[cxdoo]

In the US it is about 770 to 880 USD

Oh well. There's already a topic to comment on that.

[Billy Joe]

Sigma 70-200 at an air show...... just one egret with this lens.


Another passing egret today.jpg by Noel Leahy, on Flickr

Beautiful shot...

---------- Post added 01-07-16 at 07:51 AM ----------

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.

I have the 77 and have seldom shot it not wide open... but you may be right about the f4 even on the tammy for dof

---------- Post added 01-07-16 at 07:52 AM ----------

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,

Thank you, it does help

---------- Post added 01-07-16 at 08:24 AM ----------

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.

Thank you for the detailed input to the choice I have to make...

---------- Post added 01-07-16 at 08:25 AM ----------

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.

Thanks Dan... much appreciated

[savoche]

Focus breathing means that the focal length changes when focus distance changes. In the case of the 60-250, the lens is 250 mm only when focusing far away. If you focus on something like 20 feet away I believe the effective focal length is around 200 mm.

[UncleVanya]

Focus breathing means that the focal length changes when focus distance changes. In the case of the 60-250, the lens is 250 mm only when focusing far away. If you focus on something like 20 feet away I believe the effective focal length is around 200 mm.

It is actually even less than that. I have it and can test but I would say more like 150mm close in. The da* 200 has a narrower field of view until you are perhaps focused 10m away - maybe farther.

[jatrax]

I have it and can test but I would say more like 150mm close in.

I was going to say 180mm but it might be as low as 150mm. I've never tested it but the difference is easily noticeable.

I love the lens but for some applications it is not the correct tool. If I were shooting sports I would probably have the 70-200 f/2.8 but for what I do the 60-250 is very close to ideal.

[eminker]

I've had my Pentax DA 60-250mm for two years and with exception of very long hikes, that lens goes in my camera bag every time. The resolution and colors are fabulous, AF is so-so and the only two negatives are weight
and the growing of the lens. I wouldn't trade for a Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 just to get a faster lens. Mind you, Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm are very good lenses but I prefer the Pentax colors and the additional 50mm on the long end.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I was going to say 180mm but it might be as low as 150mm. I've never tested it but the difference is easily noticeable.

I love the lens but for some applications it is not the correct tool. If I were shooting sports I would probably have the 70-200 f/2.8 but for what I do the 60-250 is very close to ideal.

This discussion amuses me because every time people assume that the Tamron is 200mm at all focus measurements. In fact, Bob Atkins reports that it goes down to 140mm at minimum focus. I have no idea if the Pentax is more drastic at medium distances (the Tamron and most others typically show more of the breathing loss takes place close to minimum focus) - but based on reports the Pentax is a heavier breather at say, 20 meters.

[narual]

I have the 77 and have seldom shot it not wide open... but you may be right about the f4 even on the tammy for dof

---------- Post added 01-07-16 at 07:52 AM ----------

Really kind of a wrong lens for the job case I was referencing. 77 was the longest lens I'd brought with me and I ended up at an event I hadn't planned for. Dark, bad stage lighting, fast moving dancers. 77 couldn't focus tightly on details because I was too far away. Probably would have been nearly as bad if they were standing still. Even at f/4 and f/5.6 I didn't get very many keepers. (I was far enough away that the 31mm covered almost the entire stage. So really not playing to the 77s strength)

[normhead]

thanks --- I too would love the perfect deal... It is a six year warranty in the states, so why can't you send it back till you get a good one?

How many months is it going to be in the repair depot before you get to use your brand new lens?


________________________________

On the topic of Focus Breathing.... even though I think the term sucks, but it's what everyone uses, here's the low down.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/309623-comp...100-300-a.html

[northcoastgreg]

Although I'm generally not a huge fan of 3rd party glass, when I needed a lens in this range a few years ago, I purchased the Tamron largely on the basis of cost (I paid $640 for the Tamron; at the time 60-250 was going for ~$1,300). Had the 60-250 been going for the current price, I might have purchased that lens instead. Although I'm yet to be convinced there's any significant difference in sharpness (the Tammy is plenty sharp, even at f2.8), the 60-250 has slighlty better contrast and, of course, those Pentax colors everyone talks about.

