Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-10-2015, 08:18 AM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,457
QuoteOriginally posted by pic-nic Quote
Only under perfect, bright sun would a lens as slow as this yield any positive results, and it would be useless for indoor sports. Shooting at speeds between 1/320th and 1/800th, you really need all the aperture you can get. Even in a bright, reflective ice rink I have trouble at f4, without the ISO completely taking away clean edges and blurring eyes and brow together.
Indoor sports are what the 70-200/2.8 is made for.

As norm pointed out, you can use a Tamron F AF 2x teleconverter with the 70-200/2.8 to get a 140-400/5.6. Less than $170 on eBay...

12-10-2015, 08:29 AM   #17
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Indoor sports are what the 70-200/2.8 is made for.

As norm pointed out, you can use a Tamron F AF 2x teleconverter with the 70-200/2.8 to get a 140-400/5.6. Less than $170 on eBay...
The way I see it, that combination would enable me to get rid of my DA*60-250 and my A-400. How do I lose with this set up? Anytime you can trade two big lenses for one, go for it.

The biggest limitation of the DA*60-250, is, it's not ƒ2.8.
12-10-2015, 08:34 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: traverse city MI
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The way I see it, that combination would enable me to get rid of my DA*60-250 and my A-400. How do I lose with this set up? Anytime you can trade two big lenses for one, go for it.

The biggest limitation of the DA*60-250, is, it's not ƒ2.8.
How good is that 2x converter
12-10-2015, 08:55 AM   #19
Veteran Member
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Posts: 15,173
QuoteOriginally posted by radman Quote

Hi bertwert,

Thanks for the info. Is that based on your experience with the lens?

So not only would it possibly have a hard time freezing the motion of the sport/action...it may not even focus well (or at all) to begin with...is that right?

Does ability to AF vary with the focal length being used? For instance, if I am shooting with the 50-500, would it AF the same at 50 as it would at 100 or 500?

Thanks for you time!
I don't earn either, but other users can tell you better about AF speed...

12-10-2015, 09:10 AM   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by MikeD Quote
How good is that 2x converter
That is the great unknown...
12-10-2015, 09:41 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Kath's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 737
QuoteOriginally posted by pic-nic Quote
Only under perfect, bright sun would a lens as slow as this yield any positive results, and it would be useless for indoor sports. Shooting at speeds between 1/320th and 1/800th, you really need all the aperture you can get. Even in a bright, reflective ice rink I have trouble at f4, without the ISO completely taking away clean edges and blurring eyes and brow together.
I beg to differ. The OP spoke of outdoor sports as well. If I can catch an eagle flying 50mph on a cloudy Northwest day, surely the OP can capture girls playing soccer on an outdoor field, sun or not.
12-10-2015, 02:45 PM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 205
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
A couple of my buddies use 70-200s with 2x converters on their Canons. That give them 140-400 ƒ5.6... it's a nice option, come on Pentax, now that there's a 70-200 we need the other thing too.
f/5.6 is too slow for many sports and a 2x converters never, ever test well. 1.4x- 1.7x is about as far as you can get away with without degrading the quality of the image to the point where it is only usable for soccer moms.

---------- Post added 12-10-15 at 01:53 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by radman Quote
Thanks WPRESTO:

I understand what you are saying about only an extra 50mm on the Pentax camera over the tamron 70-200. That does not seem like much to me when I consider how long the fields are. For FH the girls play on the football fields and use all 100 yards.

Believe me, I know that I am not the steadies photog, I use a tripod for my k3 and 70-200. I imagine the 60-250 would be a little heavier and the 50-500 much heavier.
Right now the 60-250 is much lower than when I looked before (a year ago when I chose the tamron over the pentax lens). Another bonus is the WR of the 60-250.

I have never shot with a WR lens. I have only shot in mist/light rain with my 18-55 DAL and it seems to me the photos didn't come out that well because of rain on the lens...do people shoot with WR lenses and get good results?

