DA 60-250 vs DA 200 Autofocus

coyotemitch · 12-04-2014, 06:30 AM

I shoot amateur soccer with a K30 and DA 200. I'm thrilled with the results when my subject is in focus - many - and I mean 'MANY' are not. Would the 60-250 get me better results - as far as AF is concerned? I've read all the threads about the Sigma and Tamron 70-200, but I want the weather sealing. Would a K3 make much of a difference? Thanks.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

Franc · 12-04-2014, 07:31 AM

AF focus and tracking on the K3 is much more faster then the K30, so you would benefit

**woodywesty** · 12-04-2014, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Franc

AF focus and tracking on the K3 is much more faster then the K30, so you would benefit

I agree... the K3 has provided a big step forward in autofocus for Pentax. The effects can be seen with all their autofocus lenses.

narual · 12-04-2014, 09:24 AM

Another thing you can try, especially if you do upgrade to a K3 -- convert the lens back to screwdrive mode. It won't be silent anymore, but it will probably focus faster, especially with the k3's improved screwdriver motor.

(assuming the da*200 has a screwdrive mode. I only have the da* zooms)

Groove · 12-04-2014, 09:50 AM

I use he 60-250 for hockey on a K3. Much, much faster than K5. And I miss far fewer shots - probably only 5% due to mis-focusing.

**pacerr** · 12-04-2014, 09:57 AM

Pending acquiring expensive AF 'fixes', technique can pick up some of the slack. Great sports pix were being made before the appearance of auto-focus bodies. Try shooting basketball with a 4x5 Press Graphic or a Mamiya TLR.

coyotemitch · 12-04-2014, 11:27 AM

Thanks all. I get the sense that the 60-250 would not help me as much as the K3 would.
Pacerr - old school - and point well taken.

**crewl1** · 12-04-2014, 11:40 AM

SDM is SDM, so a lens change probably won't do as much as the K-3 might improve.
I was able to track bike riders coming at me using the K-3 and DA*50-135 which is a pretty slow focusing lens.
The bike riders have a consistent rate of approach so I am not sure how that would translate to soccer but if you are going to spend money my bet is on the K-3 rather than the 60-250.

Plywoo · 12-04-2014, 11:53 AM

Well it's always hard to wait, but personnally, I am looking forward for the next Pentax tele that was shown a few months ago. Looks a lot like a fast 70-200 or similar

It will very likely include weather sealing and a decent AF system.

(If it sucks, then.... Too bad. But the prototype's size looked like no compromise has been made on optical features for the sake of a small package, so I'm pretty optimistic).

**hjoseph7** · 12-04-2014, 06:31 PM

Actually you don't need any of the AF tracking focusing stuff. Think about how long magazines like Sports Illustrated have been around. You can retro back to the 1960's and you still see picture-perfect frame filling images of your sports stars. There is a trick to all of this and of course you need a good lens and tripod or monopod...

**crewl1** · 12-04-2014, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by coyotemitch

I shoot amateur soccer with a K30 and DA 200. I'm thrilled with the results when my subject is in focus - many - and I mean 'MANY' are not. Would the 60-250 get me better results - as far as AF is concerned? I've read all the threads about the Sigma and Tamron 70-200, but I want the weather sealing. Would a K3 make much of a difference? Thanks.

Looking at your EXIF on this shot at f2.8 I think your depth of field might be a bit thin, although I can understand wanting to keep shutter speed up in low light.
I would try f4/f5.6 if you want to have a better chance of catching the players and ball in focus.
You can possibly shoot at less than 1/1000 to make back some of the light loss if you don't want ISO to get too high but you would need to experiment with these settings.

everydaylife · 12-04-2014, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by coyotemitch

I shoot amateur soccer with a K30 and DA 200. I'm thrilled with the results when my subject is in focus - many - and I mean 'MANY' are not. Would the 60-250 get me better results - as far as AF is concerned? I've read all the threads about the Sigma and Tamron 70-200, but I want the weather sealing. Would a K3 make much of a difference? Thanks.

