Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-19-2013, 07:57 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 307
Next step up from Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8?

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

11-19-2013, 08:01 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,030
QuoteOriginally posted by vmax84 Quote
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.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

11-19-2013, 08:03 PM   #3
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,898
I don't think there is much "up" over the Tamron.
11-19-2013, 08:08 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 307
Original Poster
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
11-19-2013, 08:12 PM   #5
Ole
Administrator
Ole's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,879
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.
11-19-2013, 08:14 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 307
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ole Quote
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.
11-19-2013, 08:19 PM   #7
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
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.
11-19-2013, 08:23 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 307
Original Poster


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.


Last edited by vmax84; 11-19-2013 at 08:24 PM. Reason: proud of nephew
11-19-2013, 08:25 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,401
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?
11-19-2013, 08:31 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 307
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dadipentak Quote
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???????
11-19-2013, 08:32 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 307
Original Poster
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.
11-19-2013, 08:35 PM   #12
Veteran Member
manacho2005's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Red Oak, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 462
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.
11-19-2013, 08:36 PM   #13
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,726
QuoteOriginally posted by vmax84 Quote

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
11-19-2013, 08:37 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 307
Original Poster
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. :/
11-19-2013, 08:39 PM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 307
Original Poster
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
body, k-mount, lens, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron, tamron 70-200mm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Wakaas Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 10-13-2013 11:43 AM
Next step up from K100D (bought a new Tamron 70-200) vmax84 Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 05-06-2013 07:14 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Macro Zoom atnbirdie Sold Items 2 12-03-2012 10:46 AM
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 vs. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 vs Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 nah Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 12-08-2008 01:03 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top