[Sgt Shultz]

New guy here.
Currently using a Kx (had K10 for a while which the children kindly smashed, and budget dictated Kx..which I like.) with the following lenses.
Autofocus lenses:
Kit 18-55- Came with the Kx
SMC F 24-50 f/4- Came along with the K10-https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-24-50mm-F4-Zoom-Lens.html
Old Sigma push-pull 70-210 UC 4-5.6 That has light internal fungus issues, was meant to get me through a season of youth football. Sigma 70-210mm F4-5.6 UC Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Manual Focus:
Chinon Manual multicoated 135 2.8 (my not paying for school photo's portrait lens)-https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/chinon-135mm-f2-8-multi-coated.html


Now, here's the actual question:
I managed to shoot about 25% decent to very well timed shots of my sons Football games (using the 135, and moldy sigma). I need a better zoom lens for this year so I can toss the spore jar. Funds are limited for sure, so I'm looking for good IQ (so I can crop), and decent AF speed. I thought about the SMC F 70-210, but feel the two choices below are better. So given the less than ideal constraints below, which would you pick and why. Sub $100 was my goal.


Either:
DSLR era DA-L 50-200 4-5.6 WR, or
Film era Sigma (Zeiss design?) 75-200 f3.8 lens for roughly the same ($60-70) amount
Sigma 75-200mm F3.8 Autofocus Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database


Thanks!

[pathdoc]

If the Sigma is a constant f/3.8 across the zoom range, I'd be tempted to go for it - you want a wider aperture for high shutter speeds in sports, and this one would be a stop faster at the long end than the Pentax. Plus if you decide to go for a video-capable DSLR or the full-frame at some stage, you're already "future proofed".

[normhead]

I vote F 70-210.

IN the forum ratings it beat the Sigma in Sharpness, Aberrations by a significant margin, Bokeh and handling, losing only in auto focus, which I find crazy because the 70-210 is one of the fastest focusing lenses I have on my K-3, it's not a weakness of that lens, and value where the Sigma is rated 9.9. All that means is people got them cheap and were happy with what they got. I got my 70-210 for $35 dollars, so don't even get me started on value. The 70-210 is shorter and lighter, so a much more compact lens as well as having 13 elements as opposed to 12 and much better corrected for CA, for better micro-contrast.















All my 70-210 images....click here.

But if you can get the Sigma, constant ƒ3.8 will be nice. Only opening to 5.6 in the long end is a low light weakness.

[Sgt Shultz]

Yeah, fixed 3.8, that's what draws me to it. Kx has video, though never use it.


I opted to leave the 70-210 out because the collective reviews seem to indicate a slight drop in IQ, trade off for slightly faster AF. I'm opting for AF speed taking precedence over IQ. But it was a three horse field at first, with a few 70-210's bid on Fleebay already (including one Tak mislabeled as SMC)


thanks for the replies so far!

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 07:54 AM ----------

..Dang new account cant edit!
I meant..."The F has better IQ, but slower AF (both marginal differences though)." So they seem like a non issue.

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 07:59 AM ----------

Norm, how fast is the AF? Have you shot moving objects with it, how'd they turn out?

[UncleVanya]

50-200 is a nice lens. No experience with the others.

[ABel]

I've never used Pentax 50-200 DA-L WR or Sigma 75-200, so I cannot vote.

As for F 70-210, the copy I used to own had super-fast AF speed on my K-30, with rather good focusing accuracy. Its only weakness was poor flare resistance.
For the price it's just great lens.

[Sgt Shultz]

Moot point now....someone probably read this post, and grabbed the 3.8 from ebay.
I had a counter offer from seller yesterday, but wanted to ask everyone's opinion before pulling trigger.
15 minutes after posting this it was gone...even though my offer was valid for another 24 hours (48 total).


Stupid wide reaching internet.........

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 09:05 AM ----------

Norm...you win I guess!

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 09:05 AM ----------

...now to find a decently priced one...

[Cambo]

....small, light, weatherproof, sharp, contrasty, super-cheap; what's not to like?

Cheers,
Cameron

[Sgt Shultz]

right now the 50-200 is cheaper than any 70-210 I can find. So we'll see what I end up with...or how long I can hold out looking for a cheap 70-210.


Thanks again to all so far...

[pathdoc]

Have you tried the marketplace here? Some of the lenses I've seen are going for dirt cheap, and you have the advantage that the sellers are far more likely to be people who know something about the glass they're selling than the general run of e-bay vendors. They're also more likely to give you a bit of thinking and research time once you've expressed an interest in a particular lens, so you won't have the nasty experience you've already described of confirming that lens X really is great then going back only to find that it's already been sold.

My marketplace experiences so far have been good ones.

[Nicolas06]

I would get a used 55-300. There quite a few cheap from Japan on ebay (don't think of the HD/WR version that is quite expensive)... That would not cost more than a new 50-200 and would be far better choice to me.

[clawhammer]

Not that you need another option to murky the waters, but my experience shooting ultimate frisbee has been that the sigma 100-300 4.5-6.7 makes a better sports lens than the 50-200. It focuses faster and has a further reach. The only downside is the relatively slow aperture, which made night-time games with my K10D an exercise in futility.

edit: link: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-100-300mm-f4-5-6-7-dl.html

[normhead]

Yeah, fixed 3.8, that's what draws me to it. Kx has video, though never use it.


I opted to leave the 70-210 out because the collective reviews seem to indicate a slight drop in IQ, trade off for slightly faster AF. I'm opting for AF speed taking precedence over IQ. But it was a three horse field at first, with a few 70-210's bid on Fleebay already (including one Tak mislabeled as SMC)


thanks for the replies so far!

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 07:54 AM ----------

..Dang new account cant edit!
I meant..."The F has better IQ, but slower AF (both marginal differences though)." So they seem like a non issue.

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 07:59 AM ----------

Norm, how fast is the AF? Have you shot moving objects with it, how'd they turn out?

Darn, I was hoping you'd get the lens and tell me. I Just know for small birds I prefer the 70-210 to the DA*60-250, both for magnification and AF.



We have used it for moving objects, I honestly can't remember how good it was, used for tracking, we use it so rarely. We don't often take images of moving objects.

[Sgt Shultz]

Hammer, thanks ill look int it. Sound likw what I'm looking for. Most games are sunny outdoor 11am to 2pm....tons olight!
Nicholas....might be out of budget for me...ive got 5 kids...
doc...genius! What an obvious oversight on my part. Thanks!

[kh1234567890]

Either:
DSLR era DA-L 50-200 4-5.6 WR, or
Film era Sigma (Zeiss design?) 75-200 f3.8 lens for roughly the same ($60-70) amount

I've still got my DA50-200WR but I've sold my Sigma 75-200 AF. Nice lens but a bit on the heavy side. And noisy. The DA50-200WR is better IMHO.

Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with sigma75200mmf38af
Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda50200mmf456edwr