[TwoUptons]

I'm thinking back to shooting high school football with a Super Program and K1000 with Tri-X and a cheap 70-210...

I think your biggest constraint is going to be the K50... K3iii will be best for fixing that...

The 80-200 f2.8 has been replaced by something far better, but that 250-600 is unique, I think...

And don't overlook the possibility of getting onto the field. Being in the right place can work better than any lens for getting shots...

Maybe you can work something out with the coach for a sideline pass in exchange for shooting some of the other players as well...

-Eric

[UncleVanya]

I agree with the general consensus. Get a k3iii. Full stop.

[vector]

Yep, I will echo the call for the K3iii. The speed and buffer along with focus improvements and good high iso capabilities should make it the proper match for your 250-600 in this scenario.

[bobbyscon]

For our local high school football, I use a KP with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM from the sidelines (off the field in the spectator area). ISO maxing out at 8000 or even 12800 gives me plenty of usable shots. I've also used the DA* 300 f/4 for some nice tighter shots, but definitely gets a bit trickier with the light. With a newer body like the KP or K3iii you'll get a larger MP count giving you a bit more flexibility in cropping the image than you might with the K-50.

Sigma 70-200 Sample


DA* 300 Sample

[UncleVanya]

I shot football in high school from the sidelines. A 250-600 is serious artillery and maybe too long for some shots. The FA* 80-200/2.8 plus your existing body would be a good option for when the action is too close for the 250-600. So get the k3iii and carry both bodies and both lenses. Later you might swap the k-50 for a k-70 as a backup to the k3iii.

[pearsaab]

Where are you located? maybe you can find someone who has the lens you are looking for and would let you try it out.

[angerdan]

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.

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!

You have two great ★-Lenses, so the first stept would be getting a better camera. If you switch from K-50 to K-3 III, you'll have a huge advantage.
Then you can test, if your FA* 80-200mm f2.8 does the job and cropping is enough.


Of course the FA* 300mm f2.8 is a great lens, but you should use it on a more recent body to feel an advantage to your FA80-200.

FA* 300mm 2.8 ED IF - thread collection - everything about the FA300/2.8 - PentaxForums.com
Pentax FA* 300mm f/2.8 ED IF samples - PentaxForums.com

No 400mm f2.8 from Pentax can be expected, actually the don't even have an 300mm f2.8 in their lineup.

[jtbroncos]

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.


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.

Wadge22-my fault as well as I didn't see the rest of your post, which btw had great information, and thought the one initial line was your only response. After seeing the rest of your post and the emoji I felt bad for my response as I definitely got your humor! Yea, Im so glad I bought that 250/600 back in the day and if I remember right my Gramps got 30% off bringing that lens to about $4500 in 99 but I could be wrong. I shared the cost with a buddy that was also wanting to get into the game. He no longer has any desire to shoot so it resides at my house full time. Ill post of pic of it because it seems to be a pretty rare bird. Your post is a wealth of info, I think your right, I need to see if I can maybe pick up a used K1/K3 and work with the 5.6 lens. Ill post some pics from this Saturdays games. This forum is great for us practice squad guys, you pros give me so much info to chew on, and I love the fact that its almost all Pentax specific. And your right about the KEH 300mm lens....with my skill set I have to have the auto focus, no way I could shoot a game manually.

---------- Post added 08-31-22 at 02:38 PM ----------

You have two great ★-Lenses, so the first stept would be getting a better camera. If you switch from K-50 to K-3 III, you'll have a huge advantage.
Then you can test, if your FA* 80-200mm f2.8 does the job and cropping is enough.


Of course the FA* 300mm f2.8 is a great lens, but you should use it on a more recent body to feel an advantage to your FA80-200.

FA* 300mm 2.8 ED IF - thread collection - everything about the FA300/2.8 - PentaxForums.com
Pentax FA* 300mm f/2.8 ED IF samples - PentaxForums.com

No 400mm f2.8 from Pentax can be expected, actually the don't even have an 300mm f2.8 in their lineup.

Angerdan-Upgrading my body seems to be the consensus here. Get a better camera before making a lens decision. I will definitely take the advice and start the search. Thanks for the input!