Shooting events such as soccer would be a challenge for any autofocus system I think. I know the autofocus is slow with the da* 200 as I have one and I am aware there are lenses that focus faster but wouldn't good use of quick shift on the 200 overcome the slow autofocus speed of the lens? I am guessing that prefocus and good anticipation have always been a part of good sports photography manual or autofocus. Do you use quick shift?

waterfall · 12-04-2014, 08:07 PM

I shoot the DA*200 on a K3 and focus is fast, silent and dead on. My only complaint was it focused too silently for my screw drive habituated ears and I thought the focus motor was broken at first! Not.

everydaylife · 12-04-2014, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by waterfall

I shoot the DA*200 on a K3 and focus is fast, silent and dead on. My only complaint was it focused too silently for my screw drive habituated ears and I thought the focus motor was broken at first! Not.

Unfortunately I do not have a K3. I still use the lowly k5iis with the 200 and unfortunately if I shoot something coming towards me at anything more than walking pace then it will be oof more times than not. Maybe I should upgrade.

**RGlasel** · 12-04-2014, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

I would try f4/f5.6 if you want to have a better chance of catching the players and ball in focus.

I'll second this suggestion. The K-30 isn't great at tracking moving subjects, but with a narrower aperture, the AF just has to be close, not perfect. With telephoto compression, you don't have to worry about getting the foreground to stand out from the background, so even f8 isn't going to give you too much DOF. It's a long way to the other side of a soccer pitch.

You can gain 2-3 stops by dropping your shutter speed and increasing your ISO. ISO 3200 is not a problem with your K-30, you aren't looking for a high dynamic range and a little smoothing in post processing will only make the players and the ball look clearer and stand out more. In a pinch you can get by with 1/250 sec shutter speed, 1/320 will freeze footwork and player movement and a picture of a ball frozen in mid-air just looks weird and doesn't tell anything about the game action. The recommended 1/1000 sec (you used 1/800 for the posted picture) for shooting sports is a canard that drives me nuts, but there is nothing to stop you from doing your own experiment and proving me wrong.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA* 60-250 vs DA* 300	Mark K5	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	36	02-05-2015 04:03 PM
Telephoto Indecision - DA200 f2.8, DA300 f4, DA*60-250 f4?	Alpiner	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	51	04-01-2014 10:32 AM
DA*60-250 vs F70-210-vs A400	normhead	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	11-14-2013 06:44 PM
DA* question 200 vs 300 vs 60-250	mills	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-10-2013 05:33 AM
DA*60-250 Vs Tamron 70-200 f2.8	netuser	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	05-27-2009 06:04 PM

12-04-2014, 07:31 AM	#2
Franc Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Hoevelaken Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,212	AF focus and tracking on the K3 is much more faster then the K30, so you would benefit

12-04-2014, 08:08 AM	#3
woodywesty Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Northern Wisconsin Posts: 725	Originally posted by Franc AF focus and tracking on the K3 is much more faster then the K30, so you would benefit I agree... the K3 has provided a big step forward in autofocus for Pentax. The effects can be seen with all their autofocus lenses.

12-04-2014, 09:24 AM	#4
narual Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,988	Another thing you can try, especially if you do upgrade to a K3 -- convert the lens back to screwdrive mode. It won't be silent anymore, but it will probably focus faster, especially with the k3's improved screwdriver motor. (assuming the da200 has a screwdrive mode. I only have the da zooms)

12-04-2014, 09:50 AM	#5
Groove New Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 23	I use he 60-250 for hockey on a K3. Much, much faster than K5. And I miss far fewer shots - probably only 5% due to mis-focusing.

12-04-2014, 09:57 AM	#6
pacerr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Paris, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,349	Pending acquiring expensive AF 'fixes', technique can pick up some of the slack. Great sports pix were being made before the appearance of auto-focus bodies. Try shooting basketball with a 4x5 Press Graphic or a Mamiya TLR.

12-04-2014, 11:27 AM	#7
coyotemitch New Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 7 Original Poster	Thanks all. I get the sense that the 60-250 would not help me as much as the K3 would. Pacerr - old school - and point well taken.

12-04-2014, 11:40 AM	#8
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	SDM is SDM, so a lens change probably won't do as much as the K-3 might improve. I was able to track bike riders coming at me using the K-3 and DA*50-135 which is a pretty slow focusing lens. The bike riders have a consistent rate of approach so I am not sure how that would translate to soccer but if you are going to spend money my bet is on the K-3 rather than the 60-250.

