot telephoto a lot... Guidance please! I need to buy or reserve rental tomorrow so it's here in time! ...off to look at marketplace! LOL...

05-17-2011, 09:30 PM	#6
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Rent the 60-250, it's the perfect situation for when you would rent rather than buy. I wish I had the option in Australia to rent that lens as the number of times I'd need to use it in a year would be 2 or 3, so I can't justify buying it. Last edited by twitch; 05-17-2011 at 09:40 PM.

05-18-2011, 06:49 PM	#13
lkjr Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 60	55-300 I am not a pixel peeper so in my little world the 55-300 has been a workhorse for me...I got a 28-75 Tammy a few months ago and quite frankly I only think its better in low light cause of the f2.8. In good light I love my 55-300...I think you will too! Here are some "action" shots...all hand held and straight out of the camera. Not bad IMHO. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Quick Release Recommendations Needed	raymeedc	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	7	05-08-2011 01:02 PM
How do you answer? :)	yusuf	Photographic Technique	38	01-24-2011 06:55 PM
Leaving K-x in car, need quick answer please!	kmets	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	31	08-13-2010 08:08 PM
Pentax SDM Super Telephoto Needed	fredok1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	05-24-2010 12:30 PM
D300S an answer to the K-7?	Eigengrau	Pentax DSLR Discussion	78	08-05-2009 05:59 AM

05-17-2011, 09:12 PM	#2
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Didnt you also buy a 18-135, why dont you shoot with that and crop. I'd hate to return a DA* 55 that I accidentally bought.

05-17-2011, 09:15 PM	#3
krp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Illinois Photos: Gallery Posts: 470	The 55-300mm is definitely a good lens if you're buying a telephoto. I love mine although I haven't tried taking sports pictures with it yet. The autofocus isn't the fastest. Most people agree it's better than the 50-200. Check the weather forecast and if it's supposed to be cloudy maybe renting the 200mm f2.8 would be the best option.

05-17-2011, 09:18 PM	#4
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	Originally posted by selar Didnt you also buy a 18-135, why dont you shoot with that and crop. I'd hate to return a DA* 55 that I accidentally bought. Returned it yesterday. Wasn't happy with sharpness of it, and definitely wouldn't be happy cropping photos taken with it, because of lack of sharpness (especially at long end). Agree, I don't really want to return the DA*55! Originally posted by krp: The 55-300mm is definitely a good lens if you're buying a telephoto. I love mine although I haven't tried taking sports pictures with it yet. The autofocus isn't the fastest. Most people agree it's better than the 50-200. Check the weather forecast and if it's supposed to be cloudy maybe renting the 200mm f2.8 would be the best option. Right now, sunny and 70 is the forecast...

05-17-2011, 09:20 PM	#5
gebco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Winnipeg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 329	I used my 55-300 last week at my son's football game and my Sigma 50-150 at his football game today. I found both lenses focussed quickly enough, especially if I pre-focussed before the play began. I used AF-C and centre point. The Sigma pics came out sharper, but the light was better and I was using lower ISO. In both cases I was sitting on the sidelines. In most pics I didn't go beyond 100mm, but then again it was flag football, so the whole field is not used..

05-17-2011, 09:31 PM	#7
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	How close can you get to the action? I know I'd rather shoot a one off game with whatever lens I have rather than selling a top notch lens to buy some consumer telephoto zoom that I knew I'd not be happy with.

05-17-2011, 09:34 PM	#8
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by DRabbit Rent a 60-250 f/4 for 3 days ($50 My pick. I didn't realize you were willing to rent.

05-17-2011, 09:35 PM	#9
Lurch Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Canberra, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 582	There is always something like the 70-300 Sigma. I'm loving mine.

05-17-2011, 09:52 PM - 1 Like	#10
acrollet Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 351	The 55-300 is a really nice lens, and actually fairly fast for a variable aperture consumer zoom. You should be able to pick up the DA-L version for ~$200, and then you'd have it for whenever you need it... just throwing that out there.

05-17-2011, 10:45 PM	#11
DRabbit Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 593 Original Poster	Originally posted by acrollet The 55-300 is a really nice lens, and actually fairly fast for a variable aperture consumer zoom. You should be able to pick up the DA-L version for ~$200, and then you'd have it for whenever you need it... just throwing that out there. Great advice... and the advice I took I purchased through Amazon and got it for exactly $200, which is perfect. Like you said, for that price I can just keep it for whenever I need it. I don't shoot a lot of outdoor sports or wildlife, but it's certainly not a bad thing to have a longer zoom once in a while. Thanks!

05-18-2011, 06:35 AM	#12
acrollet Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 351	You're welcome! I really think you're going to like the results you might also want to pick up a cheap hood...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-18-2011, 07:41 PM	#14
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	For the cost the DA (L) 55-300 is hard to beat. So far I have not found a teleconverter that effectively extends its range but even so it is a gem.

05-18-2011, 07:44 PM	#15
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by newarts For the cost the DA (L) 55-300 is hard to beat. So far I have not found a teleconverter that effectively extends its range but even so it is a gem. That 5.8 max aperture on the long end is a large part of the reason for that.