[gkreth]

Hi, everyone! Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be thorough. Thanks for reading all the way through....

I shoot a lot of pictures of my high-school sons, in one of three main settings:

1. Outdoors, high-school stadium lighting, in marching band. (I also shoot the football game, itself, but that's really just for fun and practice; my kids don't play football, they march in the band.)
2. Outdoors, daytime, playing tennis
3. Outdoors, daytime, playing Ultimate Frisbee.

I have been getting by with a Sigma 18-250 for the Frisbee stuff, and using a Tamron Adaptall 80-200 f/2.8 manual-focus lens for the marching band and tennis stuff.

I've been looking for a good deal on a used 70-200 f/2.8 to replace the Adaptall lens. (Catch-in-focus helps me some, but I still feel like I need an AF lens for a higher percentage of keepers.)

I've gone back & forth on the Sigma 70-200 vs the Tamron 70-200, and ultimately decided the Tamron would be the better buy for me, for these reasons:

1. While the Sigma seems to have slightly faster AF, from what I can tell it's not so much faster as to make a difference in what I'm shooting.
2. The Tamron is easier to find used, and is lower in price.
3. The Tamron can be used with my existing Tamron 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters; I've been told that the Sigma will not work with my Tamron TCs.

The monkey wrench: I was shooting a marching band competition last weekend, and they judges were pretty strict about how far away photographers had to stay from the field - about 30 to 40 feet further than I normally shoot. This resulted in a LOT more cropping than I usually have to do, and made me wonder if something like a 250mm or 300mm f/4 might be a better choice. I'd lose a stop of light, and that would affect the football game, itself, but probably not the marching band. (I can half the shutter speed for the marching band, which move CONSIDERABLY slower than the action of a football game...)

I thought about the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but it is rare and expensive when it comes up for sale.

I had not considered the Pentax 60-250 f/4 until just this morning, when it occurred to me that going wide to 60mm would help get some shots that currently are too tight on my Adaptall 80-200 9and would be pretty much lost on a Sigma 100-300).

I'm not sure if 250mm would be far enough, but it's 25% more than what I have now at 200mm, and a 300mm would be only 20% more. So maybe 250mm would be a happy medium.

But, having said that, for those times like last weened when I had to move back 30 more feet, I wonder is using a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC would not be a better choice, giving me essentially 280mm f/4.

And, I've read enough SDM horror stories that I have always shied away from it.

Please note: I cannot afford the new Pentax lenses coming out. The 60-250 appears to sell used for about $700-750 USD, and the Tamron 70-200 sells used for about $550-600 USD. That's more my budget range.

Thanks for reading thus far. My specific questions to you all:

1. Has anyone read about SDM problems with the 60-250, or did that particular model seem to escape the issues that other SDM lenses had?
2. Has anyone compared the AF speed of the 60-250 to the Tamron 70-200?
3. Based on what I shoot mentioned above, would you go with the my new idea of the 60-250, or would you recommend I stay with my original idea of the 70-200, and use the 1.4x when more reach is needed?

One extra note: I do have a Tamron 2.0x TC as well; of course, that would bring the Tamron down to f/5.6, which I don;t think would work well under night-time high-school stadium lighting...

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Greg Kreth

[VoiceOfReason]

I have both lenses, Both are great for different things. The Tamron is noisy, but incredibly fast focusing for on my K3. The 60-250 also focuses fast, though if I weren't worried about noise and WR, and if your TCs are good, then I'd do the 70-200 for what you want. It will work better with your teleconverters most likely.

[cali92rs]

Be careful with this line of thinking:
"I'm not sure if 250mm would be far enough, but it's 25% more than what I have now at 200mm, and a 300mm would be only 20% more. So maybe 250mm would be a happy medium."

What i mean is 200mm has a field of view of 6.9 degrees, 250mm has a field of view of 5.5 degrees.
If you are at 50 yards from your subject, the difference in horizontal field of view is only about 6 feet. The point I am trying to make is I would not make this decision based on gaining an extra 50mm focal length.
If you are planning to go out in the rain, the DA* 60-250mm is weathersealed.
If you are shooting at night at poorly lit stadiums, the extra stop of light of the f2.8 Tamron will be invaluable when trying to stop motion.
Neither are all that fast focusing lenses, although I would give the edge to the Tamron, although slightly.

