[vmaniqui]

hi,

i wanted to get an expert advise regarding my dilemma. i have a 17-70mm lens for family gatherings, a 50mm 1.4 for portrait shots, and a 70-300mm for longer shots. what i want from 18-250 is for events like baseball games and other events that will warrant a close up shot and make a zoom shot in a second. i hate to bring two lenses and hate changing lenses in between takes. should i get a 18-250mm for these events or just use my 70-300mm and get my self a mu-43 camera like olympus pen to cover the close up shots. what do you guys normally will do or what lens do you bring ?

thanks,

---

Last edited by vmaniqui; 09-21-2012 at 09:02 AM. Reason: changed title

[Docrwm]

What sort of park are you talking about - Little League, High School, Minor League A, AA, AAA, or the MLB parks? Because distances, angles, and access are completely different across them and that will inform about what lens setup would work best.

[vmaniqui]

MLB. thanks for pointing out. i went one time to a SF Giants game with my 70-300mm lens and it's not the best. i can take pics of the players but when it comes to taking pics of my family, i have to move farther to take a decent shot of them.

[Docrwm]

MLB. thanks for pointing out. i went one time to a SF Giants game with my 70-300mm lens and it's not the best. i can take pics of the players but when it comes to taking pics of my family, i have to move farther to take a decent shot of them.

Well, access there is VERY restricted for shots of the game and the players unless they are having a meet & greet or some other publicity event. So, the 18-250 for day games ought to be a solid performer for you. Like all long zooms its a compromise but it has a good reputation and a solid following. I own the original Tamron version of it myself and use it for touristy type activiities when I don't want to change lenses or carry much gear. If you are not in a hurry and have lots of cash the newly announced 18-270 (also a rebagged Tamron lens) may prove to be a more modern and versatile option. However, its list is $900 as I recall and that's a bit rich for me given that the Tamron for Nikon and Canon runs $549 with the current $100 rebate. Older 18-250s run $300-400.

[vmaniqui]

Well, access there is VERY restricted for shots of the game and the players unless they are having a meet & greet or some other publicity event. So, the 18-250 for day games ought to be a solid performer for you. Like all long zooms its a compromise but it has a good reputation and a solid following. I own the original Tamron version of it myself and use it for touristy type activiities when I don't want to change lenses or carry much gear. If you are not in a hurry and have lots of cash the newly announced 18-270 (also a rebagged Tamron lens) may prove to be a more modern and versatile option. However, its list is $900 as I recall and that's a bit rich for me given that the Tamron for Nikon and Canon runs $549 with the current $100 rebate. Older 18-250s run $300-400.

hmm 900 is a bit too much to take. i am looking at an older version sigma 18-250 for about $300 and don't have any idea or don't know how good of a lens this is but for my needs it could be the one. everytime we go on a trip (las vegas/yosemite) i always end up bringing 2 lenses and will end up changing lens in between takes. will buying a bridge P&S be a better route for me. just take my 70-300mm for longer shots and P&S for close up shots ? thanks.

[Lowell Goudge]

I'm afraid my answer is not in line with your desire to justify an 18-250 lens

When I go to baseball games, I generally take my sigma APO 70-200F2.8 EX and 2x Sigma Teleconverter. I,e. I go with a 140-400/5.6 lens.

I normally sit at the left field foul pole (325 feet from home plate)

I have gone to basket ball and hockey games without the TC however I have found this somewhat on the short side (for tickets I am willing to pay for)

aside from the poorer IQ of a super zoom, the maximum aperture at maximum focal length will tend to disappoint, even with the K5 and K-30 high ISO performance

[Docrwm]

I'm afraid my answer is not in line with your desire to justify an 18-250 lens

When I go to baseball games, I generally take my sigma APO 70-200F2.8 EX and 2x Sigma Teleconverter. I,e. I go with a 140-400/5.6 lens.

I normally sit at the left field foul pole (325 feet from home plate)

I have gone to basket ball and hockey games without the TC however I have found this somewhat on the short side (for tickets I am willing to pay for)

aside from the poorer IQ of a super zoom, the maximum aperture at maximum focal length will tend to disappoint, even with the K5 and K-30 high ISO performance

Certainly longer and faster are better. I tried to stay within the parameters of the OP's question. The new 100-300/2.8 if it ever comes out in K-Mount may well be better too. The 70-200/2.8 is from $750-$1250 depending on model and discounts. The 2x converter that works reliably with it.....hard to say but $200-300.

[rbefly]

Hello Ymaniqui,
Here's another idea for you, if you dislike changing lenses; Buy another body.
I've seen K10d's go for $250-$300 on eBay. Kx's for slightly more, K-r's for around $400 with low mileage.
For virtually any large event where I know I'll be shooting lots of frames and don't know exactly what the distances will be, I take two bodies.
This includes classic car shows, festivals/fairs, music events and sporting events.
If one body has a better high-ISO performance, you can use the "slower" lens on that one.
JMO,
Ron

[alamo5000]

What sort of park are you talking about - Little League, High School, Minor League A, AA, AAA, or the MLB parks? Because distances, angles, and access are completely different across them and that will inform about what lens setup would work best.

