Have 70-200, do I need 60-250

Nicolas06 · 11-04-2016, 04:22 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

Originally posted by BigMackCam

We could bounce this back and forth all night. My comment about backing up was made to underline the fact that the OP does not need both lenses, and wouldn't necessarily gain a lot from getting the 60-250 in that respect.

Whatever you and I may think on the importance of 60mm over 70mm at the short end and focus breathing at close range, we agree that the 60-250 is a very good lens

+1

60 vs 70mm the difference is quite minor. There not that many case where 60mm is perfect and 70mm very bad. It make much more sense to complement a 70-200 with a 17-50 or 16-85 than a 60-250...

As focus breathing this is significant because you typically need the most reach for birds where you need to be close anyway to still have some acceptable shot. In that respect the 60-250 isn't that conveniant.

I don't think it is worth to have both the tamron and the Pentax. I'd be more to decide for one between f/2.8 and a bit bigger lens and f/4 and a bit more reach.

I'd say purely photographically the tamron offer more because of f/2.8 that make it much more interresting for portraiture and is quite conveniant is many low light situation too. For reach and range, they are more similar than different. The main drawback of the f/2.8 is weight/size. Not this is not an important point, but one should know where his priorities are.

For me, this is size/weight. 55-300 is f/4.5 until 190mm. It is much smaller/ligher and you can manage more than a few great shots with it. I might have considered better if I was an heavy user (but certainly thinking to own both 70-200 and 60-250) but as this the 55-300 offer a lot.

In that regard, tamron 70-200 really offer something more: sharpness AND apperture. 60-250 is only offering sharpness. In difficult conditions, f/2.8 will make the difference. In easy conditions, a 55-300 does the job

DA55-300

Nicolas06 · 11-04-2016, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by gkreth

Well, just to reiterate what I said in the first post, I often don't have the option of stepping back, at least in the scenario I was describing in this post.

But, no prob, and the lens I was considering has already sold.

This was the item I was considering:
PENTAX Pentax DA 60-250mm f/4 SDM DA Lens 27075141247 | eBay

It already sold, which was good, because I was too much on the fence, and really leaning toward the "I don't really need it" side

I already have the following:

Tamron 70-200
Sigma 50-500
Pentax 55-300
Tamron 1.4x (which makes the Tamron a 98-280 f/4)

The 60-250 is obviously faster than the either the 50-500 or the 55-300, but really, I couldn't justify the cost, based on what I already have.

Thanks for all the input!

Greg

I think you setup is better as it is today than replacing something with the 60-250.

You can't beat 70-200 because of f/2.8
You can't beat 55-300 for size/weight
You can't beat 50-500 for reach.

You have a zoom for each situation. The 60-250 would be better than 55-300 and heavier, but not necessarily any better than 70-200 and likely would provide far less reach than 50-500.

At least here you have quite different lenses. Having too many, too similar, is not that interresting.

**Scorpio71GR** · 11-05-2016, 06:27 AM - **2 Likes**

OK I own three of the lenses you mention. The DA*50-135, DA*60-250, and the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Why do ask do I have all three? Well it is a bit of owning Pentax for 3 decades and a bit LBA.

The 50-135 was the first one I bought years ago for portrait work and to have a lightweight high quality telephoto zooom. It is lightweight, relatively small, weather sealed, and just takes amazing photos. It also works well with my Tamron 1.4TC. On an APS-C camera it is a wonderful lens to use if you do not need lighting fast autofocus.

Later on I bought the 60-250 when B&H had a used one for $600. I really wanted to try one out. I figured I could always sell it later. Unfortunately I used the 60-250 so there is no chance of that now. The 60-250 is an interesting lens. It covers a focal range I use often. It simply just takes amazing photos. The build quality is excellent. The only downside for me is when extended fully it can be a bit off balanced trying to hand hold without a grip. The 60-250 is small enough when fully retracted to easily fit in most bags and backpacks. Couple this lens with a 1.4TC or my 1.7AF converter and you have a nice lightweight wildlife kit. It works very well with both. I much rather carry my 60-250 and 1.7 AF Adapter than my Sigma 50-500. With the adapter I get 425mm so that is not bad. However the close up focusing of the 60-250 is a bit lacking. I do not consider this a fault since the lens was not designed for it. Of course in low light F4 does not help a lot. One last observation is of course the SDM motor is just not the fastest. OF the 3 SDM lenses I have the 60-250 seems the fastest. However there are faster lenses out there. I really do not consider the autofocus a hindrance at all. I do not use this lens for sports but I believe you could do it.

