Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-16-2012, 01:11 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
For sports photography I've been looking at what lenses the "pros" that do local sport use. They seem to be 70-200/2.8s or longer 2.8 lenses. That is a gap in the Pentax lineup and the f4 60-250, setting aside the SDM issue, is a bit longer but significantly slower when ever photon counts coming into the sensor. The only zoom in the current lineup that is a 2.8 is the SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM and it would seem just a bit short for sport photography on a regular basis. The rest of the DA Zooms are, at best, constant f4 lenses.


07-16-2012, 01:24 PM   #32
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,333
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
For sports photography I've been looking at what lenses the "pros" that do local sport use. They seem to be 70-200/2.8s or longer 2.8 lenses. That is a gap in the Pentax lineup and the f4 60-250, setting aside the SDM issue, is a bit longer but significantly slower when ever photon counts coming into the sensor. The only zoom in the current lineup that is a 2.8 is the SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM and it would seem just a bit short for sport photography on a regular basis. The rest of the DA Zooms are, at best, constant f4 lenses.
You've forgotten the DA*16-50, there. I know there's no love for it in some quarters, but it does exist (and I have to admit having a love-hate relationship with mine). You wouldn't consider it for most big arena sports photography, though, but for smaller-scale work it's OK and even then the DA18-135 is more versatile (so the larger aperture of the DA*50-135 would probably outweigh the reduction at the wide end, even so). So many lenses...
07-16-2012, 01:25 PM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
Not sure that I can see a compelling reason for 24mm. It's a film-era length filled by the existing 21mm. Yes, something like F2 would be nice, but would it sell enough to make it worthwhile?
On APS-C, 24mm is 60 degrees,
the equivalent of the traditional 35mm on film.
Wide enough to cover what you want in the photo,
but not so wide as to distort noticeably.
There's a reason Zeiss made the ZA 24/2.

I've found my M20/4 to be a lot wider than my K24/2.8,
so unlike Pentax, I don't accept the DA 21
as a substitute for a good modern 24mm prime.
07-16-2012, 01:37 PM   #34
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks
Photos: Albums
Posts: 492
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
For sports photography I've been looking at what lenses the "pros" that do local sport use. They seem to be 70-200/2.8s or longer 2.8 lenses. That is a gap in the Pentax lineup and the f4 60-250, setting aside the SDM issue, is a bit longer but significantly slower when ever photon counts coming into the sensor. The only zoom in the current lineup that is a 2.8 is the SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED [IF] SDM and it would seem just a bit short for sport photography on a regular basis. The rest of the DA Zooms are, at best, constant f4 lenses.
Please God, don't let this become an "if only Pentax had an FF camera" thread, but...

I'm no sports photographer, but I doubt those D3 guys would use a 70-200mm for sports because they'd find it too short, same as the 50-135. Concert photography, yes, I see them all the time; sports photography no. The things I see pointing at the players are far more bestial.

60-250 occupies the same ecological niche as a 100-400 from, shall we say, other brands (no, not equivalent in any meaningful way, just the same role!) and is, at least, a valid option.

It's hard, heavy and really expensive to go both longer and faster than this. Again, we're talking extreme niche products with established brands. No money to be made there.

Birders are getting a bona fide competitor in the shape of the DA 560mm.

07-16-2012, 01:38 PM   #35
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,333
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
On APS-C, 24mm is 60 degrees,
the equivalent of the traditional 35mm on film.
Wide enough to cover what you want in the photo,
but not so wide as to distort noticeably.
There's a reason Zeiss made the ZA 24/2.

I've found my M20/4 to be a lot wider than my K24/2.8,
so unlike Pentax, I don't accept the DA 21
as a substitute for a good modern 24mm prime.
I agree (and I said so a few posts up). The APS-C equivalent of a 24mm FL on 35mm is a FL of 16mm, so the DA15 is the closest to that in the current range. The DA21 on APS-C maps close to the FA31 on 35mm film.
07-16-2012, 01:51 PM   #36
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks
Photos: Albums
Posts: 492
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
I agree (and I said so a few posts up). The APS-C equivalent of a 24mm FL on 35mm is a FL of 16mm, so the DA15 is the closest to that in the current range. The DA21 on APS-C maps close to the FA31 on 35mm film.
One pace back and you've got the 20mm FOV; two paces forward and you've got the 24mm FOV. The 21mm does both with an F3.2 compromise to make it fit into a teeny, tiny package. Without a, shall we say, different body, I can't see Pentax introducing new lenses that occupy the same slot (although given the crowding around 40mm, who knows?).
07-16-2012, 01:54 PM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
DA 35 2.4 and 2.8 Limited may seem like their own competition but are actually in different markets (budget-conscious and style-conscious) and satisfy both well.
I'm not sure how you mean the DA 35 Ltd Macro is for the "style-conscious,"
unless you mean photographers concerned about the look of their photographs.

