[Billy Joe]

I have put off buying the zoom lens off my dreams for some time... but it is now or never.......

I need a fast zoom for the kid shots in the gyms (band) (dance) etc etc

I have always wanted the tamron 70-200 2.8 for the fast ap... But the 60-250 pentax is close in price right now... I realize it is a F4 lens...

So has anybody shot both? I tried the 60-250 for a few minutes when it first came out at a Pentax Demo in SF....

Anyone have the 60-250 that thinks it is the best lens in their bag?

Thanks

[Billy Joe]

Should mention, my friend is going to use this lens too... he likes to shoot dragsters, sometimes at night. I thought the 2.8 constant might be better for him in the Track Lighting at Sonoma Raceway...

I should mention he only takes pics of them at the start of the race when they first burn the tires... he does not try to follow them down the track.

[Driline]

I'd go for the 60-250 for better image quality.

[narual]

Keep in mind depth of field also matters.

You can get still shots in low light at 2.8, but moving things, you might end up needing to go to a wider depth of field and compensating via ISO instead. Flipping through some keeper shots I've taken, with the 60-250 I mostly stayed at f/4, but the 50-135 mostly ended up around f/4-5.6 as well, and much the same for the 77mm ltd, despite it being f/1.8 wide open.

Keeping in mind also, of course, that a lot of those shots I'm referencing were taken with the K5, which wasn't that great at nailing focus in low light. The K3 is better and might allow for a more open aperture without the shot being soft.

[MikeD]

i have the 60-250 and love it and it is may best lens. I think one factor would be if you plan to get the FF

[wizofoz]

I have the 60-250 and the Sigma variant of the 70-200. I don't shoot that long very often, but when I do I reach for the Pentax. There is just a certain something about the IQ, the handling, the quality of the lens that gives it the nod.

Plus the focus ring turns the 'right' way

Maybe the 70-200 will get more work once the K-1 makes its way to my bag.

[radman]

Hi,

I cannot speak to the 60-250. I have never used that one.

The Tamron on my K3 is "great" for me at getting sports shots. I put great in quotes, because I am not a "great" photographer by any means, but this combo has been getting me the shots that I want for my indoor and outdoor sports.

I posed the same ? you did a while back and even though I understand that the 60-250 has great IQ, I did not find many people using it for sports.
Has this changed? Can someone vouch for the 60-250 as a sports lens? If so, how about low light (night time and indoor) sporting events?

I hope this helps,

[audiobomber]

I'd go for the 60-250 for better image quality.

What makes you think that? They look pretty close in the Photozone tests. Although the numbers are not directly comparable, both lenses are rated four stars overall. The Pentax has silent AF, better range, quick shift focus and WR. The Tamron is a stop faster, which is pretty significant for low light shooting. Canadian prices were not comparable, I got the Tamron for half the cost of the Pentax.

[filoxophy]

normhead sings the praises of his 60-250. Maybe shoot him a PM asking him to weigh in.

[jatrax]

Anyone have the 60-250 that thinks it is the best lens in their bag?

Yep. Cannot speak for it's use in sports, I don't shoot anything like that. And cannot compare it to a 70-200 f/2.8 either. But despite it's size I rarely go anywhere without it. It's the lens I use when it absolutely positively has to be right.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I don't have either lens, but have shot the Canon L 200 f/2.8 II quite a bit in action situations. First, you generally want a bit more than 200mm for a lot of sports (the 200 takes to a decent TC without any problems - and the 280 f/4 effective result is not far off from the Pentax at 250 f/4). The Canon is the best overall lens I own (although I mostly shoot Pentax). Speed, handling, IQ, AF accuracy... pretty amazing. I can shoot it wide open with more far more confidence than other lenses.

The Tamron is really good, but the marginal AF accuracy and speed, and wide open optical quality fully extended begs for shooting it at no more open than f/4 if you want to get an action shot. However, get the Tamron if you are considering getting FF down the road - it is a great overall deal in that respect - and might not be around much longer (new).

Just based on the 60-250 images I've seen, I doubt there is a telezoom with better overall image quality out to the corners - contrast and saturation is spectacular, and resolution is not far behind. It wasn't designed for sports, but it seems to have done well in a pinch for folks like John Flores - who does use it for action; no worse than the Tamron. The lens is just fine wide open and the extra reach to 250mm is more significant than it sounds. The extra 10mm on the wide end allows it to be used more conveniently for portraits. The build is superior, SDM surprisingly sound, and the WR reportedly is very solid. The lens is a bit lighter and the filter size is smaller, so the lens is clearly more versatile - and more likely to be brought along.

[UncleVanya]

So I don't have the 70-200. I do have the 60-250. It is a SHARP lens with strong rendering. But focus is a bit sluggish. Manual focus or quick shift can help. I owned and sold the lens that I would have used for sports the FA* 80-200. It was a quick focusing lens comparatively and it was every bit as strong in IQ.

That said it is 1 stop and you may need the depth of field as indicated above. The sluggish autofocus may not be a big deal - buy the 60-250 or 70-200 new and return it if it doesn't meet your needs.

[noelpolar]

Just to confuse.... I'd get a near new Sigma 70-200 OS HSM (last model) if I could find one ..... quite, focuses fast, sharp wide open at both ends, FF compatible. I have one.... and use it quite a bit between F2.8 and 4.

[mattb123]

I rented the Tamron once to shoot gymnastics. I own the 60-250. I like the 60-250 the best for most things but for that gymnastics meet f/2.8 helped. I didn't make any money or get all that into the gymnastics meet anyway so the 60-250 suits me better for shooting outdoors. The Tamron was loud to focus, even compared to other screw drive lenses.

WR is good peace of mind too.

[sbc]

I have the 60-250 which I use for airshows. Produce stunning photos!