Lastly is the Tamron 70-200. I often heard that ever photographer should have a 200mm f2.8 lens and I agree. For the money you simply can not find a better 70-200 f2.8 lens. Yes there are bad copies out there, but that is with a lot of lenses. I always fully test a lens as soon as I get it for at least the first two weeks. The Tamron lives up to all of the great reviews it gets if you get a good copy. So what does the Tamron bring that the 60-250 does not have you ask? Well f2.8 of course which helps greatly when focusing in low light or in doors. Even though this lens utilizes screwdrive, on the K3 it simply focuses very fast. It is much better suited for close up work and I really enjoy using it for butterflies. When shooting at a feeder I find I get better results with the Tamron than the 60-250. However you really need to be close and at the longest focal length to experience this in my opinion. The Tamron was designed as a full frame lens so it will work perfectly on the K1 with no modification. The 60-250 needs a modification to really work on the K1 at 100%. The DFA 70-200 is simply too expensive for me and too heavy to carry in the field.

Since getting the 60-250 my 50-135 has simply not seen much use. I have thought of selling it. If I am going out in bad weather of course the 60-250 is going and the Tamron stays home. When shooting early in the day or later in the evening I take the Tamron. Since the Tamron has both internal focus and zoom I find it handles better than 60-250 when fully extended. I do not let the funky focus clutch bother me on the Tamron. Quick shift would be nice but it is not a deal breaker for me on this lens. For portrait work the Tamron wins hands down. Only the 50-135 can compete and of course that is not a full frame lens.

So is there a need for both the Tamron 70-200 and the 60-250? Well yes and no. It depends on what kind of photography you do and how extensive your needs are. They really are different lenses. For landscape and wildlife photography the 60-250 can not be beat here. However if you shoot in low light, enjoy shooting sports, or close up shots and weather sealing is not a deal breaker, the Tamron may be better.

I will add that I briefly owned the Sigma 70-200 OS HSM and I returned it. The Sigma was an awesome lens. Fantastic shots and lighting fast autofocus. However for me the extra 2.2kgs was a major downside. It may not seem like much but after 5 hours of hiking I feel it. I try to keep my bad as light as possible and every ounce counts. Also the MFD was not any better than the 60-250. The only thing the Sigma brought that 60-250 did not was f2.8 and of course being full frame. Of course the Sigma needs the modification to the flange to be used on the K1 without scratching it. I ended up sending the Sigma back due to a sticky aperture. I enjoy using both lenses and I am glad I have them.

gkreth · 11-07-2016, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by btnapa

Hi Greg,
How is the performance of the 70-200 with the 1.4X? Is it still good or the quality drops off too much?

Ya know, I'm not sure.... I did some test shots eight months ago, when I first got the 70-200, but I have not taken the 1.4x "out into the field." My son has a football game coming up on Friday; I will bring the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs along and try them out....

Greg

**Scorpio71GR** · 11-07-2016, 03:42 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by btnapa

Hi Greg,

How is the performance of the 70-200 with the 1.4X? Is it still good or the quality drops off too much?

This my Tamron 70-200 2.8 with the Tamron 1.4TC at 200mm and f4 on my K3. Effective field of view, 280mm and f5.6. I am very happy with mine.

For comparison this one with the DA*60-250 and Tamron 1.4TC at 250mm and f5.6. Effective field of view, 350mm and f8.

btnapa · 11-07-2016, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Scorpio71GR

This my Tamron 70-200 2.8 with the Tamron 1.4TC at 200mm and f4 on my K3. Effective field of view, 280mm and f5.6. I am very happy with mine.

For comparison this one with the DA*60-250 and Tamron 1.4TC at 250mm and f5.6. Effective field of view, 350mm and f8.

The images look fantastic. Thank you for sharing.

jayman_1975 · 11-08-2016, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Scorpio71GR

This my Tamron 70-200 2.8 with the Tamron 1.4TC at 200mm and f4 on my K3. Effective field of view, 280mm and f5.6. I am very happy with mine.

For comparison this one with the DA*60-250 and Tamron 1.4TC at 250mm and f5.6. Effective field of view, 350mm and f8.