---------- Post added 08-31-22 at 02:41 PM ----------

Where are you located? maybe you can find someone who has the lens you are looking for and would let you try it out.

Im in Denver. Been hunting for a long time. The Pentax 300mm F2.8 AF pops up on Ebay in Japan periodically, but Ebay seems like such a big gamble. I think based on the others suggestions I need to upgrade my camera and work with the lenses I have, then re-evaluate.

[jtbroncos]

I agree with the general consensus. Get a k3iii. Full stop.

Thanks-Let the search begin!

---------- Post added 08-31-22 at 02:45 PM ----------

I shot football in high school from the sidelines. A 250-600 is serious artillery and maybe too long for some shots. The FA* 80-200/2.8 plus your existing body would be a good option for when the action is too close for the 250-600. So get the k3iii and carry both bodies and both lenses. Later you might swap the k-50 for a k-70 as a backup to the k3iii.

Thank you, that seems to be the consensus so thats the route Im going-thanks for the input.

---------- Post added 08-31-22 at 02:55 PM ----------

I'm thinking back to shooting high school football with a Super Program and K1000 with Tri-X and a cheap 70-210...

I think your biggest constraint is going to be the K50... K3iii will be best for fixing that...

The 80-200 f2.8 has been replaced by something far better, but that 250-600 is unique, I think...

And don't overlook the possibility of getting onto the field. Being in the right place can work better than any lens for getting shots...

Maybe you can work something out with the coach for a sideline pass in exchange for shooting some of the other players as well...

-Eric

Eric-great thoughts, especially regarding getting on the field-appreciate it!

---------- Post added 08-31-22 at 02:58 PM ----------

For our local high school football, I use a KP with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM from the sidelines (off the field in the spectator area). ISO maxing out at 8000 or even 12800 gives me plenty of usable shots. I've also used the DA* 300 f/4 for some nice tighter shots, but definitely gets a bit trickier with the light. With a newer body like the KP or K3iii you'll get a larger MP count giving you a bit more flexibility in cropping the image than you might with the K-50.

Sigma 70-200 Sample


DA* 300 Sample

Great feedback. Love the pics, especially the night shots, thats where it gets so complicated.

---------- Post added 08-31-22 at 03:03 PM ----------

For the OP... I agree completely with Uncle V.

Get the K-3 MkIII. It's NOT just a another camera. It's the real deal.

Don't cheap out. After all, he's your SON. Memories fade... regrets don't. Plus, you only have about 4 more years with him, if you are lucky. There are no "do overs".

My 2 cents (I'm 80+ with two in their mid 50's) & enjoy... M

Man I hear ya. I remember somebody once told me, "The days go slow but the years go fast", maybe the most truthful thing Ive ever heard. I already miss them at times and they are not even gone. I want to soak up every second. I keep having to remind myself Ill still be their Dad even after they move out. I have to say, there is no better sport to watch than little league football, loads of fun!

[mikesbike]

If you find a used FA* 300mm f/2.8 in fine condition, it will no doubt be costly as well as very large and heavy. With an upgraded camera body able to deliver fine results at much higher ISO than your K-3 or K-50. Then at a lower cost for a much lighter, smaller lens, you could put your money into the much better-performing body . For the use you describe the current Pentax K-3 III would be tops. The DA* 300mm f/4 is but one stop off that f/2.8 aperture but the new camera can advance easily to more than a stop ISO over your K-3, which you could then sell. As to AF speed difference between the FA* 300 f/2.8 screw-driven lens vs. the current DA* 300mm f/4 SDM is hard to say- but here I think might be the best advice from someone who knows these lenses:

---------- Post added 08-31-22 at 03:59 PM ----------

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.

I agree with this and with others here of similar advice. The K-3 III was formulated with fast action capacity especially in mind. However, the DFA 150-450mm is a large, quite weighty and expensive lens.

If 300mm perhaps with the 1.4x TC does it for you, the DA* 300mm f/4 combo is not much over half the price and is considerably lighter, although its SDM AF technology is of the older vintage and not known for speed. So the AF speed aspect of the new camera won't be to full advantage here, especially if you intend to use its burst-shooting capability. I would think there will be a new 300mm f/4 lens eventually that will have a much improved AF system to go with this new camera design.