Exactly. Ditto.

Your physical position in relation to the people you want to take photos off matters. Ideally you will be between home plate the dugout (either side depending on various factors) and have a 300mm capability. You will be able to cover the infeild pretty good if you go from 50-250 or something like that, noting that (to me) sometimes the most interesting shots were not full zoom.

I took one really good standout shot (in my opinion if I do say so myself) of the pitcher picking off the guy on first and I caught the guy diving in, ball in air etc... I was up in the stands above 3rd base....

Different angles, different shots. And MLB generally won't let you take in huge lenses. I got by with my 55-300 because its small...but its slow under the stadium lights.

In college and below games you can get a variety of angles because they arent nearly as particular about where you stand and so forth.

As for lenses, my f2.8 constand 70-200 would be perfect provided you get the right point access. The cheaper the seats the bigger the lens.

Also if you are shooting daytime outdoors in good light you can get much better shots.

[Roob-N-Boots]

I will be going to catch a game tomorrow on a party bus (Angels vs White Sox), so I went on the Angels website to see what their policy was regarding cameras. It stated no lens over 4 inches long and no tripod. I don't know how strict they are, but you might want to check your local teams website for rules and regulation.

[Docrwm]

I will be going to catch a game tomorrow on a party bus (Angels vs White Sox), so I went on the Angels website to see what their policy was regarding cameras. It stated no lens over 4 inches long and no tripod. I don't know how strict they are, but you might want to check your local teams website for rules and regulation.

The Braves are a wee bit more generous with the lens but also prohibit monopods

• Any cameras (all must be hand held) longer than 5" in length
• Tripods or monopods
• Bags/purses in excess of 16" x 16" x 8"
• Backpacks in excess of 16" x 16" x 8"
• Folding chairs or tables or devices used as such

[Lowell Goudge]

Certainly longer and faster are better. I tried to stay within the parameters of the OP's question. The new 100-300/2.8 if it ever comes out in K-Mount may well be better too. The 70-200/2.8 is from $750-$1250 depending on model and discounts. The 2x converter that works reliably with it.....hard to say but $200-300.

My lens new was about $1200 but that was 2003. the Non Macro screw drive 70-200 is arguably the best from IQ perspective, and it works with the sigma TCs which can be had for about 200 from memory.

the original 70-200/2.8 like mine still commands a high resale price because of IQ and the fact it works with TCs

but to stay within the OPs parameters, he shoudl shoot with a 70-300 or the FA 55-300

[Docrwm]

My lens new was about $1200 but that was 2003. the Non Macro screw drive 70-200 is arguably the best from IQ perspective, and it works with the sigma TCs which can be had for about 200 from memory.

the original 70-200/2.8 like mine still commands a high resale price because of IQ and the fact it works with TCs

but to stay within the OPs parameters, he shoudl shoot with a 70-300 or the FA 55-300

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is $769 every day now. A TC like that can be found for $200. So for $1000 he could have a similar setup. It's what I have now.

[ramseybuckeye]

Very good advise for checking stadium rules, I was at Ohio Stadium last week and there rule is 100mm. I took the Tamron 10-24 this time to do stadium shots because 100mm won't get much from the seats I had. This time I could have taken a longer lens because they did not check it, but I'm not taking that chance to have to return to a car that may be a mile away.At Columbus Crew Stadium they don't care and I have tried many lenses there. The 55-300 is fine during the day, but not at night, but that was on a K20D, that may change on the K-30. I've had a couple 28-200s, but they are too slow and the image quality suffered at distances. Really, where you are at is as important, and what you intend to shoot. Batters and pitchers are pretty predicable, so if you have a good position it shouldn't be too bad, fielding will be much tougher. I once got to sit at a game in the second row behind homeplate at a game with Tom Seaver pitching, I wish I could go backl in time with my K-30! Soccer is tough since the ball is passed so much and moves in all directions and the game is nearly non-stop, football is similar but more predicable since the ball is usually passed or handed off once in a play, and then time to set the next one up. Of course both are best to shoot from the goal lines. By the way, I got to use the K-30 and 55-300 at a nephew's soccer game last weekend, and the K-30 focuses great through the net (way better that the K20D did).

[vmaniqui]

when i went to sf giants game awhile back i had with me my 70-300mm and was able to take good shots of the players batting as i am about 3 rows back of the home team dugout. but using it to shoot pics of my family was a challenge as i have to back off 10-20 rows to get a decent shot. i am thinking that 18-250mm will give me more option. like a walk-around lens instead of changing lenses. i have a back up camera (k100d) but it will be a pain having to carry 2 cameras. i am trying to avoid having to carry an extra lens, more so with an extra body. sample pics attached.