The 50-500 market is OK for used lenses...I cannot afford a 150-400 unfortunately.

Thanks,
Just look at the photozone.de test results, which should mirror in real life (they did for me). The 60-250 is a great lens. It is sharp enough a f/4 throughout the range. The only thing wrong with it is that it is not an f.2.8, so too much of the background might be in focus when shooting a kid's soccer game from distance. Of course, a 70-200 with a tele-extender could be worse due to the effective change in aperture and image degradation. A really good 70-200 could be good enough as is, if you don't need the reach. The Sigma 50-500 (or whatever) probably will disappoint on the long end, and at best won't have the IQ of the 60-250 or a decent 70-200. But if you need the reach, it is an easy way to do it.


Last edited by quant2325; 12-10-2015 at 02:58 PM.
12-10-2015, 03:10 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,457
QuoteOriginally posted by quant2325 Quote
f/5.6 is too slow for many sports and a 2x converters never, ever test well. 1.4x- 1.7x is about as far as you can get away with without degrading the quality of the image to the point where it is only usable for soccer moms.[COLOR=Silver]
I know someone who used a Nikon 2X with the Nikon 400/3.5. Even manually focusing he would get better photos than me...
12-10-2015, 09:41 PM   #24
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 94
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
BTW, V-A-V shooting on a rainy day. I can recommend rain covers made by Ruggard. They come in a 2-pack for about $6 to $10 depending on size & complexity (some can accommodate camera + 500mm lens + large shoe-mounted flash). They are similar to plastic bag material but tougher and clearer, and a better shape than a bag. They come with a viewfinder hole, but it's placed a little high (not enough room for your right hand atop the camera). I taped the existing hole and cut a new one a little farther down. A hole on the bottom for tripod mounting. They last a long time and at the price, they are who-cares disposable if they tear (but they don't very easily - as stated, quite tough). Totally effective, compact, light weight, sensible and inexpensive product. Every camera bag should have one (or two).

That's great information, thanks.
I appreciate you giving the specific brand recommendation..I am going to look Ruggard up right now.

Regards,

---------- Post added 12-10-15 at 11:48 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kath Quote
I shoot wildlife, not sports but, from your description, it sounds like a) you're talking some significant distances and b) you use a tripod. Just like wildlife shooting. The shorter telephotos like the 70-200, 60-250, or others are unlikely to yield satisfactory shots at those distances, as you've already discovered. You simply can't fill the frame.

The Sigma 150-500 is an ideal lens for what you're describing. The range is versatile and the IQ quite good, particularly at less than 500mm. Though it is best used on a tripod, it does well handheld, too. The OS is very effective. Used ones are offered here and elsewhere in the $600-800 range. The 50-500, a similar lens in many ways, may be easier to get, but is also heavier, about a pound, I think. If you're using a tripod, you won't care about that as much. The lower focal lengths available on that lens (down to 50) will give you greater access when you are closer to the action.

Hi,

Thanks for the information. Do you feel the IQ of the 150-500 is similar to the 50-500 sigma? If so, I would lean toward the 50-500 because of the close up shots when the action comes to my side of the field.

I use a monopod with my tamron 70-200. That is my biggest lens and I do not think I could get many non blurry shots without the monopod. I have not tried shooting field hockey games with a tripod...I am moving quite a bit to try to stay with the action.

Some concerns I have about the 50-500 have been voiced above, do you have experience with that lens with regards to:
1. Focusing on action/sports
2. Locking focus in relatively low light (I am not talking indoors but non-sunny days)

Thanks,

---------- Post added 12-10-15 at 11:52 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pic-nic Quote
Only under perfect, bright sun would a lens as slow as this yield any positive results, and it would be useless for indoor sports. Shooting at speeds between 1/320th and 1/800th, you really need all the aperture you can get. Even in a bright, reflective ice rink I have trouble at f4, without the ISO completely taking away clean edges and blurring eyes and brow together.

Hi pic-nic,

That's what I am worried about with the 50-500 too.

