Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-06-2014, 02:14 PM   #1
Senior Member
harrisonww's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London Ontario
Posts: 149
Pentax 200mm or Sigma 70-200mm

I have been debating even posting this for some time now but now is the time to stop procrastinating. I want to shoot hockey. I have the k3 and I have used the sigma 70-300mm and it is just too slow for hockey. With good lighting in the rinks i want to shoot at I know for a fact the 200mm will work and the sigma 70-200 will work. I would like to hear from anyone on the forum that uses the 200mm for sports or the 70-200mm in low light. I dont think auto focusing will become a large problem with either lens. The sigma with stabilize motor built in may help but the k3 has SR so I dont know if that will make a difference. Any suggestions on why I should buy the pentax over the sigma or vice versa would be appreciated!

Pentax 200mm.. $1000 cad or so.
Sigma 70-200mm... $1100 cad.

12-06-2014, 02:40 PM - 1 Like   #2
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Herefordshire, UK
Posts: 197
The SR in camera is great for static subjects, but if you are using it for action shots then it's likely to introduce some motion blur.

The Sigma lens has a 2 position SR, one of which is designed for panning. This may be more useful for you.

I had a Sigma 70-200 which I recently sold to a friend (still not sure whether I did the right thing selling it) and found it to be a good, sharp lens with fast autofocus. It's a good bit bigger and heavier that the Pentax 200, but from my experience of the Sigma I'm more than happy to recommend it.
12-06-2014, 02:51 PM   #3
Veteran Member
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,717
I have a previous version of the Sigma 70-200, the HSM II model. I have a Pentax F 70-210 which is significantly lighter that I carry for general shooting, so I only use the Sigma when I know I will use it for most of my shots (e.g., zoo) or when I expect the light to be pretty bad (e.g., concert). I have used it for some hockey shots, which you can see here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127442034@N03/sets/72157649539510101/

Scroll to the bottom there; the hockey shots were much earlier in the year. It's a quick focusing lens, so it does the job pretty well. It takes really nice shots wide open, although the contrast isn't the best. That can easily be fixed in post processing, however, so it's not a big concern. Aside from its size, it's a marvelous lens. It's heavy and while balanced, it's not something you want strapped to your neck for long periods of time. I generally use it with a monopod for comfort, although it's fine to hold it for short periods of time. But for long stretches, my fingers and hands get a bit tired because there's so much pressure on the bottom of the left hand when in shooting position and weight on the right fingers from holding the camera.
12-06-2014, 03:24 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,236
First of all, make sure you like the look the glass produces. For some this isn't a big deal, but for others (like myself) the colors and general appearance of the images is paramount. The Sigma and Pentax will produce different looking images. My preference is for Pentax glass.

QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
I have a Pentax F 70-210 which is significantly lighter that I carry for general shooting, so I only use the Sigma when I know I will use it for most of my shots (e.g., zoo) or when I expect the light to be pretty bad (e.g., concert).
The Pentax F70-210 is actually a very good lens, although naturally it won't give you as much subject isolation as a faster lens. But it's worth considering even if you're not on a tight budget - very good IQ.


If you go with the Pentax get the FA*200, not the DA*. The DA* is very slow in focusing, even though the IQ is nice. I sold mine after less than two weeks because it was useless for shooting runners coming at me.

With Sigma, go with the latest version of the 70-200/2.8 - which often means you need to buy it new (because there seem to be fewer on the used market). Compared to the earlier Sigmas, it has better focusing speed, OS, and I believe a little bit better IQ as well.


If you think focusing speed isn't an issue, you're missing some of the best shots. There should be times when the players are skating towards you and filling the frame - a slow lens or camera won't be able to keep up if you have e.g. the FA*200 at f/3.2 (which is about what you'll usually want to shoot it at). Fortunately the K-3 focuses quickly with these two lenses.

I use only the F*300, FA135, and FA*85 for action shooting, so obviously I'd go for the FA*200 (or F/FA135) here. It's surprising how well a prime works here, even though you don't have zoom. You just take whatever fills the frame, and you frame it properly. You'll end up with some good shots you never would have got if you were able to zoom out like you "knew" you should. As the players move closer or farther you automatically get variety in how they fill the frame, even though your focal length never changes! And it's nice and light for hand holding. But the Sigma's a good lens too - I used one briefly at an indoor dance competition, I just didn't like the results as much.


You could even consider a *300 - it isn't "too long" indoors like some people think. In this case, all 3 focus quickly - DA*, FA*, and F*. It's obviously partly personal taste, but I believe at least some of your action photos should be "intimate," like a few of these are (shot indoors, and like most of my action shots, JPEG with no PP or cropping): http://www.eventtimephotos.com/Dance/2014/CADTD-State-Championships/Friday/Tops/i-g6sCVbG/A

Just something to think about. If you're serious, you need two bodies (each with a different lens) any way. Good thing the K-3's on sale!


Last edited by DSims; 12-06-2014 at 03:53 PM.
12-06-2014, 03:31 PM   #5
Senior Member
harrisonww's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London Ontario
Posts: 149
Original Poster
Interesting, Thanks for the post. I have looked at older pentax glass and its so weird why companys venture away from good glass and make a more compact but slower lens. If the FA produces nicer colors and focuses faster with the k3 I will look into it as an option!
12-06-2014, 04:01 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,236
Oh, yes, bottom line here. What you implied is correct - the worst thing you can do here is pick neither and miss a lot of good shots. Pick one and get started. And then if it seems wrong, sell it and get the other. I suggest starting with a prime - otherwise you may never know what you're missing. That way you'll find out for sure which you prefer for your style of action shooting - zooms or primes.

