Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-09-2015, 04:39 PM   #1
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 94
Pentax 60-250 vs Sigma 50-500

Hi Pentax friends,

I am relatively new to photography and I have been shooting with my first DSLR - a K3.

Mostly I have been shooting sports - my 3 daughters do a lot of indoor and outdoor sports.
So action shooting.

I like the tamron 70-200 f2.8 for indoor gymnastics, soccer, and field hockey.

However, for outdoor sports, it seems too short.
I have a hard time reaching much past about 1/2 the field in soccer and FH.
The photos turn out OK when I crop. But, it seems if I had more reach, I would be able to get even better photos.

Not sure if the extra 50mm would help out a ton for outdoor sports, but the WR would be nice.

I am sure the 500mm of the Bigma would reach across the fields, but I imagine that would be only an option on bright sunny days...therefore counting out many of the MI evening/night games and even maybe compromising day games when it is overcast (whether it is raining or not) because of the higher F#s of this lens...please correct me if I am wrong.

I look for any insight about these 2 lenses (and I know these lenses have been discussed before) specifically for outdoor sports.

Thanks!!!!

12-09-2015, 04:46 PM   #2
Veteran Member
bertwert's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Golden, BC
Posts: 15,173
They are quite different lenses...

But I would recommend the 60-250 for your needs.
QuoteOriginally posted by radman Quote
I am sure the 500mm of the Bigma would reach across the fields, but I imagine that would be only an option on bright sunny days...therefore counting out many of the MI evening/night games and even maybe compromising day games when it is overcast (whether it is raining or not) because of the higher F#s of this lens...please correct me if I am wrong.
It won't AF that well if it is darker i.e. overcast.
12-09-2015, 05:29 PM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,862
I had a Bigma, now gone to another Pentaxian, and now have a 60-250. IQ of the Bigma from 50 to about 300~350 is very good, but I think the 60~250 has an edge across the overlapping FL's. AF of the 60~250 is probably better, but I never did a side-by-side comparison of this feature. However, I have used the 60~250 (not the Bigma) at dog agility trials. When a dog is coming toward you over a jump, it's moving too fast for the AF to follow. The point of focus winds up let's say on the bar of the jump, but the dog's face, on which the red spot lit up, is already 15 inches closer to you and out of focus. Sometimes the AF would refuse to lock on a dog coming toward me over a jump (I eventually switched to pre-focusing manually and got more consistent results. The 60~250 is reasonable to hand-hold - - the Bigma really wants at least a sturdy monopod, but is happiest on a tripod. I'm skeptical that an additional 50mm and loss of one f-stop is a good trade-off. Money being no issue (but it always is) I would recommend considering the 150-450 which I think all tests and owner-evaluations indicate has IQ superior to the Bigma and almost on a par with the 60~250 over the shared focal lengths. It, like the Bigma, is best on a tripod or at least a monopod. No matter how steady you think you are, hand-holding such a heavy lens will cause some body-motion image degradation at any focal length above about 200~250mm.

Last edited by WPRESTO; 12-09-2015 at 05:39 PM.
12-09-2015, 07:04 PM   #4
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,124
If you can wait a few days I can do a comparison with the 150-500 (little bigma) and the 60-250. Heck, I'll even toss the Sigma 100-300 into the mix!

One thing I would do is get the HD DA 1.4 tc and try it with your Tamron. If that still seems too short then go for the Bigma or the Pentax 150-450.

12-09-2015, 07:49 PM   #5
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
If you can wait a few days I can do a comparison with the 150-500 (little bigma) and the 60-250. Heck, I'll even toss the Sigma 100-300 into the mix!