The last pic is the best in my books. Amazing detail. Beautiful colors.

**Scorpio71GR** · 11-08-2016, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by btnapa

The images look fantastic. Thank you for sharing.

Thank you.

---------- Post added 11-08-16 at 12:31 PM ----------

Originally posted by jayman_1975

The last pic is the best in my books. Amazing detail. Beautiful colors.

Thank you, that is one of my favorite shots from last year. For color rendition, the DA*60-250 beats the Tamron 70-200 hands down.

mikshyle · 11-21-2016, 02:34 PM

So glad I came upon this thread..... My dilemma, I recently purchased the tamron 70-200 2.8. Mainly for shooting a lot of HS sports. I work in the school and do all the sports photography. I had read a lot of mixed reviews about this lens not having the best auto focus for fast action sports. I choose to buy it and test it out within the 30 day return period being that choices for a sports lens for pentax is so limited

I shot a FB game(sunny day) and was ecstatic with the images !! But then to my great disappointment ...... I shot an indoor volleyball game and the pictures were awful it was taking a long time to focus and I had more blur than not

I saw one of the first posts in this thread where it was stated that a night time football game was shot with great results.... I am so frustrated I love my camera and the results that I get. But after this outing I have been considering get a 2nd camera (canon where I have more lens options) I have a K50, th could I have done something wrong when shooting indoors? should I have been able to get good results with this lens and my camera? Having some hope that a new camera is not the route I need to take. Or do I need to upgrade my camera body
Any advice is so greatly appreciated !!! One other thing, I was considering was ordering the Pentax 70-200. But I am so on the fence due to the size, weight and price. And cant find much feedback on it.
Thanks,
Kim

narual · 11-21-2016, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Scorpio71GR

For color rendition, the DA*60-250 beats the Tamron 70-200 hands down.

That's an excellent point. One of the best reasons to have a pentax is the pentax color rendition, and you don't get that as much with third party glass.

The 50-135 and 60-250 are just gorgeous in that regard. I rarely mess with the colors from those in post unless the light sucked.

**Scorpio71GR** · 11-21-2016, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by mikshyle

So glad I came upon this thread..... My dilemma, I recently purchased the tamron 70-200 2.8. Mainly for shooting a lot of HS sports. I work in the school and do all the sports photography. I had read a lot of mixed reviews about this lens not having the best auto focus for fast action sports. I choose to buy it and test it out within the 30 day return period being that choices for a sports lens for pentax is so limited

I shot a FB game(sunny day) and was ecstatic with the images !! But then to my great disappointment ...... I shot an indoor volleyball game and the pictures were awful it was taking a long time to focus and I had more blur than not

I saw one of the first posts in this thread where it was stated that a night time football game was shot with great results.... I am so frustrated I love my camera and the results that I get. But after this outing I have been considering get a 2nd camera (canon where I have more lens options) I have a K50, th could I have done something wrong when shooting indoors? should I have been able to get good results with this lens and my camera? Having some hope that a new camera is not the route I need to take. Or do I need to upgrade my camera body
Any advice is so greatly appreciated !!! One other thing, I was considering was ordering the Pentax 70-200. But I am so on the fence due to the size, weight and price. And cant find much feedback on it.
Thanks,
Kim

I have a K3 and a K50. In low light conditions my K3 is leap years ahead of my K50. The K50 does fine in normal lighting conditions. A K3, K3ii, or even a K70 would autofocus much better your K50. Also remember that the autofocus system is the achilles heal of the Pentax system. I have shot outdoor football games with my K3 with success. Make sure you use either center or spot autofocus. Shoot in Burst mode and keep your shutter speed up.

---------- Post added 11-21-16 at 07:12 PM ----------

Originally posted by narual

That's an excellent point. One of the best reasons to have a pentax is the pentax color rendition, and you don't get that as much with third party glass.

The 50-135 and 60-250 are just gorgeous in that regard. I rarely mess with the colors from those in post unless the light sucked.

I love my Tamron 70-200, but my 60-250 is my special lens.