Overall, I would opt for the Tamron with the 1.4X TC.

[skierd]

Does full-frame capatability matter to you at all?

What body are you using, out of curiosity and ISO capability? You might be able to get away with a slower lens if you're willing to go a stop faster on ISO. On my k-30 noise is manageable at 1600 and even 3200 iso, depending on print/output size.

I'd probably go with the DA*60-250 for your situation, especially if you feel you need more room on the wide side vs the long side. You can always add a TC to it as well for longer shots.

[gkreth]

Does full-frame capability matter to you at all?

Not really; I dono't think it will be in my budget range any time soon.

What body are you using, out of curiosity and ISO capability? You might be able to get away with a slower lens if you're willing to go a stop faster on ISO. On my k-30 noise is manageable at 1600 and even 3200 iso, depending on print/output size.

I'm using a K-3, but I already push it to 3200 on a regular basis. I'm sure that, if I went with any sort of f/4 setup, I would have to halve the shutter speed.

I'd probably go with the DA*60-250 for your situation, especially if you feel you need more room on the wide side vs the long side. You can always add a TC to it as well for longer shots.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not quite decided, but based on the replies thus far, I'm leaning back toward the 70-200. But I do find the 4.17x range of the 60-240 tempting, compared to the 2.86x range of the 70-200....

Greg

---------- Post added 11-02-2015 at 02:14 PM ----------

Be careful with this line of thinking:
"I'm not sure if 250mm would be far enough, but it's 25% more than what I have now at 200mm, and a 300mm would be only 20% more. So maybe 250mm would be a happy medium."

What i mean is 200mm has a field of view of 6.9 degrees, 250mm has a field of view of 5.5 degrees.
If you are at 50 yards from your subject, the difference in horizontal field of view is only about 6 feet. The point I am trying to make is I would not make this decision based on gaining an extra 50mm focal length.

Hmmm.... good point. It's 160 feet from sideline to sideline. So, in "permissible" situations, when I can stand right at the sideline, I'm about 30 to 40 yards from the my subjects, but when I get pushed back like I did last week, I was easily 50-60 yards away... I guess in those cases, a 70-200mm + 1.4x would be the better choice.

Be careful with this line of thinking:
If you are shooting at night at poorly lit stadiums, the extra stop of light of the f2.8 Tamron will be invaluable when trying to stop motion.
Neither are all that fast focusing lenses, although I would give the edge to the Tamron, although slightly.

Overall, I would opt for the Tamron with the 1.4X TC.

Thanks; I'm leaning back that way....

[MJSfoto1956]

I added the Pentax K-3 (and now K-3 II) to my Nikon system precisely because of the uniqueness of the constant aperture DA* 60-250mm f/4 lens. No other manufacturer has anything like it. I appreciate the 67mm filter sized glass too -- as a result, the lens weighs less and takes up less room in my backpack than most of these newer 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses that are all the rage. As I get older smaller/lighter is a key requirement for me going forward. To that end, I hope Pentax also continues to update/modernize their superb 49mm lens line.

YMMV

Michael

[PentaxRev]

The Tamron 70-200 is my favorite lens because it often captures truly incredible shots. However, please make sure you shoot some shots with it before buying it. I generally keep in on my K-5 and there it sometimes goes all the way through the focus range before it locks on. I don't believe it will generally work well for sports action.

