[vmax84]

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.

Just kidding. I realize you get what you pay for with glass and I would like to improve upon my night shots. Is there a better lens for us, or is this Tamron as good as it gets for the Pentax body?

Thanks.

vmax84

[Adam]

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.

Just kidding. I realize you get what you pay for with glass and I would like to improve upon my night shots. Is there a better lens for us, or is this Tamron as good as it gets for the Pentax body?

Thanks.

vmax84

Well, you could get the Sigma 70-200mm if you don't want your lens to go bzzzzt bzzzzt all the time, but optically it doesn't get much better in that focal length range. If you want more reach, you could step it up to a DA* 300mm F4, but that's a fixed lens.

[SpecialK]

I don't think there is much "up" over the Tamron.

[vmax84]

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?

And it's not the "reach" that is bugging me.......it's that I have to crank the ISO way up in order to get the low light shot I want. I saw a few pics from "the big lens" and was stunned how much better they looked.

---

Last edited by vmax84; 11-19-2013 at 08:10 PM. Reason: more detail

[Ole]

You don't write what's wrong. It could be your technique.

For sports events it pays to either use manual focus and prefocus at the spot of action. Or disable autofocus with the shutter button and prefocus with the AF button. Then shoot at an approriate aperture like F4 or F5.6 for depth of field. Use a high ISO to allow a fast enough shutter speed.

[vmax84]

You don't write what's wrong. It could be your technique. For sports events it pays to either use manual focus and prefocus at the spot of action. Or disable autofocus with the shutter button and prefocus with the AF button. Then shoot at an approriate aperture like F4 or F5.6 for depth of field. Use a high ISO to allow a fast enough shutter speed.

Let me see if I can find the pic I'm talking about and post the details. Not sure if I have it on my laptop.

[JinDesu]

My Tamron 70-200 on my k-x has never disappointed me. Except maybe in autofocus, but that's on both the lens and the camera.
The next step up is the latest Sigma 70-200, which is supposedly a bit sharper, and is definitely better in AF.

[vmax84]

This is the pic and typical how most of my pics looked. I can't remember exactly what I have for settings (this isn't the "actual" pic), but shutter was 1/320, aperture around 4, and I had to have the ISO cranked up to 12800 in order to obtain these values. I had most everything else on "automatic."

What bugs me the most is how grainey the pics are. I hate to get too nit picky, since I never cld have gotten these pics with my K100D (the higher ISO seems a lot better in the K30 vs the K100D), but I just would of thought I cld of stuck around 3200 for the ISO.

My nephew (making the hit) played a great game at cornerback. So proud of him and he's such a great kid.

[dadipentak]

You can't get more reach without sacrificing speed or money. Are you shooting jpeg or raw? Are you doing noise reduction in post processing?

[vmax84]

You can't get more reach without sacrificing speed or money. Are you shooting jpeg or raw? Are you doing noise reduction in post processing?

Wish I had the "actual" pic. I guess I did crop that pic down a bit. I shoot jpeg as I don't understand how to work raw yet. And post processing???? wuuuuttttttt???????

[vmax84]

I almost wish I had brought my "fast 50" and tried that lens, just to compare the two lens and see how lot I could of had the ISO and still obtained the approx same shutter and aperture values.

[manacho2005]

It looks as if you're shooting jpeg at a lower "star" rating or processing at a lower quality in post (too lossy). I see artifacts more than grain.
It's also a bit hard to tell, but I think you're lens is front-focusing a little.

[Miguel]

This is the pic and typical how most of my pics looked. I can't remember exactly what I have for settings (this isn't the "actual" pic), but shutter was 1/320, aperture around 4, and I had to have the ISO cranked up to 12800 in order to obtain these values. I had most everything else on "automatic."

What bugs me the most is how grainey the pics are. I hate to get too nit picky, since I never cld have gotten these pics with my K100D (the higher ISO seems a lot better in the K30 vs the K100D), but I just would of thought I cld of stuck around 3200 for the ISO.

My nephew (making the hit) played a great game at cornerback. So proud of him and he's such a great kid.

That's not totally terrible. Stadium lighting, especially at the high school level is often bad, so there are real constraints at work. I'd suggest you shoot at f2.8 so that you can freeze action. You need a minimum shutter of 1/500 to get something close to decent. Then you can try to work some magic with software.

M

[vmax84]

I guess my question is coming full circle............is the Tamron 70-200 lens I have about the best I can get for the Pentax body? If so, am thinking I should have changed platforms when I retired the K100D. Feel like I really painted myself into a corner on the lens I can put on this body. :/

[vmax84]

But you're right, I'm sure with better technique and understanding of my gear these pics could have turned out better. I just didn't realize high end lens for the Pentax line was non-existant.