One thing I would do is get the HD DA 1.4 tc and try it with your Tamron. If that still seems too short then go for the Bigma or the Pentax 150-450.
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.
12-09-2015, 07:57 PM   #6
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 33
I shoot indoor figure skating with the 60-250, which is an upgrade from the 50-200 f/4-5.6 - almost zero difference in range. When using the 60-250, the range difference is barely noticeable from the 200mm mark to the 250mm one. The autofocus isn't the fastest but it does an alright job. I would definitely trade the last 50mm for the extra aperture speed your Tamron offers, but I am not sure how well it would do in the cold ice rink. I'm holding out for the FA* Pentax 70-200 2.8 this February. My advice would probably be to get or rent a teleconverter and see if that gets you what you're after.
12-09-2015, 08:05 PM   #7
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 94
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
I had a Bigma, now gone to another Pentaxian, and now have a 60-250. IQ of the Bigma from 50 to about 300~350 is very good, but I think the 60~250 has an edge across the overlapping FL's. AF of the 60~250 is probably better, but I never did a side-by-side comparison of this feature. However, I have used the 60~250 (not the Bigma) at dog agility trials. When a dog is coming toward you over a jump, it's moving too fast for the AF to follow. The point of focus winds up let's say on the bar of the jump, but the dog's face, on which the red spot lit up, is already 15 inches closer to you and out of focus. Sometimes the AF would refuse to lock on a dog coming toward me over a jump (I eventually switched to pre-focusing manually and got more consistent results. The 60~250 is reasonable to hand-hold - - the Bigma really wants at least a sturdy monopod, but is happiest on a tripod. I'm skeptical that an additional 50mm and loss of one f-stop is a good trade-off. Money being no issue (but it always is) I would recommend considering the 150-450 which I think all tests and owner-evaluations indicate has IQ superior to the Bigma and almost on a par with the 60~250 over the shared focal lengths. It, like the Bigma, is best on a tripod or at least a monopod. No matter how steady you think you are, hand-holding such a heavy lens will cause some body-motion image degradation at any focal length above about 200~250mm.
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,

12-09-2015, 08:14 PM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,862
WR will not prevent misty rain from accumulating on the front element and destroying IQ. It will prevent moisture from getting onto interior lens surfaces when the lens is zoomed on a foggy/misty day. Such internal moisture never gets back out short of dismantling the lens, and the longer it stays the more damage it causes, even to rendering the lens essentially useless.
12-09-2015, 08:14 PM   #9
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 94
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
If you can wait a few days I can do a comparison with the 150-500 (little bigma) and the 60-250. Heck, I'll even toss the Sigma 100-300 into the mix!

One thing I would do is get the HD DA 1.4 tc and try it with your Tamron. If that still seems too short then go for the Bigma or the Pentax 150-450.


I do not own the converter - that is the one on sale right now for around $500, right?
Does the tamron 70-200 f2.8 pair well with the Pentax converter?

I cannot afford the 150-400 by Pentax but the 50-500 is "affordable" in the used market.

One thing that I think would bother me about the converter on my tamron is the short end of the lens would be 105mm...when the play gets close, I have a hard time already with my framing of the action/kids.
I imagined that (framing the closer action photos) getting a bit better with the 60-250 and even another bit better with the 50-500.
I am concerned as mentioned above that the 50-500 may be too slow especially in low Michigan light (overcast skies, late games)...

I have considered getting a K-50 or a K-S2 to pair with my longer lens...I would put a 50mm f1.8 on it or if it is bright out my 18-55 DAL ...I do not have a fast short zoom.
I am not sure about getting my kids more embarrassed by me (the paparazzi as they say) when they see me with more gear, 2 cameras, tripods, monopods

I look forward to any more thoughts that you have especially after y9our comparison...thanks for your time!

---------- Post added 12-09-15 at 10:19 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
WR will not prevent misty rain from accumulating on the front element and destroying IQ. It will prevent moisture from getting onto interior lens surfaces when the lens is zoomed on a foggy/misty day. Such internal moisture never gets back out short of dismantling the lens, and the longer it stays the more damage it causes, even to rendering the lens essentially useless.

Hi,

What is the main utility of the WR lenses?