The range (esp the length) is great, but not sure about the speed of the lens.
I imagine on the bright sunny days here in MI it would be OK for sports - compromising the speed to have the great length.
I am not sure though.

If anyone has experience using the 50-500 for sports, please let me know your thoughts, thanks!!!
12-11-2015, 05:13 PM   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 94
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Indoor sports are what the 70-200/2.8 is made for.

As norm pointed out, you can use a Tamron F AF 2x teleconverter with the 70-200/2.8 to get a 140-400/5.6. Less than $170 on eBay...
Seems like using the 2x multiplier is debatable with respect to still having the ability to focus well and get action shots.
I imagine it is debatable because of different lenses used and degrees of compatibility with the converters.
Also different abilities of the shooters.

I am a beginner, and if anyone would have a hard time with a slower lens trying to capture action - it would be me.

Do you know what teleconverters may pair best with a tamron 70-200 f2.8?
I was just at ebay looking at TCs - there are so many - it is hard to figure out what's what?!?!

---------- Post added 12-11-15 at 07:21 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by quant2325 Quote
f/5.6 is too slow for many sports and a 2x converters never, ever test well. 1.4x- 1.7x is about as far as you can get away with without degrading the quality of the image to the point where it is only usable for soccer moms.

---------- Post added 12-10-15 at 01:53 PM ----------



Just look at the photozone.de test results, which should mirror in real life (they did for me). The 60-250 is a great lens. It is sharp enough a f/4 throughout the range. The only thing wrong with it is that it is not an f.2.8, so too much of the background might be in focus when shooting a kid's soccer game from distance. Of course, a 70-200 with a tele-extender could be worse due to the effective change in aperture and image degradation. A really good 70-200 could be good enough as is, if you don't need the reach. The Sigma 50-500 (or whatever) probably will disappoint on the long end, and at best won't have the IQ of the 60-250 or a decent 70-200. But if you need the reach, it is an easy way to do it.

Hi,

Thanks for the info.
Do you have any thoughts on a good TC to pair with a tamron 70-200?
I checked ebay and it gets confusing with all of the naming and nomenclature for the TCs.

On this site - some of the higher rated ones that I think may work are:
Pentax DA 1.4x
tamron f1.4x pz-af - this one may be best for me because of price and matching the manufacturer - I could not find it on ebay though
promaster 1.7x
kenko 1.4x and 1.5x

Thanks,

---------- Post added 12-11-15 at 07:23 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by quant2325 Quote
f/5.6 is too slow for many sports and a 2x converters never, ever test well. 1.4x- 1.7x is about as far as you can get away with without degrading the quality of the image to the point where it is only usable for soccer moms.

---------- Post added 12-10-15 at 01:53 PM ----------



Just look at the photozone.de test results, which should mirror in real life (they did for me). The 60-250 is a great lens. It is sharp enough a f/4 throughout the range. The only thing wrong with it is that it is not an f.2.8, so too much of the background might be in focus when shooting a kid's soccer game from distance. Of course, a 70-200 with a tele-extender could be worse due to the effective change in aperture and image degradation. A really good 70-200 could be good enough as is, if you don't need the reach. The Sigma 50-500 (or whatever) probably will disappoint on the long end, and at best won't have the IQ of the 60-250 or a decent 70-200. But if you need the reach, it is an easy way to do it.

I like the idea of the long reach of the sigma - just not sure if the IQ, ability to focus, and ability to stop motion will be included.
Thanks for your time and advice!

Have you or anyone else here shot action with the 50-500?

Best,

---------- Post added 12-11-15 at 07:29 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kath Quote
I beg to differ. The OP spoke of outdoor sports as well. If I can catch an eagle flying 50mph on a cloudy Northwest day, surely the OP can capture girls playing soccer on an outdoor field, sun or not.
Hi Kath,

I imagine some of the issues with the kids sports that may be less prevalent with birds in flight would be:
interference with other players in front of the camera
sudden changes in direction

But if you can stop the motion of a bird going way faster than a person - that says a lot about the sigma 150-500
Have you used the 50-500 to be able to compare or say that the 50-500 can do the same?

