Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-04-2011, 12:08 PM   #1
Senior Member
dinneenp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ireland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 163
sports lens- some help please.

I'd like to get a sports lens, the 70-200/2.8 jumps out as the obvious choice. I'd also use it for general use and macro (if it has it). I'd be looking for a cheap option, might sell my Pentax 18-250 to help fund it.
Doesn't have to be a pentax make....
1. I'm wondering if anyone can tell me what are the different lenses available and what rough price each would be 2nd hand? (I've googled a fair bit but not sure what I've missed.
2. do any of them have macro/close to macro. That'd be a good added bonus.
3. which would you recommend and why?
4. although I hear people rave, crave about 70-200 f2.8 lenses I guess it could be a bit short for sports? If you use it with an extension tube would you still get strong blurred background?
5. anything else to note?

07-04-2011, 12:22 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
Same thing I said on the other forum :

Which sports is THE question ?

A 70-200/2.8 is generally considered THE sports lense but a 50-135/2.8 or Sigma 50-150/2.8 are both good for sports that don't entail shooting 100 yds away.
07-04-2011, 01:00 PM   #3
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,215
2 : Won't be macro. most of time it will be proxi like 1:3 or 1:4.

3 : The Tamron is around 570€ New. But hard to find in 2nd hand (maybe because people are satisfied with it ?)

4 : Depend on the sports you'd like to shoot. But most of time it will be perfect.
4b : for the Blurr, no need extension tube to get a nice one.

5 : it's always at least 1kg of weigt
07-04-2011, 01:05 PM   #4
Senior Member
dinneenp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ireland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 163
Original Poster
It'd be for soccer and rugby mainly. Some greyhound racing too maybe.

Is that €570 or $570? €570 isn't a bad price at all!

Last edited by dinneenp; 07-04-2011 at 01:08 PM. Reason: details
07-04-2011, 01:21 PM   #5

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,674
Wel for bigger fields the 50-135mm is short. So a 70-200 would help you out.
07-04-2011, 01:28 PM   #6
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,215
570 euros (here in france)
07-04-2011, 02:11 PM   #7
Veteran Member

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 550
What type of sports are you referring too and how far from the event will you be are you variables that I think need to be answered before good responses can be given. If you talking racing the answers will be very different from say pole vault.

As for macro + sport, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a good balance between them. I generally think of macro lenses with small apertures for more depth of field. Whereas sports generally require fast apertures to freeze the action. Thus countering each other.

QuoteOriginally posted by dinneenp Quote
4. although I hear people rave, crave about 70-200 f2.8 lenses I guess it could be a bit short for sports? If you use it with an extension tube would you still get strong blurred background?
Are you sure you mean extension tubes? Usually extension tubes are used for macro and not for sports. Do you mean teleconverters? But if you do mean extension tubes for macro use. The background will be strongly blurred no matter what the Depth of Field using add ons.

70-200mm is not to longest focal length but again depending on where you are in relation to the event it could be enough. For example bleacher seats at a local baseball event compared to soccer field. These differ in distance by a lot.

07-04-2011, 03:16 PM   #8
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
For outdoor daytime soccer on a full sized pitch a 70-200 will be pretty short and f2.8 is not needed. Something like a 55-300 or the 60-250 would be better. On a smaller pitch or if the game is at dusk, then a 70-200 makes more sense. For indoor soccer I find a 50-135 is ideal as you need the 50 more than you need the 200.
07-04-2011, 03:36 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,986
For outdoor, soccer or other field sports try the 55-300. It will not compare to the 70-200 f/2.8's in lower light but in the sun it works great.

No macro capability though. But I really think macro and sports require such different things that you would be compromising too much to have both in the same lens. If you want to do macro get a manual macro lens like the 50 or 100mm SMC Takumars. Or just use a set of extension tubes on a 50mm f/1.4.
07-04-2011, 03:44 PM   #10
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 50,221
Check out the 70-200mm comparison on our homepage: Pentax Lens Reviews | Pentax in-depth reviews |

IMO the tamron is a natural choice if you want to be cost-effective.
07-04-2011, 03:50 PM   #11
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
I currently have both the DA*50-135/2.8 and DA*60-250/4, and I really love the IQ and focal length range each one gives me. As for using them to shoot sports, the major downside is the AF speed on the 50-135 isn't very fast and the max aperture on the 60-250 is only f/4. If you're shooting with a K-5, the f/4 might be enough depending on what you're shooting and how high you feel comfortable pushing the sensitivity (ISO).

I've also recently owned the Tamron 70-200/2.8 and FA*80-200 /2.8. Both great pieces of glass as well. The Tamron, as Adam suggested, is the most cost effective choice. Optically it's fantastic as well. The AF is decent, about on par speed-wise with the DA*60-250 (albeit a bit noisier). The FA*80-200 was obviously excellent optically as well, and the AF speed a little faster. The downside here is both size and cost. The FA* weights about 30% more than both the Tamron 70-200 and DA*60-250. It also costs about twice as much as the Tamron and about 50% more than the DA*.

The other option with fast AF, which I've never owned, is the Sigma 70-200/2.8 with the HSM focusing motor (either the previous model or the newest one with OS). From what I've read/heard, the AF is quite fast on these models and the IQ is also suppose to excellent. That said, I can't comment on it any more specifically as I've never used one.
07-04-2011, 03:52 PM   #12
Veteran Member
mysticcowboy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: port townsend, wa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 968
I've use the older Sigma 70-200 2.8 and found it quite good. If you can possibly afford one, the Pentax 60-250 4.0 is superb, and has a great usable range. Great glass is a beautiful thing. A friend who has a 70-200 Nikon often wishes that he had something between 50 and 70mm. He's a bird photographer, so has similar needs to shooting sports.

Since my K-5 has two full stops better low ISO performance than my old K20D, I'm thinking that the 55-300 Pentax might be adequate and a great lens for the price and weight, but I seldom shoot sports. Up to 200mm its resolution figures look similar to the Tamron 70-200.

Last edited by mysticcowboy; 07-04-2011 at 03:58 PM.
07-05-2011, 09:53 AM   #13
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,953
I'd recommend the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM II. The focusing is silent and fast and the optical quality is pretty good. Build quality is excellent.
07-05-2011, 10:09 AM   #14
Inactive Account

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by dinneenp Quote
It'd be for soccer and rugby mainly. Some greyhound racing too maybe.

Is that 570 or $570? 570 isn't a bad price at all!
You might consider a DA 55-300 because the playing fields you indicate are quite large and I assume it will be daytime. You will appreciate the extra reach.

Whatever long zoom you get can give you excellent macro shots of natural subjects by adding a Raynox DCR 150 close-up lens.
07-05-2011, 10:33 AM   #15
Veteran Member
8540tomg's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,461
If you don't mind manual focus I use the K 200/2.5 for things like football, rugby and field hockey.

I like this focal length for high school sports where I can get really close to the action. The DA*200/2.8 is the modern replacement and appears to be a great lens if not quite as fast.

Tom G

Last edited by 8540tomg; 07-05-2011 at 10:39 AM.

  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bit, help, k-mount, lens, lenses, macro, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, sports
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens for sports kedavid Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 02-05-2011 09:06 PM
Best sports lens? patriotap Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 44 11-27-2010 08:07 AM
lens for sports sub5runner Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 11-06-2010 08:48 PM
Sports Lens Help ecwoj Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 05-28-2010 07:01 PM
Sports Lens - which one is best? roguez Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 11-18-2009 10:59 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:28 AM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]