[-wikstrom-]

Hello fellow Pentaxians!

I have for a while now considered buying a fast telezoom such as the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 but now it seems as Sigma has discontinued this lens for Pentax. Therefore I have to reconsider my options. The Pentax DA* 200 and 300 primes are looking interesting but I would prefer a telezoom. I know that Tamron also make a 70-200 but the screwdrive on that is making me hesitant towards buying it. I would prefer a quiet focusing motor.

Since Pentax revealed that it may come something like a 70-200 in the future (hopefully FF-compatible) do you guys think it should be worth waiting for that or should I maybe go for either of the DA* primes?

I've got a K-5 if that should help.

Sorry for my mediocre english. I'm from Sweden

[crewl1]

Another option is the DA*60-250
For sports I think a zoom is most convenient.
The DA*300 is the best option for wildlife.

[TenZ.NL]

Hi Wikstrom, welcome to the forums
Not sure what sports and wildlife you have in mind but IMHO 200mm is a bit on the short side for wildlife.
But If you are considering a 300mm F4 but prefer a zoom, you could also look at the DA* 60-250 F4 or have some patience and keep a close eye on the 2nd hand market.

Edit:
Larry beat me to it

[btnapa]

Hello fellow Pentaxians!

I have for a while now considered buying a fast telezoom such as the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 but now it seems as Sigma has discontinued this lens for Pentax. Therefore I have to reconsider my options. The Pentax DA* 200 and 300 primes are looking interesting but I would prefer a telezoom. I know that Tamron also make a 70-200 but the screwdrive on that is making me hesitant towards buying it. I would prefer a quiet focusing motor.

Since Pentax revealed that it may come something like a 70-200 in the future (hopefully FF-compatible) do you guys think it should be worth waiting for that or should I maybe go for either of the DA* primes?

I've got a K-5 if that should help.

Sorry for my mediocre english. I'm from Sweden

If you can afford it, the 60-250 along with the new 1.4x extender. If you are gonna reach for wildlife 400mm is a minimum if you want to fill the frame. Otherwise, you will e cropping a lot to get closer.

[Miguel]

Welcome.
Sports is very general with different shooting requirements depending upon what you shoot. If you could be more specific, for both sports & wildlife it would help.

M

[-wikstrom-]

If you can afford it, the 60-250 along with the new 1.4x extender. If you are gonna reach for wildlife 400mm is a minimum if you want to fill the frame. Otherwise, you will e cropping a lot to get closer.

Well, I think that maybe the 60-250 with the new TC is a bit pricy for me at the moment but is definitely worth considering. I previously had a Tamron 18-250 (which I now has sold) and at the 250mm it was a bit short and slow for shooting birds.

---------- Post added 09-30-14 at 04:27 PM ----------

Welcome.
Sports is very general with different shooting requirements depending upon what you shoot. If you could be more specific, for both sports & wildlife it would help.

M

For sports I'm thinking of shooting football (soccer for all you Americans) but mainly I will use it for photographing small birds.

---------- Post added 09-30-14 at 04:31 PM ----------

Another option is the DA*60-250
For sports I think a zoom is most convenient.
The DA*300 is the best option for wildlife.

Okay. Do you know if the IQ and AF speed are equal on the 60-250 and the 300? From what I've read here on the forums both seem to be excellent lenses.

[lesmore49]

In my experience a 70-200mm doesn't have enough reach for wildlife. If the wildlife is out there in a natural setting. A 70-200 F 2.8 would probably be a good bet at a zoo. Good focal length for enclosures and that fast F 2.8 for indoor exhibits.

I generally take wildlife pictures out in the outdoors, down forest trails, etc. Foe this kind of wildlife photography, I find the minimum focal length I use for wildlife, is my 55-300....usually set at it's max of 300mm. I also have a Sigma 150-500 and I find it's an excellent lens, even at 500mm.

However with the 150-500mm, it needs a photographer with a fair amount of experience and knowledge to get the best out of it.

[jpstanisic]

Just pretty much agreeing with the group ...

DA*60-250 is a great lens and I use it constantly - super sharp and a perfect performer. A total recommend. For longer shots the DA*300 is my constant go to and is usually on the camera with the 1.4x teleconverter for a longer reach.