In general, do lenses focus faster on objects that are closer?
For instance, when you use the 150-500 - does the camera and lens focus faster on a bird that is in the 150mm range versus an object in the 500mm range?

Thanks for your time and advice
12-11-2015, 06:27 PM - 1 Like   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Lenses have to travel further to focus in close so they are always faster at a distance. I'm not convinced a lens at ƒ5.6 is going to be slow focusing. I use my 60-250 with the 1.4, all the time, that's ƒ5.6 It also works with the 1.7,at 6.3. Using the A-400 with the 1.4 focus confirmation is accurate, with the 1.7 not at all. Focusing by eye is better. But I'd still really like to hear from someone who's actually used the Tamron 70-200 and 2x TC. When you are cutting it that close to the line you really want to see some images. VoiceOfReason has a Tamron 70-200 and 1.7 AF adapter. Maybe drop him a PM.

Find him in this thread.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/309462-best...ml#post3455877

Last edited by normhead; 12-14-2015 at 08:16 AM.
12-11-2015, 11:05 PM - 1 Like   #27
Site Supporter
Kath's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 737
QuoteQuote:
But if you can stop the motion of a bird going way faster than a person - that says a lot about the sigma 150-500
Have you used the 50-500 to be able to compare or say that the 50-500 can do the same?
I can't speak about the 50-500's performance, since I've never used it. But if you follow the Sigma or 300+ lens clubs here, you can read what folks have to say about it.

QuoteQuote:
In general, do lenses focus faster on objects that are closer?
For instance, when you use the 150-500 - does the camera and lens focus faster on a bird that is in the 150mm range versus an object in the 500mm range?

Thanks for your time and advice
We have to be sure we're using the same meaning when we talk about a lens being "fast" or not. In a zoom lens, unless the aperture is constant, you will get a bigger aperture at 150 than at 500, thereby letting more light into the lens, thereby allowing you to use a faster shutter speed, thereby making the lens "faster".

Then you have the issue of how "fast" the AF will lock on the subject. Some lenses are faster than others, and some are faster in certain circumstances. Then there's the question of how well the lens will stay focused on a moving target. I have found the 150-500 quite good in both of these regards.

My advice to you is to decide what range of focal length you are trying to shoot and then buy the lens in your budget that will fit that range. You can drive yourself crazy trying to figure out which is the "best" lens when, really, there are limited choices in each zoom range, further limited by one's budget. The two lenses you wished to compare in your original post are really made to cover two different ranges. You said in your original post that you can only reach half the outdoor field with the 70-200. You're not going to reach the other half with much less than 500. You can do that with either the 50-500 or the 150-500. It's unlikely you'll like either of those indoors.

---------- Post added 12-11-15 at 10:14 PM ----------

[/COLOR]Fyi, a Bigma just showed up for sale on the forum while I was writing this:

http://https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/309574-sale-sigma-50-500-bigma-1-4-2-0-sigma-t-c.html

Last edited by Kath; 12-11-2015 at 11:24 PM.
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!
50-500, 60-250, 70-200, camera, converter, element, field, front, games, iq, k-mount, lens, lenses, moisture, pentax, pentax 60-250 vs, pentax lens, photos, rain, sigma, slr lens, soccer, sports, tamron, vs sigma, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
60-250 vs. Sigma 50-500 MikeV Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 11-06-2015 06:54 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA* 60-250, 16-50, Sigma 10-20 3.5, Pentax 18-250 millertime Sold Items 9 10-04-2015 07:23 PM
FA50 vs 50-150 vs 60-250 for fun.... Santoku Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 11-12-2014 05:07 AM
Sigma 150-500 or Pentax 60-250 and a teleconverter ? arsenal_emyrates Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 05-24-2011 01:15 AM
Sigma 70-200 vs Pentax 60-250 normhead Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 02-13-2011 05:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:06 AM. | 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