[quant2325]

I had the Tamron with a different system, sold it when I moved to Pentax (I own the 60-250mm now), and am looking for the Tamron again. Here is my take on all of this:
1) The Pentax is likely the sharper lens. The reviews here and the photozone reviews seem spot on for both lenses.
2) The Tamron will be better for portraits if you want as much background blur as possible (e.g., "cinematic headshots") because it is a f/2.8 as opposed to the f/4. This is why I also want the Tamron.
3) When shooting sports you need length and a fast shutter speed. Both lenses will work. The Pentax is remarkably sharp even wide open and it is weatherproof! My best sports shots seem to come in terrible weather. There is something about the combination of wet, mud, the ball, blood, the player's eyes, etc. that makes great shots. The Tamron will be better indoors since it is faster at f/2.8.
4) If you are primarily shooting a band either will work so choose the lens for the other reasons you may be using it or for cost if you don't need or want the Pentax weatherproofing.
5) This is one of these things where you really cannot go wrong if you intend to stay with an APS-C format. In three or four years you will know if your choice was optimal, but it really won't matter much since you will have more good shots than you need.
6) I have a kid who acts in regional productions and I usually get to shoot tech rehearsals. Another kids plays soccer. I shoot 100+ portraits each year for school events. I also photograph for my own pleasure. I find the 60-250mm D* to be an exception lens with only one flaw: It is not a f/2.8 that I prefer for outdoor portraits. Still, it is good enough at f/4. The Tamron isn't quite as sharp wide open or even at f/4, but it is easily good enough. The Pentax is weatherproof and the Tamron is not. Both focus well IMHO. No camera/lens combination will give you 100% in focus shots if you are shooting sports, but both are good enough.

[btnapa]

Hi, everyone! Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be thorough. Thanks for reading all the way through....

I shoot a lot of pictures of my high-school sons, in one of three main settings:

1. Outdoors, high-school stadium lighting, in marching band. (I also shoot the football game, itself, but that's really just for fun and practice; my kids don't play football, they march in the band.)
2. Outdoors, daytime, playing tennis
3. Outdoors, daytime, playing Ultimate Frisbee.

I have been getting by with a Sigma 18-250 for the Frisbee stuff, and using a Tamron Adaptall 80-200 f/2.8 manual-focus lens for the marching band and tennis stuff.

I've been looking for a good deal on a used 70-200 f/2.8 to replace the Adaptall lens. (Catch-in-focus helps me some, but I still feel like I need an AF lens for a higher percentage of keepers.)

I've gone back & forth on the Sigma 70-200 vs the Tamron 70-200, and ultimately decided the Tamron would be the better buy for me, for these reasons:

1. While the Sigma seems to have slightly faster AF, from what I can tell it's not so much faster as to make a difference in what I'm shooting.
2. The Tamron is easier to find used, and is lower in price.
3. The Tamron can be used with my existing Tamron 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters; I've been told that the Sigma will not work with my Tamron TCs.

The monkey wrench: I was shooting a marching band competition last weekend, and they judges were pretty strict about how far away photographers had to stay from the field - about 30 to 40 feet further than I normally shoot. This resulted in a LOT more cropping than I usually have to do, and made me wonder if something like a 250mm or 300mm f/4 might be a better choice. I'd lose a stop of light, and that would affect the football game, itself, but probably not the marching band. (I can half the shutter speed for the marching band, which move CONSIDERABLY slower than the action of a football game...)

I thought about the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but it is rare and expensive when it comes up for sale.

I had not considered the Pentax 60-250 f/4 until just this morning, when it occurred to me that going wide to 60mm would help get some shots that currently are too tight on my Adaptall 80-200 9and would be pretty much lost on a Sigma 100-300).

I'm not sure if 250mm would be far enough, but it's 25% more than what I have now at 200mm, and a 300mm would be only 20% more. So maybe 250mm would be a happy medium.

But, having said that, for those times like last weened when I had to move back 30 more feet, I wonder is using a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC would not be a better choice, giving me essentially 280mm f/4.

And, I've read enough SDM horror stories that I have always shied away from it.

Please note: I cannot afford the new Pentax lenses coming out. The 60-250 appears to sell used for about $700-750 USD, and the Tamron 70-200 sells used for about $550-600 USD. That's more my budget range.

Thanks for reading thus far. My specific questions to you all:

1. Has anyone read about SDM problems with the 60-250, or did that particular model seem to escape the issues that other SDM lenses had?
2. Has anyone compared the AF speed of the 60-250 to the Tamron 70-200?
3. Based on what I shoot mentioned above, would you go with the my new idea of the 60-250, or would you recommend I stay with my original idea of the 70-200, and use the 1.4x when more reach is needed?