11-04-2016, 04:22 PM	#16
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. Originally posted by BigMackCam We could bounce this back and forth all night. My comment about backing up was made to underline the fact that the OP does not need both lenses, and wouldn't necessarily gain a lot from getting the 60-250 in that respect. Whatever you and I may think on the importance of 60mm over 70mm at the short end and focus breathing at close range, we agree that the 60-250 is a very good lens +1 60 vs 70mm the difference is quite minor. There not that many case where 60mm is perfect and 70mm very bad. It make much more sense to complement a 70-200 with a 17-50 or 16-85 than a 60-250... As focus breathing this is significant because you typically need the most reach for birds where you need to be close anyway to still have some acceptable shot. In that respect the 60-250 isn't that conveniant. I don't think it is worth to have both the tamron and the Pentax. I'd be more to decide for one between f/2.8 and a bit bigger lens and f/4 and a bit more reach. I'd say purely photographically the tamron offer more because of f/2.8 that make it much more interresting for portraiture and is quite conveniant is many low light situation too. For reach and range, they are more similar than different. The main drawback of the f/2.8 is weight/size. Not this is not an important point, but one should know where his priorities are. For me, this is size/weight. 55-300 is f/4.5 until 190mm. It is much smaller/ligher and you can manage more than a few great shots with it. I might have considered better if I was an heavy user (but certainly thinking to own both 70-200 and 60-250) but as this the 55-300 offer a lot. In that regard, tamron 70-200 really offer something more: sharpness AND apperture. 60-250 is only offering sharpness. In difficult conditions, f/2.8 will make the difference. In easy conditions, a 55-300 does the job DA55-300 DA55-300 DA55-300

11-04-2016, 04:26 PM	#17
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by gkreth Well, just to reiterate what I said in the first post, I often don't have the option of stepping back, at least in the scenario I was describing in this post. But, no prob, and the lens I was considering has already sold. This was the item I was considering: PENTAX Pentax DA 60-250mm f/4 SDM DA Lens 27075141247 \| eBay It already sold, which was good, because I was too much on the fence, and really leaning toward the "I don't really need it" side I already have the following: Tamron 70-200 Sigma 50-500 Pentax 55-300 Tamron 1.4x (which makes the Tamron a 98-280 f/4) The 60-250 is obviously faster than the either the 50-500 or the 55-300, but really, I couldn't justify the cost, based on what I already have. Thanks for all the input! Greg I think you setup is better as it is today than replacing something with the 60-250. You can't beat 70-200 because of f/2.8 You can't beat 55-300 for size/weight You can't beat 50-500 for reach. You have a zoom for each situation. The 60-250 would be better than 55-300 and heavier, but not necessarily any better than 70-200 and likely would provide far less reach than 50-500. At least here you have quite different lenses. Having too many, too similar, is not that interresting.

