[jtbroncos]

Good morning everyone. Ill try to shorten a long story. In the early 90's I was an avid Pentax hobbyist (not a pro or an expert by any means) and really got into sports photography because my late grandfather worked at Pentax. At that time and with his discount I purchased the Pentax 250-600mm F5.6, the Pentax 80-200mm F2.8, and a cheaper 80-320mm F5.6 for sports photography. I had dreams of starting a business with that gear but the need for medical insurance and lack of a pro grade skill set squashed that dream. Fast forward-now 51 yrs old-have a 10 yr old son playing tackle football, so of course I have dusted off all of that great Pentax gear. To say there's a new found fire under my rear for sports photography would be an understatement! I'm reading these forums until 2am, then desperately trying to stay awake at my day job. While shooting my sons football team these past 2 season I realize I'm missing one important lens, the Pentax 300mm F2.8. My 80-200mm F2.8 is falling short in terms of reach in many instances and the 250-600 doesn't have the aperture I'd like although I love that lens. Question is, do I search for the Pentax 300mm F2.8 with the fear that when my son reaches the 80 and 100 yard football fields (60 yards now) it wont have enough reach, or switch brands to a used Canon 400mm F2.8 and used body (My grandfather would roll over in his grave) to get the reach Ill need on the larger fields in the coming years. It appears Pentax doesn't make a new or used 400mm F2.8 with auto focus. Any input is appreciated! Thanks guys-love learning from all of you.

[gatorguy]

A Pentax 150-450 would give you the reach in addition to widening the field when needed.

[jtbroncos]

A Pentax 150-450 would give you the reach in addition to widening the field when needed.

With that aperture (F4.5) would I be able to shoot high school football at night? I figured the f2.8 would be the minimum I'd need with the low light at most high schools?

[wadge22]

I you already have the 250-600mm f5.6, don't expect to get much sympathy about your lack of good tele lenses from me...

But seriously, that is an amazing lens; I would focus on getting the job done with that. If you have to raise ISO, that should be an acceptable compromise. Which camera body are you using? With any of the more current bodies you can probably go fairly high in ISO, especially for non-professional work.

You could try a 300 f4, although the newer versions don't focus super quick, so an older screwdrive version might be preferable (the noise doesn't matter at a football game).

Another option is adding the 1.4x teleconverter to your 80-200 2.8.

But no, there is no 400 2.8 with autofocus for our cameras, and there never will be. That's just how it is with Pentax.

---

Last edited by wadge22; 08-30-2022 at 11:53 AM.

[jtbroncos]

I you already have the 250-600mm f5.6, don't expect to get much sympathy about your lack of good tele lenses from me...

But seriously, that is an amazing lens; I would focus on getting the job done with that. If you have to raise ISO, that should be an acceptable compromise. Which camera body are you using? With any of the more current bodies you can probably go fairly high in ISO, especially for non-professional work.

Another option is adding the 1.4x teleconverter to your 80-200 2.8.

But no, there is no 400 2.8 with autofocus for our cameras, and there never will be. That's just how it is with Pentax.

250-600mm was bought in 99 with money saved from waiting tables. Not sure where you got the sympathy line, just looking for advice. 250-600 is an awesome lens but doesnt do well in low light.

[jtbroncos]

I you already have the 250-600mm f5.6, don't expect to get much sympathy about your lack of good tele lenses from me...

But seriously, that is an amazing lens; I would focus on getting the job done with that. If you have to raise ISO, that should be an acceptable compromise. Which camera body are you using? With any of the more current bodies you can probably go fairly high in ISO, especially for non-professional work.

You could try a 300 f4, although the newer versions don't focus super quick, so an older screwdrive version might be preferable (the noise doesn't matter at a football game).

Another option is adding the 1.4x teleconverter to your 80-200 2.8.

But no, there is no 400 2.8 with autofocus for our cameras, and there never will be. That's just how it is with Pentax.

Hi Wadge, I have an older model K-3. Thank you, those are great thoughts.....and exactly the advice I was looking for. Ive heard the telecoverters produce low light images, any truth in your experience?

[Lowell Goudge]

what camera are you starting with. the high iso settings of most cameras wont make a difference for a football game.

[nixxo2002]

most modern pentax cameras can handle iso 6400 very easy . kp , k1 , k3 iii pair with da 300 f/4 it's a superb lens .

[Bob 256]

The 300mm f2.8 is a BIG lens and you have enough light gathering power to use a teleconverter if needed (a X1.4 converter will only cost you one f-stop and a quality converter will impact image quality minimally). That kicks you out to over 400mm, however consider the size of the 300mm lens and then with a converter - it gets pretty hefty. Maybe try a game or two with what you have and get a feel for light and action (f-stop and shutter speed) before deciding. Cropping can also be practical for getting closer if your lens is good enough.

[mlag]

I see in your profile you use a K-50 .


My guess : As a F2.8 tele's are expensive and rare, it is likely cheaper and quicker to upgrade your camera to a newer model , doesn't have to be the latest new one, let's say any recent K70, KP or K3 or so brings you better ISO performance (less noise and more light sensitive) and IBIS in body stabilisation improvements (allowing lower shutter speed) and a few EV extra for focussing in dim light.

(Check specifications in camera section , camera comparison tool on the forum, check the reviews about real live ISO capabilities when noise kicks in, recent sensors improve).

Probably enough to compensate 2-3 extra stops for your existing F5.6 lens.

