[JinDesu]

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.

Try shooting RAW (gives more headroom with dynamic range, white balance, and noise reduction), shoot F2.8 and zoom out a little - to get more DOF and so motion doesn't need as high a shutter speed to freeze (the smaller the people in relation to the frame, the easier it is to freeze motion).

A combination of shooting RAW and at F2.8 (to get ISO 6400) should let you get better images even as you crop tighter to compensate.

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. :/

For sheer image quality in a telezoom, it is probably top 3 in my opinion. May be tied with one or two lenses in that category, but it's very good. For autofocus speed to catch action, it is not great.

To me, the current top of the line telezoom is probably the latest Sigma 70-200 (Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD)

[vmax84]

Try shooting RAW (gives more headroom with dynamic range, white balance, and noise reduction), shoot F2.8 and zoom out a little - to get more DOF and so motion doesn't need as high a shutter speed to freeze (the smaller the people in relation to the frame, the easier it is to freeze motion).

A combination of shooting RAW and at F2.8 (to get ISO 6400) should let you get better images even as you crop tighter to compensate.



For sheer image quality in a telezoom, it is probably top 3 in my opinion. May be tied with one or two lenses in that category, but it's very good. For autofocus speed to catch action, it is not great.

To me, the current top of the line telezoom is probably the latest Sigma 70-200 (Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD)

Thank you for the tips and advice. Gonna get back in the book with my gear. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy my Pentax stuff, going all the way back to a Pentax MG I bought in Germany when I was stationed over there in the 80's........I just am surprised there isn't more high end lens selections for the Pentax line.

[JinDesu]

It is a weakness of Pentax - something that doesn't really bother me as I haven't needed anything better than my Tamron 70-200, but there are gripes on this forum about the lack of high end long lenses.

To go back to your statement - if I was planning to shoot sports, I'd go get a Nikon when upgrading from K100D. Of course, many users make do with their Pentax gear (using lenses like the Sigma 70-200, DA*60-250, DA*200, DA*300, etc), but Nikon really does have a more comprehensive long lens list with great AF bodies.

[dadipentak]

I shoot jpeg as I don't understand how to work raw yet. And post processing???? wuuuuttttttt???????

Post processing is how you 'work' raw and it's how you get passable photos if you're going to shoot in low light. I don't think this is an equipment issue--you just need to refine your shooting technique and learn how to use software to bring out the best in your photos.

[vmax84]

I was also shooting off a monopod. Anyway, thanks for the tips and suggestions. It is appreciated.

Gotta hit the hay.

vmax84

[Miguel]

I just didn't realize high end lens for the Pentax line was non-existant.

Well it is tougher and as a Canon shooter I'm aware of more options. Are you willing to spend $7000 on a 300mm f2.8 L lens? Plus the camera. . .

But I think you are getting things conflated some here. The cheapest and deepest improvement you can achieve is by learning how to process Raw images or at the least configure your camera correctly to shoot jpegs and then learn how to use software to improve the images. Start there.

M

[JimmyDranox]

The only fastest lens on the market, for that focal range are Canon 200mm F2, and Nikon 200mm F2, but you don't wanna know their prices. And Pentax K 200m F2,5, and old manual lens. But the difference in speed is not much great, only one step.

The big difference in image quality came from using RAW not jpeg, and post processing. And a new Pentax camera, like K-5II, or K-3, will also give you much cleaner shoots at high ISO. But you wouldn't get serious results without some post processing, nor on Pentax, neither on Nikon or Canon at ISO 12800.

Because I have both Tamron 70-200 2.8, and Sigma 70-200 2.8 II EX DG, I can say that Sigma colors are clearly warmer, and the focusing time is shorter. But the resolution is a little better with Tamron.

[SpecialK]

I may have missed something, but if the correct exposure was 1/320, f4 at ISO 12,800 with the Tamron, those will be the same settings for any other lens. You don't miraculously change photon physics simply by going to Canikon.

[twitch]

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.

A combination of lens, camera, opportunity and ability produces the photos though, are you sure it's just the lens that's different. They weren't using a FF Nikon for example were they, or maybe they are a pro?

At the very least you should be shooting at f/2.8 to avoid ISO12,800.

[ak_kiwi]

Is there a better lens for us, or is this Tamron as good as it gets for the Pentax body?

Feel like I really painted myself into a corner on the lens I can put on this body. :/

How about this - Start off with a day with good light and set up the camera about Iso 80, shutter above 1/250, and say aperture around 5.6. (Use TAv if that helps)
Pick a stationary subject that will fill the frame that has good detail. Use a tripod if you wish.
Use manual focus on live view and see what you get.(don't forget to post it here)

If you are still unhappy with the lens please post here the address of the land fill that you intend to toss the lens into

Anyway see how you go with doing the above. I can guarantee that it will raise more questions.

[rawr]

My 1c worth.

For shooting tele at night or in dark areas, I shoot centre-weighted average. It will likely buy you an extra stop of light. There's usually little point in multi-segment metering since who needs to have the dark background properly exposed. Centre-weighted metering meters the main area of action, which is what you usually want exposed.

I also presume you are using a hood on the Tamron. Shooting under stadium lights at night without a hood may trigger some lens flare and also impact the metering.

Since it's a K-30, you could also probably just shoot RAW, go to TAv mode, set the shutter to 1/320 (or less, if you are good at panning or have the action heading towards you), set the aperture wide open (or f3.2), set the auto ISO to max out at 5000, and shoot away. You'll likely get a bunch of under-exposed shots but you can usually push the exposure back up in Lightroom and they won't look too bad.

The final crumb I would offer is to use decent software to process your RAW images. Lightroom or DxO Optics Pro or Capture One or Raw Therapee spring to mind. Lightroom in particular is excellent at working with high ISO images and fixing them up a tad. DxO and Capture One are also very good. Good software can make all the difference when working with RAW images taken under challenging lighting conditions.

[ElJamoquio]

You're really asking for a 'faster' lens.

In pentax world, that doesn't really happen at 200mm - F/2.8 is as fast as it gets.

Step 1: shoot f/2.8
Step 2: shoot raw

Other steps (going to a larger sensor size or going to ultra-expensive lenses like the 300 f/2.8's or 200 f/2's) should only be considered after the first two steps.

[rmcinc]

vmax84, Please listen what people are saying.
Tamron 70-200 2.8 is a really good lens.
Don't expect canikon 70-200 2.8 give you a lot better pictures.
Maybe FF camera will give you that 1f stop cleaner ISO advantage but still your main problem is that you shot JPEG.

1st. Try to master the RAW post processing.
2nd. Don't shoot 12800 ISO. ( i also have K-30 and i don't shoot over 6400 at all, or even try to shoot at 3200 and recover exposure back in RAW process.)

Maybe try to shoot 2.8 but i think smaller DoF is not always good.

Best regards,

[ak_kiwi]

This is the pic and typical how most of my pics looked.

What bugs me the most is how grainy the pics are

Your are actually not too far away from having a great shot there. If you shoot raw files and get yourself a copy of "lightroom" (or similar) for post processing you will get some great results.
Here is a bit of a clean up of your shot (pardon my humble attempts at pp)
Regards
Chris

[ElJamoquio]

Maybe try to shoot 2.8 but i think smaller DoF is not always good.

Best regards,

The photographer is on the sidelines and that tackle was between the hash marks, I think. So he's probably 25-35 yards away. For a tackle he should be OKish, DOF is 4-5 feet at 200mm.

The number 1 problem is that he's at ISO 12800. Taking that down to 6400 will help tremendously. Personally I'd probably try to do an exposure comp of -1 and ISO 3200.