11-05-2016, 06:27 AM - 2 Likes	#18
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,014	OK I own three of the lenses you mention. The DA50-135, DA60-250, and the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Why do ask do I have all three? Well it is a bit of owning Pentax for 3 decades and a bit LBA. The 50-135 was the first one I bought years ago for portrait work and to have a lightweight high quality telephoto zooom. It is lightweight, relatively small, weather sealed, and just takes amazing photos. It also works well with my Tamron 1.4TC. On an APS-C camera it is a wonderful lens to use if you do not need lighting fast autofocus. Later on I bought the 60-250 when B&H had a used one for $600. I really wanted to try one out. I figured I could always sell it later. Unfortunately I used the 60-250 so there is no chance of that now. The 60-250 is an interesting lens. It covers a focal range I use often. It simply just takes amazing photos. The build quality is excellent. The only downside for me is when extended fully it can be a bit off balanced trying to hand hold without a grip. The 60-250 is small enough when fully retracted to easily fit in most bags and backpacks. Couple this lens with a 1.4TC or my 1.7AF converter and you have a nice lightweight wildlife kit. It works very well with both. I much rather carry my 60-250 and 1.7 AF Adapter than my Sigma 50-500. With the adapter I get 425mm so that is not bad. However the close up focusing of the 60-250 is a bit lacking. I do not consider this a fault since the lens was not designed for it. Of course in low light F4 does not help a lot. One last observation is of course the SDM motor is just not the fastest. OF the 3 SDM lenses I have the 60-250 seems the fastest. However there are faster lenses out there. I really do not consider the autofocus a hindrance at all. I do not use this lens for sports but I believe you could do it. Lastly is the Tamron 70-200. I often heard that ever photographer should have a 200mm f2.8 lens and I agree. For the money you simply can not find a better 70-200 f2.8 lens. Yes there are bad copies out there, but that is with a lot of lenses. I always fully test a lens as soon as I get it for at least the first two weeks. The Tamron lives up to all of the great reviews it gets if you get a good copy. So what does the Tamron bring that the 60-250 does not have you ask? Well f2.8 of course which helps greatly when focusing in low light or in doors. Even though this lens utilizes screwdrive, on the K3 it simply focuses very fast. It is much better suited for close up work and I really enjoy using it for butterflies. When shooting at a feeder I find I get better results with the Tamron than the 60-250. However you really need to be close and at the longest focal length to experience this in my opinion. The Tamron was designed as a full frame lens so it will work perfectly on the K1 with no modification. The 60-250 needs a modification to really work on the K1 at 100%. The DFA 70-200 is simply too expensive for me and too heavy to carry in the field. Since getting the 60-250 my 50-135 has simply not seen much use. I have thought of selling it. If I am going out in bad weather of course the 60-250 is going and the Tamron stays home. When shooting early in the day or later in the evening I take the Tamron. Since the Tamron has both internal focus and zoom I find it handles better than 60-250 when fully extended. I do not let the funky focus clutch bother me on the Tamron. Quick shift would be nice but it is not a deal breaker for me on this lens. For portrait work the Tamron wins hands down. Only the 50-135 can compete and of course that is not a full frame lens. So is there a need for both the Tamron 70-200 and the 60-250? Well yes and no. It depends on what kind of photography you do and how extensive your needs are. They really are different lenses. For landscape and wildlife photography the 60-250 can not be beat here. However if you shoot in low light, enjoy shooting sports, or close up shots and weather sealing is not a deal breaker, the Tamron may be better. I will add that I briefly owned the Sigma 70-200 OS HSM and I returned it. The Sigma was an awesome lens. Fantastic shots and lighting fast autofocus. However for me the extra 2.2kgs was a major downside. It may not seem like much but after 5 hours of hiking I feel it. I try to keep my bad as light as possible and every ounce counts. Also the MFD was not any better than the 60-250. The only thing the Sigma brought that 60-250 did not was f2.8 and of course being full frame. Of course the Sigma needs the modification to the flange to be used on the K1 without scratching it. I ended up sending the Sigma back due to a sticky aperture. I enjoy using both lenses and I am glad I have them. Last edited by Scorpio71GR; 11-05-2016 at 01:41 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 60-250 F4 vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8	gerax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	06-22-2020 05:43 AM
Honesty - 60-250 vs 70-200	Billy Joe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	69	01-09-2016 08:58 AM
Tamron 70-200+1.4xTC (vs) Pentax 60-250	snimcho	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	06-03-2015 01:48 AM
What do you photograph with the 60-250, 70-200?	UncleVanya	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	44	01-28-2015 01:42 PM
Field Sports - DA*60~250 [or] Tamron 70~200 [or] Sigma 70~200	joe.penn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	02-03-2014 06:11 AM

11-07-2016, 02:47 PM	#19
gkreth Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 68 Original Poster	Originally posted by btnapa Hi Greg, How is the performance of the 70-200 with the 1.4X? Is it still good or the quality drops off too much? Ya know, I'm not sure.... I did some test shots eight months ago, when I first got the 70-200, but I have not taken the 1.4x "out into the field." My son has a football game coming up on Friday; I will bring the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs along and try them out.... Greg

11-07-2016, 03:42 PM - 1 Like	#20
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,014	Originally posted by btnapa Hi Greg, How is the performance of the 70-200 with the 1.4X? Is it still good or the quality drops off too much? This my Tamron 70-200 2.8 with the Tamron 1.4TC at 200mm and f4 on my K3. Effective field of view, 280mm and f5.6. I am very happy with mine. For comparison this one with the DA*60-250 and Tamron 1.4TC at 250mm and f5.6. Effective field of view, 350mm and f8.

11-07-2016, 07:28 PM	#21
btnapa Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,621	Originally posted by Scorpio71GR This my Tamron 70-200 2.8 with the Tamron 1.4TC at 200mm and f4 on my K3. Effective field of view, 280mm and f5.6. I am very happy with mine. For comparison this one with the DA*60-250 and Tamron 1.4TC at 250mm and f5.6. Effective field of view, 350mm and f8. The images look fantastic. Thank you for sharing.