Happily, Marc Newson had no influence on the design of the DA 35 Ltd Macro.
07-16-2012, 01:57 PM   #38
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
10mm WR prime...doesn't have to be fast.
17-70mm WR f2.8 with either no in-lens motor or the DC variant.
Those would be on the top of my whishlist...don't really care about how economically viable they are, it's just what I want

07-16-2012, 01:57 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
You've forgotten the DA*16-50, there. I know there's no love for it in some quarters, but it does exist (and I have to admit having a love-hate relationship with mine). You wouldn't consider it for most big arena sports photography, though, but for smaller-scale work it's OK and even then the DA18-135 is more versatile (so the larger aperture of the DA*50-135 would probably outweigh the reduction at the wide end, even so). So many lenses...
It's even less useful in a sports situation than the 50-135 but you are right that its a f2.8 zoom lens. I come back to my main point that the gap I see is for a FAST zoom that goes out to the commonly accepted sports range of 200mm. The Tamron and Sigma lenses get good marks but it would be nice to have an updated Pentax offering that takes all the feedback from the older model, the bits from the Tamron and Sigma that make sense, and really puts it all together in a superior lens. I wouldn't object if it could compete with the Tamron and Sigma on price either
07-16-2012, 01:58 PM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by top-quark Quote
One pace back and you've got the 20mm FOV; two paces forward and you've got the 24mm FOV.
As I mentioned earlier, there is a noticeable difference between the two.
A 24mm on APS-C feels "natural," while a 20mm lets you know you've got a wide angle.
07-16-2012, 02:06 PM   #41
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks
Photos: Albums
Posts: 492
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
I'm not sure how you mean the DA 35 Ltd Macro is for the "style-conscious,"
unless you mean photographers concerned about the look of their photographs.

Happily, Marc Newson had no influence on the design of the DA 35 Ltd Macro.
What I mean is that the 2.4 is relatively inexpensive and clearly built to a budget, whereas the 2.8 Limited is beautifully made and not nearly so. Macro aside, the 2.4 does everything its more expensive sibling does, maybe a bit more, but many of us see the extra expense as worth it for the improved looks, handling, build quality (and, yes, the macro!). Both have plenty of uptakers and they don't compete with each other.
07-16-2012, 02:12 PM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
The DA 35 Ltd Macro has a very special rendering,
which I haven't seen from the FA 35 or DA 35/2.4
07-16-2012, 02:12 PM   #43
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,333
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
It's even less useful in a sports situation than the 50-135 but you are right that its a f2.8 zoom lens. I come back to my main point that the gap I see is for a FAST zoom that goes out to the commonly accepted sports range of 200mm. The Tamron and Sigma lenses get good marks but it would be nice to have an updated Pentax offering that takes all the feedback from the older model, the bits from the Tamron and Sigma that make sense, and really puts it all together in a superior lens. I wouldn't object if it could compete with the Tamron and Sigma on price either
There's no denying that most sports photographers require longer FL and fast zooms for arena work, or for showing the players up close. An upgraded FA*80-200/2.8 would be a good addition, though the upgrade should included taking a bit of the weight out of it! I bought mine from a Forum member, who was swapping to the DA*60-250 (1130gm versus 1510gm, though that wasn't the stated reason for the change). The older optics aren't too shabby, though.
07-16-2012, 03:34 PM   #44
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
There's no denying that most sports photographers require longer FL and fast zooms for arena work, or for showing the players up close. An upgraded FA*80-200/2.8 would be a good addition, though the upgrade should included taking a bit of the weight out of it! I bought mine from a Forum member, who was swapping to the DA*60-250 (1130gm versus 1510gm, though that wasn't the stated reason for the change). The older optics aren't too shabby, though.
Weight is always a consideration and with modern materials there shouldn't be any reason that an updated version couldn't shed a few grams. Add a DC motor, update the coatings, and you might just have a real winner!
07-16-2012, 11:12 PM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
10mm WR prime...doesn't have to be fast.
17-70mm WR f2.8 with either no in-lens motor or the DC variant.
Those would be on the top of my whishlist...don't really care about how economically viable they are, it's just what I want
I will buy like yesterday for the 17-70mm f 2.8 if it is DC or SD WR. But do you notice there is no 17-70 2.8 in the market?

I think the king of 16-50 for APS-C has to be the Sony 16-50 f2.8 ssm in terms of IQ wide open to f9, focal range, AF speed, Size, Price, weight and WR. No one is in the same league. It is a shame as Pentax K5 is the king of APS-C!

Last edited by lightbulb; 07-16-2012 at 11:20 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • 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!
catalog, i.e, k-mount, lens, lenses, lineup, opinions, pentax, pentax lens, production, questions, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What (feasible) lens is missing from Pentax's lineup? asw66 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 62 08-17-2017 01:43 AM
Pentax K7 Firmware Updating to Version 1.11 Vadym Visitors' Center 2 02-07-2012 07:46 PM
Remove your AF lens before updating firmware! pentup Pentax K-5 15 11-02-2011 02:50 PM
Asahi Pentax Lens and Accessory catalog, 1976/77 Nesster Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-17-2010 01:12 AM
no pricing of pentax lens in B&H catalog cyy47 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 11-05-2009 09:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com 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?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top