Is it to get the last photos of the shoot while the rain is just starting?
I imagine it is hard to keep shooting and expect to continue to get good images (IQ) with the rain/mist accumulating on the front element.

Is the WR more of an insurance; a just in case there is a sudden rain, a splash of fluid (squirt gun, hose...), or gusty wind at the beach (sand)?

Thanks for your insights!

---------- Post added 12-09-15 at 10:25 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pic-nic Quote
I shoot indoor figure skating with the 60-250, which is an upgrade from the 50-200 f/4-5.6 - almost zero difference in range. When using the 60-250, the range difference is barely noticeable from the 200mm mark to the 250mm one. The autofocus isn't the fastest but it does an alright job. I would definitely trade the last 50mm for the extra aperture speed your Tamron offers, but I am not sure how well it would do in the cold ice rink. I'm holding out for the FA* Pentax 70-200 2.8 this February. My advice would probably be to get or rent a teleconverter and see if that gets you what you're after.

Hi,

Thanks for the advice based on your experience...so basically the extra 50 does not make a big difference in your eyes/shots.
That was my concern in regards to shelling out nearly $1000.

My concern with the TC is that the short end would be 98 mm on my Tamron 70-200.
There are times already that I miss photos when the action gets close.

I do not have any WR lenses...pic-nic, you find that the WR is helpful in the cold environment of the ice rink?
Does it help prevent condensation when moving from cold to warm?

Thanks!

---------- Post added 12-09-15 at 10:29 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by bertwert Quote
They are quite different lenses...

But I would recommend the 60-250 for your needs.

It won't AF that well if it is darker i.e. overcast.

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!
12-09-2015, 08:32 PM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,862
The object is to keep moisture in particular out of the interior of a lens. If there's any detectable moisture in the air - fog, mist, drizzle, rain - the "breathing" of the lens, pulling air in when the lens is zoomed out, may/will pull in moisture which is then trapped inside, fogging lens surfaces, destroying lens coatings, and promoting corrosion and growth of fungus. Very fine powdery dust can also be pulled into the interior of a non-WR lens. WR cannot totally prevent such troublesome intrusions, but it greatly reduces the problem. If you are shooting outside in any form of inclement weather, WR is worth having for both camera and lenses.
12-09-2015, 08:34 PM   #11
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 94
Original Poster
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.


Hi normhead,

The issue I have with the converter, even the smaller multiplier, is that I would have an even harder time shooting the close up action.

My solution could be:
1. K3 with tamron 70-200 with a 1.4x (98-280) but now slower and probably not an option for late games.'
2. K50 or K-S2 with pentax 18-55 or my 50mm f1.8 (or my future short zoom with a f2.8...so many lenses that I want and so little $ to spend).

I am not sure if that is a good solution...I do not yet own a second camera body, but that is a consideration.

Thanks
12-09-2015, 08:46 PM   #12
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 33
QuoteOriginally posted by radman Quote
..so many lenses that I want and so little $ to spend)
Join the club, haha!

I do think the WR helps considerably with condensation, but the only lens I have without WR is my grandfather's old minolta lens from the 70s which did experience a lot of moisture build up when I left the rink.

The long lens hood should help some with rain and drops on the front element, but I really wouldn't have any lens out in a total downpour or even a heavy mist for too long.

I, too, have problems getting close, wide shots when the action is happening directly in front. I have considered getting another body with a wide angle prime lens for close ups and afterward to take portraits.
12-10-2015, 05:03 AM   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,862
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).
12-10-2015, 08:05 AM   #14
Site Supporter
Kath's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 737
QuoteOriginally posted by radman Quote
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.

The 50-500 market is OK for used lenses...I cannot afford a 150-400 unfortunately.
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.
12-10-2015, 08:14 AM   #15
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 33
QuoteOriginally posted by Kath Quote
The Sigma 150-500 is an ideal lens for what you're describing.
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.
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 12:41 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