---------- Post added 12-06-14 at 03:07 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by harrisonww Quote
Interesting, Thanks for the post. I have looked at older pentax glass and its so weird why companys venture away from good glass and make a more compact but slower lens. If the FA produces nicer colors and focuses faster with the k3 I will look into it as an option!
Fortunately the K-3 focuses quickly with older screw-drive lenses - in many (or most) cases faster then with in-lens motors. And yes, I think the F and FA tend to have slightly better colors than the DA lenses as well. But there are many outstanding DA and DA* lenses as well, as long as they focus quickly enough for the job.


The F and FA135 is by far the most economical way I know of to get into a fast-focusing, high quality longer lens with a fast aperture. The DA18-135 is reportedly also a fast focusing lens for action, and the IQ is pretty good, but its aperture doesn't limit DOF that well (and this in turn makes its focusing accuracy and speed less critical).

I realize this is the "wrong" sport, and I was a bit rusty because I've been shooting video all year instead. But three weeks ago I had just one camera (K-5 IIs), and I shot exclusively with the FA135. Nevertheless, this should give you some idea of what it will do with a camera that doesn't focus even quite as well as the K-3. Most shots are at f/3.5, 16Mpixel, one-star quality JPEGs (approx 2MB each) straight out of camera. I just cull and post - PP takes to long for most action photography.

http://www.eventtimephotos.com/XC/2014/CIFPrelims/Photos/Highlights-Races11-18/i-QxPP9tW/A

Last edited by DSims; 12-06-2014 at 04:22 PM.
12-06-2014, 07:07 PM - 1 Like   #7
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 51,558
I'd probably go for the Sigma, as it has faster AF and less fringing. The Pentax DA* 200mm a bit heaving on the CA, like the FA* version.


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



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:
12-06-2014, 10:18 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: traverse city MI
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by harrisonww Quote
I have been debating even posting this for some time now but now is the time to stop procrastinating. I want to shoot hockey. I have the k3 and I have used the sigma 70-300mm and it is just too slow for hockey. With good lighting in the rinks i want to shoot at I know for a fact the 200mm will work and the sigma 70-200 will work. I would like to hear from anyone on the forum that uses the 200mm for sports or the 70-200mm in low light. I dont think auto focusing will become a large problem with either lens. The sigma with stabilize motor built in may help but the k3 has SR so I dont know if that will make a difference. Any suggestions on why I should buy the pentax over the sigma or vice versa would be appreciated!

Pentax 200mm.. $1000 cad or so.
Sigma 70-200mm... $1100 cad.
I think a 70-200 zoom is the ticket for hockey due the versatility. there is a review comparing Sigma 70-200 with Tamron 70-200 and Pentax 80-200 2.8s which may help. I really love my 60-250 Da* but it's an F4 so it may not be fast enough for your needs. I quite often find myself going to manual focusing for fast moving sports because my K5 can't keep up and I need to anticipate to get the shot.
12-06-2014, 10:24 PM   #9
Senior Member
harrisonww's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London Ontario
Posts: 149
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MikeD Quote
I think a 70-200 zoom is the ticket for hockey due the versatility. there is a review comparing Sigma 70-200 with Tamron 70-200 and Pentax 80-200 2.8s which may help. I really love my 60-250 Da* but it's an F4 so it may not be fast enough for your needs. I quite often find myself going to manual focusing for fast moving sports because my K5 can't keep up and I need to anticipate to get the shot.
where is the review mike? on pentaxforums?
12-08-2014, 11:44 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,236
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
The Pentax DA* 200mm a bit heaving on the CA, like the FA* version.
I consider fringing to be about the least offensive optical flaw - even if I'm not going to correct it in PP (and I usually don't). Almost everything else about an image matters more to me. So I probably didn't pay much attention to it.

But it's true that the overall IQ of the *200s (which both have the same optical formula) don't quite match that of the *300s. Yet for my taste, it's still above the Sigma 70-200 in IQ. Nevertheless, since the *200s aren't the strongest lenses in Pentax' stable (even though I still think they're good), the 70-200s, FA*80-200, and *300s are worth considering.


The Tamron 70-200 is by far the best value on your K-3. Because of the K-3's improved AF motor and mechanism, the AF speed will be roughly comparable to the Sigma 70-200, for significantly less money. I really think you should start with it (or a *300 or maybe F/FA135), unless there's something you don't like about it. Most of the people stating the Tamron focuses more slowly than the Sigma were on older bodies. On the K-3 most screw-drive lenses focus about as fast (or faster) than their in-lens-motor counterparts.

Last edited by DSims; 12-08-2014 at 11:56 AM.
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!
200mm, 70-200mm, cad, colors, da, dont, fa, glass, hockey, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax 200mm, pentax lens, post, sigma, slr lens, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG, Pentax F 50mm 1.7, Pentax DA 50-200mm, + more... Skeeter Sold Items 13 12-11-2013 11:53 AM
Sigma 70-200mm or Pentax 55-300mm Atlantic Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 32 04-06-2012 07:04 AM
SR or OS with Sigma 70-200mm on Pentax K-5 JBPhoto Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 03-10-2012 07:25 PM
Sigma 70-200mm or wait for Pentax 60-250mm Dieni Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 08-11-2010 06:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 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