[Nomad]

Concerts at 300mm will be very tough as will a lot of hockey action. 200mm in the 2.8 range will run you over $800 with 300+mm well over 1k.
I love my 55-300 for daytime and outdoor use though.

[SpecialK]

I have all 3 lenses the OP is considering.

The Pentax 50-200 is has decent image quality and small size. It is now sitting unused on my closet shelf.

The Sigma 70-300 APO is not quite as sharp or contrasty as the Pentax 50-200 in my side-by-side shots. (Pentax on top, Sigma on bottom):
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/Tests/50ps.jpg

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/Tests/ps200.jpg

It also suffered a broken or loose aperture blade.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/Tests/DeadSigma70-300.jpg

I bought the Pentax 55-300 to replace both, and it does. Much better image quality, and a hair smaller than the Sigma, though noticeably large than the 50-200. (I can't find the comparison shot, but it's in the customer images for the lens on Amazon...)

As mentioned, indoor sports (70-200 f2.8) starts at about $800 new...

[Marc Sabatella]

I'd suggest you read up on how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO work together - the basic triad of exposure. Blur comes from too slow a shutter speed, noise/grain from too high an ISO, and a larger aperture (small f-number) does indeed help you get faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO. But low light photograph is still hard no matter what lens you have - you'll never get the shutter speed as fast or the ISO as low as you'd really like. the 55-300 won't self-destruct if you use it for concerts, but the larger the aperture, the better (to a point - beyond f/2 or so DOF is so shallow that many shots become difficult.

[Woods12]

Marc got examples of some good books that would help and that are easy to understand because i am more of hands on learner when I read i seem to not retain as much info that i need when it comes to camera books.

[sterretje]

The picture of the guitar player in post #15 was taken with 1/1000sec and ISO3200. If you don't like the grain, go to 1/250sec and ISO800 or 1/125sec and ISO400.

And if I understand the exif correctly and the exif is correct (firefox plugin used), it was taken in scene mode for action/sports in which case the camera decides on 'things' and you will not always get what you want. You must be in control. So use Tv or Av.

It's difficult to judge from the small picture, but in general I love a moderate amount of grain in low light shots.

[Woods12]

Like I said I am fairly new to DSLR and trying to figure out how to use most of shoots are more luck than anything

[Marc Sabatella]

The standard recommendation for learning about exposure is Understanding exposure, by Bryan Peterson. Although I'm pretty ambivalent about this myself - it seems to contain some ideas that manage to lead some astray when they don't full understand his commonets about metering off the sky. I'd personally go for a book that explained more about photography. Really, any should do - the bookstores and librries are full of them. Googling those three terms will turn up a ton, too. Read a little, then immediately try it out and shoot. I can still remember a time when I had to stop and think about whether a larger aperture meant deeper or shallower DOF. Now, that would be like struggling to remember if a adding sugar to a dish makes it sweeter or less sweet.

[Woods12]

thanks to everyones comments I think for now I may put the lense on hold and read a little bit more and make do with what I have unitl I get a bit better handle on how I can create with my camera.

[rparmar]

Another little tip about something that is becoming a pet peeve. Lens is not spelled with an "e" on the end. Just saying.

[SpecialK]

Another little tip about something that is becoming a pet peeve. Lens is not spelled with an "e" on the end. Just saying.

A guy on another forum spells it singularly as ---> lens'

Don't get me started :-)

[ohyouloveme]

and i do know of people who deduce the singular form is len because usually we talk about lens.

[rparmar]

A guy on another forum spells it singularly as ---> lens'

Don't get me started :-)

Yes, the death of the apostrophe has been grossly exaggerated. It seems instead that people add them everywhere. How many menus say "nacho's"?

and i do know of people who deduce the singular form is len because usually we talk about lens.

Good Lord. I had never heard that one.

[Woods12]

I will try spell it coreectly but I think your just trying to increase your posts rparmar LOL

[Blue]

Consideration should be also taken on the weight, I only used DA 50-200, very nice lens, light weight, really sharp at f/8 while handling with Shake reduction.

The DA 55-300mm is not a heavy lens and is easily hand holdable. In its most compact configuration, it is also relatively small. For birds and wild life, it will have marginal reach at 300mm. The weakness the lens will have is the fact the maximum aperture will be at f5.8 at 300mm which is o.k. when there is plenty of light.

[RioRico]

Yes, the death of the apostrophe has been grossly exaggerated. It seems instead that people add them everywhere. How many menus say "nacho's"?

The use of an apostrophe to indicate plurality is not uncommon, even in 'mainstream' English. Have you ever seen (and accepted) references to the 60's?

As for Nacho's, that's because the dish was invented by Ignacio "Nacho" Anaya who served it as Nacho's especiales. Calling it 'nachos' is thus a corruption. The apostrophe also serves to differentiate the snack from NACHOS, the Not Another Completely Heuristic Operating System software. Look it up.