Having said all that, nevertheless, if you're buying the lens for indoor sports, you're going to need an f2.8 lens. The Tammy may not be ideal for sports (particularly if you're trying to track fast moving objects), but if that's all you can afford, it will do. Optically, a good copy of the lens will deliver the goods. It's sharp wide open, and tack sharp at f4. Very good contrast. Very nice color rendering of reds, yellows, and dark blues and greens. Excellent lens for the price.

A sample:

[normhead]

Although I'm generally not a huge fan of 3rd party glass, when I needed a lens in this range a few years ago, I purchased the Tamron largely on the basis of cost (I paid $640 for the Tamron; at the time 60-250 was going for ~$1,300). Had the 60-250 been going for the current price, I might have purchased that lens instead. Although I'm yet to be convinced there's any significant difference in sharpness (the Tammy is plenty sharp, even at f2.8), the 60-250 has slighlty better contrast and, of course, those Pentax colors everyone talks about.

Having said all that, nevertheless, if you're buying the lens for indoor sports, you're going to need an f2.8 lens. The Tammy may not be ideal for sports (particularly if you're trying to track fast moving objects), but if that's all you can afford, it will do. Optically, a good copy of the lens will deliver the goods. It's sharp wide open, and tack sharp at f4. Very good contrast. Very nice color rendering of reds, yellows, and dark blues and greens. Excellent lens for the price.

A sample:

No-one who got a good copy of this lens is less than thrilled with it as far as i can tell, that's a pretty typical opinion.

[UncleVanya]

This discussion amuses me because every time people assume that the Tamron is 200mm at all focus measurements. In fact, Bob Atkins reports that it goes down to 140mm at minimum focus. I have no idea if the Pentax is more drastic at medium distances (the Tamron and most others typically show more of the breathing loss takes place close to minimum focus) - but based on reports the Pentax is a heavier breather at say, 20 meters.

Sorry - you're assuming that's my assumption (lots of ass-u-me's there.. LOL) I only can compare with the FA* 80-200 and the DA* 200 - both of which were a lot (LOT) longer at short focus than the DA* 60-250. The 18-135 also does this but it is almost never a topic for discussion. I noticed that one when comparing it to my Takumar Bayonet 135 f/2.5 lens. The difference at short distances was startling. Generally (but not always) it is seen more with internal focus lenses - but some seem to escape the phenomena to a degree.

[wizofoz]

Sigma 70-200 at an air show...... just one egret with this lens.


Another passing egret today.jpg by Noel Leahy, on Flickr

Egrets,I've shot a few, but then again, too few to mention.....

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Sorry - you're assuming that's my assumption (lots of ass-u-me's there.. LOL) I only can compare with the FA* 80-200 and the DA* 200 - both of which were a lot (LOT) longer at short focus than the DA* 60-250. The 18-135 also does this but it is almost never a topic for discussion. I noticed that one when comparing it to my Takumar Bayonet 135 f/2.5 lens. The difference at short distances was startling. Generally (but not always) it is seen more with internal focus lenses - but some seem to escape the phenomena to a degree.

I didn't at all mean to put it all on you. Several folks in the thread referred only to the 60-250, and I just wanted people to be aware that the Tamron has the same problem, but possibly to a lesser extent. A big part of why prime telephotos outperform zooms is the focus breathing issue, and the difference in transmission (light loss due to design complexity) is another factor. These are mostly unreported specifications. An f/2.8 prime might be nearly a quarter stop faster than the corresponding zoom, not to mention easier to handle.

[normhead]

And my F70-210 is longer than my 60-250 at 15 feet. This can go on for ever. The funny thing is, the price for the extra magnification I get because my F 70-210 is extends further and gives you max. image size close in, the result is you can't use a TC. It's already of CA galore without one.