[TaoMaas]

I have been generally happy with this lens, but after shooting at a local football game under the lights (body is Pentax K30), and then making the mistake of seeing someone's pics with one of those big honking Canon or Nikon lens, I wanted to throw this lens in the landfill.

Did you see the other pics "in-camera" or after the fact? If it was afterwards, then you might be seeing a lot of post-processing. If it was in-camera as you guys were shooting, then it might be gear...a FF camera, possibly.

[thornburg]

I would like to reiterate a few of the other comments: The Canon/Nikon shooters most likely don't have better lenses, they probably have better cameras (Full Frame sensors capable for capturing more light, and thus having less noise at high ISO). If they're shooting with a Rebel T4i and getting better results than you are with your Pentax K-30, either you need to work on your technique, or your equipment is faulty.

The K-30 does well on ISO noise. Especially for an APS-C camera.

If you need more reach, you want a Sigma or Tokina 100-300/4, but they're quite rare, and I'm not 100% sure they were made in Pentax mount. Alternatively, there's the option of 300/2.8 prime, but that can be limiting unless you're way back from the action, and they're crazy expensive. Oh, I guess the DA* 60-250/4 also has a little more reach than the 70-200, but I'm not sure it's worth the loss of f/2.8.

If you don't need more reach, then your glass is pretty much as good as theirs. *Very* few zooms lenses go wider than f/2.8, and, likewise, *very* few primes above 135mm go wider than f/2.8. The ephemeral "image quality" difference won't cause the huge difference you're describing.

[vmax84]

Definately saving this thread to reread and learn from it. Thinking about what I was doing, what I could have done, and what you guys have suggested has helped a lot. Getting my second wind now........next challenge......indoor varsity basketball!!!!!

Thanks so much for all the tips and pointers. Really helped.

vmax84

[cali92rs]

Definately saving this thread to reread and learn from it. Thinking about what I was doing, what I could have done, and what you guys have suggested has helped a lot. Getting my second wind now........next challenge......indoor varsity basketball!!!!!

Thanks so much for all the tips and pointers. Really helped.

vmax84

Are you getting paid to photograph these events? If you are or aspire to then a step up in camera may be warranted.
Like others have said, the lens isn't your limiting factor because there just ain't many faster zooms in that range. Nikon has a 200mm f2.0 but that thing is a fat expensive beast. Seems like you want to maintain shutter speed and not have iso go too high, really the only variables you have to play with are aperture and/or full frame so you can go to a higher iso with less noise. ..and more than n likely a better continuous and predictive autofocus system

But, Yes definitely before investing in a full frame system learn how to denoise a Raw file

---

Last edited by cali92rs; 11-20-2013 at 11:26 PM.

[southlander]

I won't be blaming the tools. If you had gone to F2.8, then ISO could have come down to 6400 which would help a lot. Bigger lenses won't be any wider aperture than the Tammie, so won't in themselves allow ISO to be reduced. And the Tammie is pretty good wide open and certainly good at F4. As others said, full frame is the only possible technological advantage over your kit. And would only equate to a stop or so in lower ISO.

Something I don't think any one else has mentioned is that smaller sports fields, in fact any that are not tv broadcast grade lighting, can have lighting that is not particularly even. You may well find the best lit areas have an extra stop or more of light vs the darker patches. If you could find such a spot for concentrating your shooting, plus move to F2.8, ISO could potentially come down to 3200 and at that point your images will be way improved over your ISO12800 set. The other suggestion is to do some sports shooting in daylight to practice and optimise your technique in good light, and then take those skills into more demanding situations. I think you will find the Tamron is no slouch. I assume you have tested focus accuracy with the Tamron and dialled in any necessary adjustment? At wide apertures with narrow DOF, a little mis-calibration can have a significant impact. If you normally use the Tamron in daylight at smaller apertures, you may not have noticed a slight mis-calibration.

[vmax84]

Couple quick questions/comments then I need to get to work for a bit:

1. I have never "tested focus accuracy" with this lens........

2. Which software would you recommeded that is easy to work with (Lightroom and a few others was brought up)?

Thank you.