11-08-2016, 08:25 AM	#22
jayman_1975 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 385	Originally posted by Scorpio71GR This my Tamron 70-200 2.8 with the Tamron 1.4TC at 200mm and f4 on my K3. Effective field of view, 280mm and f5.6. I am very happy with mine. For comparison this one with the DA*60-250 and Tamron 1.4TC at 250mm and f5.6. Effective field of view, 350mm and f8. The last pic is the best in my books. Amazing detail. Beautiful colors.

11-08-2016, 10:29 AM	#23
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,014	Originally posted by btnapa The images look fantastic. Thank you for sharing. Thank you. ---------- Post added 11-08-16 at 12:31 PM ---------- Originally posted by jayman_1975 The last pic is the best in my books. Amazing detail. Beautiful colors. Thank you, that is one of my favorite shots from last year. For color rendition, the DA*60-250 beats the Tamron 70-200 hands down.

11-21-2016, 02:34 PM	#24
mikshyle Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 51	So glad I came upon this thread..... My dilemma, I recently purchased the tamron 70-200 2.8. Mainly for shooting a lot of HS sports. I work in the school and do all the sports photography. I had read a lot of mixed reviews about this lens not having the best auto focus for fast action sports. I choose to buy it and test it out within the 30 day return period being that choices for a sports lens for pentax is so limited I shot a FB game(sunny day) and was ecstatic with the images !! But then to my great disappointment ...... I shot an indoor volleyball game and the pictures were awful it was taking a long time to focus and I had more blur than not I saw one of the first posts in this thread where it was stated that a night time football game was shot with great results.... I am so frustrated I love my camera and the results that I get. But after this outing I have been considering get a 2nd camera (canon where I have more lens options) I have a K50, th could I have done something wrong when shooting indoors? should I have been able to get good results with this lens and my camera? Having some hope that a new camera is not the route I need to take. Or do I need to upgrade my camera body Any advice is so greatly appreciated !!! One other thing, I was considering was ordering the Pentax 70-200. But I am so on the fence due to the size, weight and price. And cant find much feedback on it. Thanks, Kim

11-21-2016, 02:42 PM	#25
narual Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,988	Originally posted by Scorpio71GR For color rendition, the DA*60-250 beats the Tamron 70-200 hands down. That's an excellent point. One of the best reasons to have a pentax is the pentax color rendition, and you don't get that as much with third party glass. The 50-135 and 60-250 are just gorgeous in that regard. I rarely mess with the colors from those in post unless the light sucked.

11-21-2016, 04:57 PM	#26
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,014	Originally posted by mikshyle So glad I came upon this thread..... My dilemma, I recently purchased the tamron 70-200 2.8. Mainly for shooting a lot of HS sports. I work in the school and do all the sports photography. I had read a lot of mixed reviews about this lens not having the best auto focus for fast action sports. I choose to buy it and test it out within the 30 day return period being that choices for a sports lens for pentax is so limited I shot a FB game(sunny day) and was ecstatic with the images !! But then to my great disappointment ...... I shot an indoor volleyball game and the pictures were awful it was taking a long time to focus and I had more blur than not I saw one of the first posts in this thread where it was stated that a night time football game was shot with great results.... I am so frustrated I love my camera and the results that I get. But after this outing I have been considering get a 2nd camera (canon where I have more lens options) I have a K50, th could I have done something wrong when shooting indoors? should I have been able to get good results with this lens and my camera? Having some hope that a new camera is not the route I need to take. Or do I need to upgrade my camera body Any advice is so greatly appreciated !!! One other thing, I was considering was ordering the Pentax 70-200. But I am so on the fence due to the size, weight and price. And cant find much feedback on it. Thanks, Kim I have a K3 and a K50. In low light conditions my K3 is leap years ahead of my K50. The K50 does fine in normal lighting conditions. A K3, K3ii, or even a K70 would autofocus much better your K50. Also remember that the autofocus system is the achilles heal of the Pentax system. I have shot outdoor football games with my K3 with success. Make sure you use either center or spot autofocus. Shoot in Burst mode and keep your shutter speed up. ---------- Post added 11-21-16 at 07:12 PM ---------- Originally posted by narual That's an excellent point. One of the best reasons to have a pentax is the pentax color rendition, and you don't get that as much with third party glass. The 50-135 and 60-250 are just gorgeous in that regard. I rarely mess with the colors from those in post unless the light sucked. I love my Tamron 70-200, but my 60-250 is my special lens.