Any Connecticut Pentaxians able to help me out?

jake14mw · 10-13-2009, 01:08 PM

MShawn63,

Thanks for the infomation. I'd love to see that 135-400 sometime. That website for the Colchester shop is great. It looks like they have a lot going on there. I hope their business is profitable, and they can stay in business unlike so many others. It's a shame they don't carry Pentax. It's too bad Pentax can't or won't get their stuff in stores, it seems like both the K-7 and K-x are winners.

MShawn63 · 10-13-2009, 02:25 PM

Hi Jake,

The store is really doing well they moved to their present location from Willimantic a few years ago and have been steadily growing. They used to carry some Pentax 3rd party stuff. I found my Tamron teleconverter there, they were getting ready to eBay it when I bought it.

I wouldn't mind letting you try the 135-400, it's a little heavy but takes great photos. I'm not sure Sigma makes it anymore but I'm sure there are some used ones out there.

philbaum · 10-13-2009, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by jake14mw

Interested,

Thanks for the links. That first one has a link to some great shots, the kind that I aspire to. I bet those were with a 200 at 2.8 or a 300 at f4. The sharpness and low DOF is key. With Pentax, even if you spend the money for these type of lenses, the AF-C system just isn't robust enough to track moving subjects quick enough to handle the shallow DOF.
For sports, there's no question that if you are willing and able to spend thousands, Canon or Nikon is the way to go. I have to realize though, that I won't be spending $2000 on a body or lens anytime soon. So, in my budget area, Pentax will do about as well. There's no question the K10d is not an ideal body for sports. It's slow in every way. From what I've read, it seems that the K20 would be slightly better, and the K7 would be a good deal better. I'd love a K7, but that's just not happening soon. Even one of these lenses is a stretch.

My biggest mistake was starting to look in the sports forum over at Fredmiranda.com! The quality of photos is amazing, and makes me want more. The guys over there will tell you 300mm is minimum for football, soccer or baseball. Again, those are the guys that are willing to spend several thousand on one lens.

Jake,
I'm one of those that would recommend buying the K20D. The reason is, after i upgraded from my K10 to a K20, it felt like all my lenses had gone thru an upgrade as well. The higher resolution often made my pictures look sharper, the AF seemed better to me, and the higher ISO performance was outstanding. On the K10, i would never shoot at higher than 800 ISO. With the K20D, in local playhouse shoots, i routinely shoot at 1600 and 3200 ISO. At 1600, I rarely had to do any cleanup, at 3200 sometimes. I got the Topaz Denoise program and now its no big deal to clean up an image. Plus with the K20, you have access to putting in focus adjustments on lenses, something I've yet needed to do.

The problem with some of our zooms, like the Tamron 18-250 is its a f3.5 to f6.3 variable aperture. So when you are out at 100 to 135mm FL, i often find that the maximum aperture avail. has shrunk to F6.3. This was a constant pain indoors and outdoors. With the K20D, I can often boost ISO enough to compensate, which i couldn't do as well with the K10. I now enjoy using the 18-250 more than i did.

I eventually went to an F2.8 lens, the 50-135 which has been a great combo with the K20. But even without an F2.8 lens, i think you would be delighted with how much better your existing 70-300 will perform with the K20. Truth in advertising: I don't shoot sports, but can only speak to having shot an outdoor play at night and indoor plays in sometimes poorly lit theaters.

best wishes,

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hi Connecticut!	RickB	Travel, Events, and Groups	0	08-05-2009 06:14 AM
Greetings from Connecticut	KJon	Welcomes and Introductions	3	06-19-2009 03:51 AM
Hello From Connecticut	L00CHIE	Welcomes and Introductions	8	06-01-2009 02:47 AM
Hi from Connecticut	wbarocsi	Welcomes and Introductions	2	11-16-2008 01:59 PM
Hello from Connecticut	travlpix	Welcomes and Introductions	2	03-05-2008 09:00 PM

10-13-2009, 01:08 PM	#16
jake14mw Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Connecticut, USA Posts: 977 Original Poster	MShawn63, Thanks for the infomation. I'd love to see that 135-400 sometime. That website for the Colchester shop is great. It looks like they have a lot going on there. I hope their business is profitable, and they can stay in business unlike so many others. It's a shame they don't carry Pentax. It's too bad Pentax can't or won't get their stuff in stores, it seems like both the K-7 and K-x are winners.

10-13-2009, 02:25 PM	#17
MShawn63 Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 225	Hi Jake, The store is really doing well they moved to their present location from Willimantic a few years ago and have been steadily growing. They used to carry some Pentax 3rd party stuff. I found my Tamron teleconverter there, they were getting ready to eBay it when I bought it. I wouldn't mind letting you try the 135-400, it's a little heavy but takes great photos. I'm not sure Sigma makes it anymore but I'm sure there are some used ones out there.

10-13-2009, 03:01 PM	#18
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by jake14mw Interested, Thanks for the links. That first one has a link to some great shots, the kind that I aspire to. I bet those were with a 200 at 2.8 or a 300 at f4. The sharpness and low DOF is key. With Pentax, even if you spend the money for these type of lenses, the AF-C system just isn't robust enough to track moving subjects quick enough to handle the shallow DOF. For sports, there's no question that if you are willing and able to spend thousands, Canon or Nikon is the way to go. I have to realize though, that I won't be spending $2000 on a body or lens anytime soon. So, in my budget area, Pentax will do about as well. There's no question the K10d is not an ideal body for sports. It's slow in every way. From what I've read, it seems that the K20 would be slightly better, and the K7 would be a good deal better. I'd love a K7, but that's just not happening soon. Even one of these lenses is a stretch. My biggest mistake was starting to look in the sports forum over at Fredmiranda.com! The quality of photos is amazing, and makes me want more. The guys over there will tell you 300mm is minimum for football, soccer or baseball. Again, those are the guys that are willing to spend several thousand on one lens. Jake, I'm one of those that would recommend buying the K20D. The reason is, after i upgraded from my K10 to a K20, it felt like all my lenses had gone thru an upgrade as well. The higher resolution often made my pictures look sharper, the AF seemed better to me, and the higher ISO performance was outstanding. On the K10, i would never shoot at higher than 800 ISO. With the K20D, in local playhouse shoots, i routinely shoot at 1600 and 3200 ISO. At 1600, I rarely had to do any cleanup, at 3200 sometimes. I got the Topaz Denoise program and now its no big deal to clean up an image. Plus with the K20, you have access to putting in focus adjustments on lenses, something I've yet needed to do. The problem with some of our zooms, like the Tamron 18-250 is its a f3.5 to f6.3 variable aperture. So when you are out at 100 to 135mm FL, i often find that the maximum aperture avail. has shrunk to F6.3. This was a constant pain indoors and outdoors. With the K20D, I can often boost ISO enough to compensate, which i couldn't do as well with the K10. I now enjoy using the 18-250 more than i did. I eventually went to an F2.8 lens, the 50-135 which has been a great combo with the K20. But even without an F2.8 lens, i think you would be delighted with how much better your existing 70-300 will perform with the K20. Truth in advertising: I don't shoot sports, but can only speak to having shot an outdoor play at night and indoor plays in sometimes poorly lit theaters. best wishes,