[cmohr]

However, the DFA 150-450mm is a large, quite weighty and expensive lens.

Agreed, But, the FA*300mm/f2.8 is about 1kg heavier and physically longer than the DFA150-450, The DFA can easily be bought new, or secondhand, for $100's if not a $1000 less.
The screwdrive AF in the 300 is no slouch, it's good, but, the DFA150-450 leaves it in the dust, not to mention the quick-shift focus collar (excellent), And it's AW. Has programable preset focus button, I say it is actually a FA*250-600 replacement for APS-C cameras.

You could always rent a DFA150-450 to see if it suits your needs.

cmohr

[bdery]

Hi!

With the newest K-3 III you would get probably 3 stops of gain just thanks to its increased high ISO capabilities, vs your K-50, maybe more. AF is also going to be much improved, you'll be blown away. So that would be my first step. Normally we recommend getting glass before bodies, but in this case it would be worth it.

With a better sensor, cropping is also easier, so your 200mm could be cropped partially to get to an effective 300mm.

Otherwise, getting a 300mm F2.8 if you can afford it is never a bad thing

[angerdan]

Agreed, But, the FA*300mm/f2.8 is about 1kg heavier and physically longer than the DFA150-450

At the same focal length (300mm), the FA* 300mm f2.8 is not physically longer than the D FA 150-450mm.

HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 Review - Handling | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The FA* 300mm is exactly 570g heavier than the the D FA 150-450mm.
<= F4.5 Full Frame Lenses between 2000g and 2765g with Tripod Mount, Autofocus | PentaxForums.com

[mikesbike]

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.

This further suggests getting the K-3 III could very well be your answer, even if not getting a new lens at all. Maybe add a 1.4x or 1.5 x TC for your FA* 80-200mm f/2.8 lens. You are apparently satisfied with handling the size and weight of your FA* 250-600mm f/5.6 lens, and with the K-3 III's abilities at higher ISO you'd have plenty of aperture! It would be like both your lenses were f/2.8 lenses on your present camera, even the FA* 80-200mm with the TC! This way, you would have a huge range of coverage, depending on where you'd be sitting distance-wise to get your shots.

As far as AF, since you do not mention a deficiency here with your FA* lenses, their screw-driven performance might be even better on the K-3 III. I know my screw-driven FA* 300mm f/4.5 lens on my KP provides fast, reliable AF.

[cmohr]

At the same focal length (300mm), the FA* 300mm f2.8 is not physically longer than the D FA 150-450mm.

I was saying that it is longer, Yes, when you zoom the 150-450 it is an inch longer, but cloed it is shorter, My point was, people saying the DFA150-450 is a long lens, but the FA*300/2.8 is also a lot longer than people think, from just looking at pictures of it on a screen.

HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 Review - Handling | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The FA* 300mm is exactly 570g heavier than the the D FA 150-450mm. ........

.NO, It's over 700gms heavier. But I didn't get pedantic about it, people were saying the DFA 150-450 was a long ,heavy lens, I was pointing out that the original lens the OP was asking about was infact heavier. I also don't believe weight or length is a particular concern to the OP as he was talking about using the FA*250-600/5.6 originally, and what would be a better option.


<= F4.5 Full Frame Lenses between 2000g and 2765g with Tripod Mount, Autofocus | PentaxForums.com

With all due respect....I don't need to look at Links of threads about them, I have them both in front of me and have had both for many years, the FA*300/2.8 for nearly 10yrs. I am Amazed that people who don't have the lenses seem so intent on trying to prove they know more about them and their handling and use, their strengths and weaknesses , and ultimately which better suit particular situations, than somebody who does know first hand, and is giving that first hand experience in the thread here, in mind, that the OP is asking specifically about the FA*300/2.8, and I have given my thoughts and reasons as to it, and other options, I feel , from first hand experience, are better avenues for the OP to think about.


To the OP, I hope you have found some of the info you were looking for, and are able to get what best suits your needs.