Not 100% sure about K-50 performance (i do not own this model), but on my K-3II ISO 3200 is still nice, (and if needed can be corrected in postprocessing). IBIS can yield a few stops (4.5 in theory) in shutter speed. And the focussing needs 2 EV less light....

2.12.0.0

[jtbroncos]

what camera are you starting with. the high iso settings of most cameras wont make a difference for a football game.

I have an older K-50. Thank you, good to know.

---------- Post added 08-30-22 at 02:27 PM ----------

The 300mm f2.8 is a BIG lens and you have enough light gathering power to use a teleconverter if needed (a X1.4 converter will only cost you one f-stop and a quality converter will impact image quality minimally). That kicks you out to over 400mm, however consider the size of the 300mm lens and then with a converter - it gets pretty hefty. Maybe try a game or two with what you have and get a feel for light and action (f-stop and shutter speed) before deciding. Cropping can also be practical for getting closer if your lens is good enough.

Bob. Thank you very much, I like that plan alot. Ill try a game with the 80-200 f2.8 just to get a feel where Im at.

---------- Post added 08-30-22 at 02:29 PM ----------

I see in your profile you use a K-50 .


My guess : As a F2.8 tele's are expensive and rare, it is likely cheaper and quicker to upgrade your camera to a newer model , doesn't have to be the latest new one, let's say any recent K70, KP or K3 or so brings you better ISO performance (less noise and more light sensitive) and IBIS in body stabilisation improvements (allowing lower shutter speed) and a few EV extra for focussing in dim light.

(Check specifications in camera section , camera comparison tool on the forum, check the reviews about real live ISO capabilities when noise kicks in, recent sensors improve).

Probably enough to compensate 2-3 extra stops for your existing F5.6 lens.

Not 100% sure about K-50 performance (i do not own this model), but on my K-3II ISO 3200 is still nice, (and if needed can be corrected in postprocessing). IBIS can yield a few stops (4.5 in theory) in shutter speed. And the focussing needs 2 EV less light....

2.12.0.0

Mlag-Thank you. Ive been looking at the K-3. There are a few used here in the Denver metro area for around $300 to $500. I think that is an excellent suggestion-Thank you.

[bwgv001]

You will more likely need a "faster" camera than a better lens. Rather invest in a K3-III.
the 300/2.8 is available at KEH
Search results for: 'pentax 300 2.8' at KEH Camera

[wadge22]

250-600mm was bought in 99 with money saved from waiting tables. Not sure where you got the sympathy line, just looking for advice. 250-600 is an awesome lens but doesnt do well in low light.

Hi Wadge, I have an older model K-3. Thank you, those are great thoughts.....and exactly the advice I was looking for. Ive heard the telecoverters produce low light images, any truth in your experience?

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound rude, I meant it as lighthearted ribbing based on my envy... I wish I had such a lens as the 250-600. Of course that tone is hard to convey through text.

The truth is there isn't anything much better than that available. The 150-450 as mentioned by others is a little faster at the shorter end, but not as fast for the length overall (450 f5.6 vs 600 f5.6). I don't really think it would be an upgrade for you, although I can't compare the focusing speed.

Yes the teleconverter will reduce the light coming in but as long as you can focus (so as long as you start with a lens at least f4 or thereabouts), you should be able to get good enough shots.

If you do search and find an FA 300 2.8 (which will mean $$$), it should focus well with the TC, and be effectively a 420mm f4, which on APSC (anything but K1, K1ii, or film) has the angle of view like a 630mm on full frame. That honestly might be too long for football. And it is a very expensive and rare lens (as is your 250-600).
For the same money you could probably get a newer camera body, a 300 f4, and the 1.4x teleconverter. Go ahead and get a heavy duty monopod and high end tilt head, too, and you're still probably cheaper than a good copy of FA 300 2.8.

The 300 f4 may also be a very good solution for you, it will certainly be more compact and easy to handhold. But I think you will miss the framing flexibility of a zoom, and I wonder if the AF speed will be satisfactory.


I guess what I'm saying is you should just try with your 250-600 5.6 lens, and let the ISO go as high as it needs to to make up for the two stops difference between 2.8 and 5.6. If you get one of the newer bodies released since, say, 2016 (such as any K3, KP, or K70), then ISO 6400 or maybe even a little higher is probably going to be acceptable from a noise standpoint.
You can then keep your current body and use it with your 80-200 2.8, which should do well also for shorter shots.


Or, to put it all another way, you can probably do what you want to do without a 2.8 lens, even though it would be nice/better if there were a readily available 2.8 lens.

And again, sorry, didn't mean to sound rude.

the 300/2.8 is available at KEH

It is, but that's the A* version with no autofocus. If OP is willing to manual focus, he can spend way too much money on an A* 400 2.8.

[cmohr]

I have the SMC Pentax-FA* 300mm F2.8 ED [IF], as well as the Sigma 300mm F2.8 EX APO DG, Hands down, the HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW, is a much better and more versatile lens for sport and wildlife,
I agree with others above, get a newer camera, that has better AF and much better high ISO capabilities. The cost of a Pentax 300 is high, and the cost of going to another system to get a 400/2.8 would be far higher. Plus, the lenses you already have will also benefit greatly by the addition of a newer camera like the K-3III. That would be where I would be (and have) put my money.

[mlag]

You will more likely need a "faster" camera than a better lens. Rather invest in a K3-III.
the 300/2.8 is available at KEH
Search results for: 'pentax 300 2.8' at KEH Camera

The 400 f2.8 is also available at KEH...if you go that pricey track.