One extra note: I do have a Tamron 2.0x TC as well; of course, that would bring the Tamron down to f/5.6, which I don;t think would work well under night-time high-school stadium lighting...

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Greg Kreth

I have only tried the 60-250 at trade shows (many times). I was not impressed with the lens at all. It was soft, and all the good stuff I have heard about it did not match my experience. Being one stop slower than Tamron did not bother me. I was looking for sharpness and I did not see it.

When it came to buying a zoom of this range, I bought the Tamron about a month ago and I am blown away by the lens. It is a little soft at f2.8 but beyond f4 it is as good as I have seen any lens I have owned. I own the Three Amigos and I have shot with Canon's high end zoom lenses and Zeiss primes. So I know what a sharp lens should produce. The Tamron is a beast. Is it a perfect lens? Not by a long shot. But in my book, the sharpness, the contrast and the overall "pro" feel of this lens overshadow its shortcomings.

Just my two cents.

[yucatanPentax]

Never heard the 60-250mm described as soft... not sure how you can tell decisively via a tradeshow try-out....

My only personal complaint with the 60-250mm is occasional slowish focus-time, but quick-shift capability allows me to adjust if I'm impatient. Sharp from F4, in my experience.

46 reviews with a sharpness score of 9.5 is a pretty good reference. https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Star-60-250mm-F4-SDM-Zoom-Lens.html

[btnapa]

Never heard the 60-250mm described as soft... not sure how you can tell decisively via a tradeshow try-out....

My only personal complaint with the 60-250mm is occasional slowish focus-time, but quick-shift capability allows me to adjust if I'm impatient. Sharp from F4, in my experience.

46 reviews with a sharpness score of 9.5 is a pretty good reference. SMC Pentax-DA* 60-250mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

You are right. I was surprised at the softness of the images. I tried it at the Pentax booth on two separate occasions. I spent a fair amount of time shooting with the lens on various focal lengths and aperture settings. You would think the manufacturer would bring a flawless copy of the lens to a major show! but they did not do it.

I did not get into the focus issue but yes it was slow too. My Tamron, although a screwdriver lens, despite noisiness, is very responsive and fast focusing. As I said earlier, I really wanted to like the 60-250 (based on all the positive reviews) but at the end I ended up going with the Tamron.

Ironically, I went to the Tamron booth too to try the Pentax version of the 70-200. I felt like they wanted to get rid of me because they hardly had any K-mount lenses... and their k-mount version of the 70-200 had been dropped and did not work at all! They gave me the Canon version to try but I wanted to try the Pentax version on my K3 to see how it worked with MY camera not on some other camera brand.

[bdery]

full disclosure : I had the same questions as you have, and went for the 60-250.

My reasons : the 60-250 is wider, longer, lighter, smaller, WR, better built, less CA, better foot design, silent AF, can be handheld for long periods, has a shallower DOF at f4 250mm than what you get at f2.8 200mm.

going wide to 60mm would help get some shots

I've found it's MUCH more useful than what I expected.

I'm not sure if 250mm would be far enough, but it's 25% more than what I have now at 200mm

In focal length, true. In angle of view, not quite as drastic.

But, having said that, for those times like last weened when I had to move back 30 more feet, I wonder is using a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC would not be a better choice, giving me essentially 280mm f/4.

That would work, with two caveats : you loose the convenience of the wide end (except if you remove the TC) and you increase all the aberrations, which are the only true flaw of the Tamron.

Has anyone read about SDM problems with the 60-250, or did that particular model seem to escape the issues that other SDM lenses had?

It seems to pretty much escape those issues. I think I've personally read one such report.

Has anyone compared the AF speed of the 60-250 to the Tamron 70-200?

Pretty close from my limited in-store experience with the Tamron. Before using the new DC motor in the 16-85, I thought the 60-250 was blazing fast. Now I think it's fast.

Based on what I shoot mentioned above, would you go with the my new idea of the 60-250, or would you recommend I stay with my original idea of the 70-200, and use the 1.4x when more reach is needed?

Both would work. I'm sure you'll be happy with either. The price of the Tamron + TC would probably go over the price of a used 60-250, so that's one thing to consider. Also, the Tamron+TC route will probably call for the use of a monopod if you shoot for any extended period of time.

