DA 50-135 for night sports?

BravoMike · 11-09-2012, 12:49 AM

I am thinking about purchasing the DA 50-135 to use for night high school football games. Will use with a K-5 body. Is this a good choice. Would also be used for some indoor sports.

TZH · 11-09-2012, 02:32 AM

IMO, 135mm isn't long enough for sports. Maybe a 70-200mm 2.8, or add a 1.4 TC on it? Or a 60-250mm, a stop slower than 2.8..

jawsy · 11-09-2012, 03:36 AM - **1 Like**

I don't think 135mm will be tight enough. Given it's a $1500 decision, it's worth getting right.

I've been photographing my daughter at junior T-Ball games in broad daylight with a 100-300 kit lens. Second base is about 20m from my vantage point and I need 200mm to frame a shot properly. At 135mm I need to crop them to the equivalent of what I get at 200mm. If the light were to be low, cropping at 130mm would result in softer images for me (I have a K20D so no magic ISO performance). If my daughter was a teenager and two foot taller than she is now, 135mm would be just enough, but if she was two foot taller second base would be further away than 20m!

All that said, for me and the conditions I describe above, the 50-135 is very attractive - the size and weight of the 200mm f2.8 lens is a deterrent for me. If, my daughters' T-Ball games were held at night, 135mm probably wouldn't cut it.

**Ex Finn.** · 11-09-2012, 06:40 AM

It might be fine for indoor.
It is too short for outdoor use. I have been using 60-250 for varsity soccer, most of the time I have to crop. A 100-300 f2.8 WR would be the ticket.

**crewl1** · 11-09-2012, 07:36 AM

The DA*50-135 has a great rep but I'd want the greater reach and fast AF of a Sigma 70-200 HSM for night football.
Use a monopod if weight is an issue.
For indoor sports the 50-135 would be ok reach wise.
See the 'k-5 for sports' thread for what folks are using.

oxidized · 11-09-2012, 08:05 AM

I would go for the Tamron 70-200. Best bang for the buck in my opinion.

**dadipentak** · 11-09-2012, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by TZH

IMO, 135mm isn't long enough for sports.

Basketball yes: football no.

Originally posted by oxidized

I would go for the Tamron 70-200. Best bang for the buck in my opinion.

good recommendation.

BravoMike · 11-09-2012, 10:48 PM

Thank you for all the advice. I have been using a DA 55-300 and love the reach, but is not fast enough for quality pictures. The K-5's ISO performance helps, but not what I am looking for in a lens. I will read the thread on K-5 for sports and check out the Tamron 70-200. Any other input is welcomed.

BravoMike · 12-13-2012, 06:47 AM

Update. Bought a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO HSM II Macro in excellent condition for $680. So far I am very pleased with the lens and its performance. Really appreciate the input. It steered me in the right direction.

**crewl1** · 12-13-2012, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by BravoMike

Update. Bought a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO HSM II Macro in excellent condition for $680. So far I am very pleased with the lens and its performance. Really appreciate the input. It steered me in the right direction.

Congrats! Post some shots in the 'K-5 for sports' thread if you haven't already.

11-09-2012, 12:49 AM	#1
BravoMike Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: North Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 39	DA 50-135 for night sports? I am thinking about purchasing the DA 50-135 to use for night high school football games. Will use with a K-5 body. Is this a good choice. Would also be used for some indoor sports.

11-09-2012, 02:32 AM	#2
TZH Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Kuala Lumpur Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 118	IMO, 135mm isn't long enough for sports. Maybe a 70-200mm 2.8, or add a 1.4 TC on it? Or a 60-250mm, a stop slower than 2.8.. Last edited by TZH; 11-09-2012 at 02:39 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How is 50-135 for indoor HS sports?	cubsfan61	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	01-27-2012 09:34 AM
Move from 18-135 to 16-50 + 50-135 DA* Lenses	brosen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	11-08-2011 05:11 PM
DA 17-70 + DA60-250 or DA16-50 + DA*50-135	Cambo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	54	01-01-2011 12:12 AM
Sports - Various Pictures with K20D / DA 50-135	cputeq	Post Your Photos!	2	07-19-2008 06:43 AM

11-09-2012, 03:36 AM - 1 Like	#3
jawsy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 422	I don't think 135mm will be tight enough. Given it's a $1500 decision, it's worth getting right. I've been photographing my daughter at junior T-Ball games in broad daylight with a 100-300 kit lens. Second base is about 20m from my vantage point and I need 200mm to frame a shot properly. At 135mm I need to crop them to the equivalent of what I get at 200mm. If the light were to be low, cropping at 130mm would result in softer images for me (I have a K20D so no magic ISO performance). If my daughter was a teenager and two foot taller than she is now, 135mm would be just enough, but if she was two foot taller second base would be further away than 20m! All that said, for me and the conditions I describe above, the 50-135 is very attractive - the size and weight of the 200mm f2.8 lens is a deterrent for me. If, my daughters' T-Ball games were held at night, 135mm probably wouldn't cut it.

11-09-2012, 06:40 AM	#4
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	It might be fine for indoor. It is too short for outdoor use. I have been using 60-250 for varsity soccer, most of the time I have to crop. A 100-300 f2.8 WR would be the ticket.

11-09-2012, 07:36 AM	#5
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	The DA*50-135 has a great rep but I'd want the greater reach and fast AF of a Sigma 70-200 HSM for night football. Use a monopod if weight is an issue. For indoor sports the 50-135 would be ok reach wise. See the 'k-5 for sports' thread for what folks are using.

11-09-2012, 08:05 AM	#6
oxidized Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: USA - Delaware Photos: Albums Posts: 435	I would go for the Tamron 70-200. Best bang for the buck in my opinion.

11-09-2012, 09:43 AM	#7
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by TZH IMO, 135mm isn't long enough for sports. Basketball yes: football no. Originally posted by oxidized I would go for the Tamron 70-200. Best bang for the buck in my opinion. good recommendation.

11-09-2012, 10:48 PM	#8
BravoMike Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: North Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 39 Original Poster	Thank you for all the advice. I have been using a DA 55-300 and love the reach, but is not fast enough for quality pictures. The K-5's ISO performance helps, but not what I am looking for in a lens. I will read the thread on K-5 for sports and check out the Tamron 70-200. Any other input is welcomed.

12-13-2012, 06:47 AM	#9
BravoMike Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: North Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 39 Original Poster	Update. Bought a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO HSM II Macro in excellent condition for $680. So far I am very pleased with the lens and its performance. Really appreciate the input. It steered me in the right direction.

12-13-2012, 10:03 AM	#10
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by BravoMike Update. Bought a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO HSM II Macro in excellent condition for $680. So far I am very pleased with the lens and its performance. Really appreciate the input. It steered me in the right direction. Congrats! Post some shots in the 'K-5 for sports' thread if you haven't already.