12-04-2014, 11:53 AM	#9
Plywoo New Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 12	Well it's always hard to wait, but personnally, I am looking forward for the next Pentax tele that was shown a few months ago. Looks a lot like a fast 70-200 or similar It will very likely include weather sealing and a decent AF system. (If it sucks, then.... Too bad. But the prototype's size looked like no compromise has been made on optical features for the sake of a small package, so I'm pretty optimistic).

12-04-2014, 06:31 PM	#10
hjoseph7 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,046	Actually you don't need any of the AF tracking focusing stuff. Think about how long magazines like Sports Illustrated have been around. You can retro back to the 1960's and you still see picture-perfect frame filling images of your sports stars. There is a trick to all of this and of course you need a good lens and tripod or monopod...

12-04-2014, 06:41 PM	#11
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Originally posted by coyotemitch I shoot amateur soccer with a K30 and DA 200. I'm thrilled with the results when my subject is in focus - many - and I mean 'MANY' are not. Would the 60-250 get me better results - as far as AF is concerned? I've read all the threads about the Sigma and Tamron 70-200, but I want the weather sealing. Would a K3 make much of a difference? Thanks. Looking at your EXIF on this shot at f2.8 I think your depth of field might be a bit thin, although I can understand wanting to keep shutter speed up in low light. I would try f4/f5.6 if you want to have a better chance of catching the players and ball in focus. You can possibly shoot at less than 1/1000 to make back some of the light loss if you don't want ISO to get too high but you would need to experiment with these settings.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2014, 07:56 PM	#12
everydaylife Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 268	Originally posted by coyotemitch I shoot amateur soccer with a K30 and DA 200. I'm thrilled with the results when my subject is in focus - many - and I mean 'MANY' are not. Would the 60-250 get me better results - as far as AF is concerned? I've read all the threads about the Sigma and Tamron 70-200, but I want the weather sealing. Would a K3 make much of a difference? Thanks. Shooting events such as soccer would be a challenge for any autofocus system I think. I know the autofocus is slow with the da* 200 as I have one and I am aware there are lenses that focus faster but wouldn't good use of quick shift on the 200 overcome the slow autofocus speed of the lens? I am guessing that prefocus and good anticipation have always been a part of good sports photography manual or autofocus. Do you use quick shift?

12-04-2014, 08:07 PM	#13
waterfall Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Northern Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,812	I shoot the DA*200 on a K3 and focus is fast, silent and dead on. My only complaint was it focused too silently for my screw drive habituated ears and I thought the focus motor was broken at first! Not.

12-04-2014, 08:21 PM	#14
everydaylife Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 268	Originally posted by waterfall I shoot the DA*200 on a K3 and focus is fast, silent and dead on. My only complaint was it focused too silently for my screw drive habituated ears and I thought the focus motor was broken at first! Not. Unfortunately I do not have a K3. I still use the lowly k5iis with the 200 and unfortunately if I shoot something coming towards me at anything more than walking pace then it will be oof more times than not. Maybe I should upgrade.

12-04-2014, 09:50 PM	#15
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,227	Originally posted by crewl1 I would try f4/f5.6 if you want to have a better chance of catching the players and ball in focus. I'll second this suggestion. The K-30 isn't great at tracking moving subjects, but with a narrower aperture, the AF just has to be close, not perfect. With telephoto compression, you don't have to worry about getting the foreground to stand out from the background, so even f8 isn't going to give you too much DOF. It's a long way to the other side of a soccer pitch. You can gain 2-3 stops by dropping your shutter speed and increasing your ISO. ISO 3200 is not a problem with your K-30, you aren't looking for a high dynamic range and a little smoothing in post processing will only make the players and the ball look clearer and stand out more. In a pinch you can get by with 1/250 sec shutter speed, 1/320 will freeze footwork and player movement and a picture of a ball frozen in mid-air just looks weird and doesn't tell anything about the game action. The recommended 1/1000 sec (you used 1/800 for the posted picture) for shooting sports is a canard that drives me nuts, but there is nothing to stop you from doing your own experiment and proving me wrong.