You can see that I'm applying my own reasoning to your questions. I hope it's still useful One last thing : of all the quality lenses I own (DA21, DA40, DFA 100 macro WR, 16-85) the 60-250 is my favourite. By a good margin.

[gkreth]

full disclosure : I had the same questions as you have, and went for the 60-250.

My reasons : the 60-250 is wider, longer, lighter, smaller, WR, better built, less CA, better foot design, silent AF, can be handheld for long periods, has a shallower DOF at f4 250mm than what you get at f2.8 200mm.

going wide to 60mm would help get some shots

I've found it's MUCH more useful than what I expected.

That's my thought, as well. I'm generally not much of a WA shooter, and prefer to "get in tight" with longer FLs. My 18-55 is rarely used at 18mm, and my 24-135 was rarely used at 24mm. I even bought an old pentax 45-125, because I was curious if 45mm would generally be the widest I would need for indoor, family-picture usage.

But I have noticed that 70mm is just a bit long for me for normal snapshots of friends and family. So I've wondered if the 60-250 would make a perfect Christmas-party-dinner-birthday-family-gathering lens for me...

I'm not sure if 250mm would be far enough, but it's 25% more than what I have now at 200mm

In focal length, true. In angle of view, not quite as drastic.

But, having said that, for those times like last weened when I had to move back 30 more feet, I wonder is using a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 + Tamron 1.4x TC would not be a better choice, giving me essentially 280mm f/4.

That would work, with two caveats : you loose the convenience of the wide end (except if you remove the TC) and you increase all the aberrations, which are the only true flaw of the Tamron.

I wonder how much more difference it makes in AOV to go up to 280mm (i.e., the Tamron + 1.4x TC); I tried to look up some AOV calculators, but I think I need a more "real world" picture example.

Has anyone read about SDM problems with the 60-250, or did that particular model seem to escape the issues that other SDM lenses had?

It seems to pretty much escape those issues. I think I've personally read one such report.

Has anyone compared the AF speed of the 60-250 to the Tamron 70-200?

Pretty close from my limited in-store experience with the Tamron. Before using the new DC motor in the 16-85, I thought the 60-250 was blazing fast. Now I think it's fast.

I wonder if anyone in the Austin, Tx area own one or both of these lenses? I sure would like to try them out side-by-side.

I guess it's not worth $256.97 to rent all three lenses to compaare at the same time:
Rent the Pentax 60-250mm f/4 ED (IF) SDM AF smcP-DA
Rent the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX APO Macro HSM
Rent the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF (PENTAX)

Based on what I shoot mentioned above, would you go with the my new idea of the 60-250, or would you recommend I stay with my original idea of the 70-200, and use the 1.4x when more reach is needed?

Both would work. I'm sure you'll be happy with either. The price of the Tamron + TC would probably go over the price of a used 60-250, so that's one thing to consider. Also, the Tamron+TC route will probably call for the use of a monopod if you shoot for any extended period of time.

Fortunately, I already own the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs, so no additional expense there. And I normally shoot my Adaptall 80-200 f/2.8 with a hip-monopod (a monopod resting in a pouch attached to my belt), so that won't be much of a change, if any.

You can see that I'm applying my own reasoning to your questions. I hope it's still useful One last thing : of all the quality lenses I own (DA21, DA40, DFA 100 macro WR, 16-85) the 60-250 is my favourite. By a good margin.

That was very useful; thank you!

Sigh...I wish I had the budget for BOTH lenses....

Greg

[MJSfoto1956]

the 60-250 is wider, longer, lighter, smaller, WR, better built, less CA, better foot design, silent AF, can be handheld for long periods, has a shallower DOF at f4 250mm than what you get at f2.8 200mm.

+1. It is a unique and special lens. N.B. my first copy from Adorama was slightly decentered and I returned it. The 2nd copy has been a stellar performer.

Michael

[cali92rs]

It is a unique and special lens no doubt...but I think it is a stretch to say it is the best tool for the job when photographing sports in dimly lit venues. Every stop counts.