[ak_kiwi]

1. I have never "tested focus accuracy" with this lens........

2. Which software would you recommeded that is easy to work with (Lightroom and a few others was brought up)?

1. Not all lenses you attach to your K30 will focus sharply. Manufacturing tolerances , of both your camera and lense, can mean the camera may need adjustment to achieve sharp focus.
The good news is that it is easy to do via your camera's menu. See page 110 of your manual.
Buy or make yourself up a calibration target such as below and you are set. One word of warning when toggling thru the menu - make sure you apply the menu adjustment "Apply one" rather than "Apply all" (you can lose the adjustments saved for other lenses entered and have to start again)

2. Personally I like Lightroom because it catalogs everything and is quite easy to use. I won't say anymore than that since you can read posts on this subject, here at Pentax Forums, from more knowledgeable people than myself.

Attached Images

 

[vmax84]

Uggghhhhhhhhhh...................think it's time to update my computer since I don't think Lightroom works with Vista. :/

May have to stick with irfanview or "upgrade" to GIMP. :-)

[kjg48359]

I just got my k3 and the Tamron AF70-200, so I'm excited to learn. I do a lot of pictures of high school cheerleaders, and the lightning they have is usually worse because the lights aren't focus on the track. but I will tell you this. I had the chance last year during the playoffs to sit for a few minutes with a pro from the Detroit news. he was using a camera owned by the paper and he was telling me that the lenses alone were 15k.

[Raybo]

The Tammy is tack sharp IMHO (my copy was) but I sold it to purchase my DA300.
AF was kinda slowish on the Tamron, lens was bit heavy but the images just popped!
I'm no expert but I agree that it might be your technique that needs a little help.

[slip]

Definately saving this thread to reread and learn from it. Thinking about what I was doing, what I could have done, and what you guys have suggested has helped a lot. Getting my second wind now........next challenge......indoor varsity basketball!!!!!

Thanks so much for all the tips and pointers. Really helped.

vmax84

That is really going to open a hornets nest!
Indoor sports is whole different ball game and a beast to master.
If you are dealing with a wall behind the net instead seats, getting a good dunk shot is so much harder
I have done a lot of indoor volleyball and the lighting conditions are bad at the best. It might look bright to the eye but the camera settings will tell you otherwise.
What I do is try to pre point the lens at the spot or person is going to hit and fire. I is ok to use autofocus but make sure the camera is on continuous focus and the subject is in the tracking zone of where you set the autofocus spot.
It is also a lot of practice to get the proper timing of clicking the shutter.expect being disappointed until you shoot hundreds of shots IMHO
Since I upgraded from a k10 to a K5IIS and a Sigma 70 - 200mm f2.8 my keepers when from around 10 percent to over 40 percent which for me is great.
The Sigma 70 - 200mm f2.8 is very fast at focusing...at times maybe to fast as if the subject leaves the tracking zone just for a fraction of a second the focus will instantly be on the background and your shot will be blurry.
With my K5IIS I don't put the ISO above 3200 very often and put the F stop at 3.2 as I find with lens sharpens a lot by just that 1/3 of a stop.
I then let camera raw do it's magic and brighten the up.
I don't know much about the tamron but I do know that you likely won't find a much faster focusing lens then the Sigma in the Pentax line up.

Bla bla bla bla

Thanks

Randy

[scottyp]

I shoot a lot of women's gymnastics, a very difficult, low light sport with fast action. My Tamron 70-200 f2.8 works ok but I really like the Sigma 85mm f1.4 for this kind of shot. K5iis body and K7 body

[scratchpaddy]

Those bigger lens I see on the Nikons and Canons I'm sure are out of my price range, anyway. Anybody have a guess what they cost?

If you have to ask, you can't afford it.



But don't fall into the trap of thinking that all your problems would be solved if you just had better gear. Better gear makes things easier, but it won't hand you the world on a silver platter.

There's a lot of things you can do now with the stuff you have. Everyone else had some very good advice.

At worst, you can resign yourself to taking pictures only at day games. I bet you could get some pictures you both can be proud of then. All I have for telephoto is a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6, you know, the $100 one. At f/8 in sunlight, it made my nephew and I very happy at his soccer game.