[-wikstrom-]

Just pretty much agreeing with the group ...

DA*60-250 is a great lens and I use it constantly - super sharp and a perfect performer. A total recommend. For longer shots the DA*300 is my constant go to and is usually on the camera with the 1.4x teleconverter for a longer reach.

Does the 60-250 extend while zooming or does it remain "compact"?

[Miguel]

Thanks for the quick response.

I shoot futbol weekly. You need a minimum of 300mm really though a zoom with a much wider focal range is valuable for near action. I shoot small birds weekly. You need a minimum of 400mm really.

If you plan on staying with Pentax, either get the Sigma 50-500mm Bigma now or wait until who knows when Pentax releases that long tele-zoom.

The Pentax 55-300mm would work if you are just starting out. Sports is not easy to do well so allow time to grow into and out of lenses as your skills develop.

m

[crewl1]

Well, I think that maybe the 60-250 with the new TC is a bit pricy for me at the moment but is definitely worth considering. I previously had a Tamron 18-250 (which I now has sold) and at the 250mm it was a bit short and slow for shooting birds.

---------- Post added 09-30-14 at 04:27 PM ----------



For sports I'm thinking of shooting football (soccer for all you Americans) but mainly I will use it for photographing small birds.[COLOR="Silver"]


Okay. Do you know if the IQ and AF speed are equal on the 60-250 and the 300? From what I've read here on the forums both seem to be excellent lenses.

Since both lenses are SDM I suspect the AF speed are similar.
I have the DA*300 and can attest to its hi IQ, I have also seen very fine pictures with the 60-250 but do not have personal experience.

If your sports shooting is primarily outdoors in good light and want a dual purpose lens for tiny birds, maybe one of the Sigma 500mm zooms should be in consideration.
I use a 50-500 for daytime football (both types) and it does well there.
I use a monopod to assist as it is a heavy lens.

The cons with the 500 zooms is they are heavy and need more light.

Decide which of your two uses is more important.
If it is little birds then you will always want the longest lens you can afford.

[jpstanisic]

Does the 60-250 extend while zooming or does it remain "compact"?

It does extend around an extra third (maybe a little more) its "compact size". It also has a pretty long hood with a removable tab for circular polarizer access. I really love that lens.

[-wikstrom-]

Thanks for the quick responses.

I think, at the moment, that the DA* 300 with a future TC will fill my requirements as I will probably shoot mainly birds. If Pentax release a 70-200 f/2.8 I could get that to fill the void between my Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and a DA*300 with TC.

The Sigmas (150-500 and 50-500) is maybe worth taking a look at.

[beachboy2]

Depends on the size of wildlife and how close you can get. Fortunate enough to have spent 4 weeks in Africa recently. Agonized over weight of gear. Ended up taking Sigma 70-200 F2.8. Left the Bigma at home. When an elephant steps out of the bush next to you, you don't need 500mm lens. Even most of the birds are large. The 70-200 proved a good choice.

[pearsaab]

Thanks for the quick responses.

I think, at the moment, that the DA* 300 with a future TC will fill my requirements as I will probably shoot mainly birds. If Pentax release a 70-200 f/2.8 I could get that to fill the void between my Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and a DA*300 with TC.

The Sigmas (150-500 and 50-500) is maybe worth taking a look at.

i have both the 60-250 and 300 and i think they both focus quickly...sometimes i think the 60-250 is faster but in reality it is probably because i shoot pictures of things closer and therefore it would be faster focusing than the 300 that is being pushed to focus on something further away and contrast issues may be present...i also have the sigma 100-300 f4 which you can buy used...i like the flexibility of the sigma zoom but so love my 300...one of these days i plan to do a comparison but haven't had time..my husband has taken over the 50-500 bigma and this is also a great lens for outdoors...if you want birds i think you need the 50-500 or the 300 with the 1.4 hd teleconverter...occasionally the 300 is enough but in the end whatever you use you will come to the realization that your lens is not long enough ..the 50-500 is pretty heavy and does take some getting used to...i agree with crewl about the monopod...my husband had mentioned he may want something a little more portable in the future cause lugging it around can get old or maybe it's more like the older we get the less we can or want to handle carrying a big momma lens


i forgot to add at one time i had the 200 but it was never long enough for what i wanted to use it fo so i never used it