[spineguy]

hello all:

im a nikon convert as of this week. order a k5 from BH and really enjoying the new interface.

im just a photo enthusiast that loves to catch the kids in their activities. Outside and indoor as gymnastics and dance is one of my most challenging shots.

with the k5 I bought the customary 18-55 and the 55-300. Had a dance competition this weekend and used the 55-300. while the k5 did really really up to 6400 iso, I was forced to keep speeds down.

question: whats my next step? 70-200mm? is the reach long enough? sigma? id love the afford the 60-250 pentax but I just dont know if I can justify having 3000 in camera equipment being just a dad if you know what I mean.

I look forward to heading your thoughts...

[mccarvindh]

Welcome to PF! I would highly recommend the sigma 70-200. The Tamron is a terrific lens too and has the ability to take many TCs as opposed to the sigma HSM version. This forum's marketplace is a good place for a used one. Good luck!

[spineguy]

I tried to find some feedback on this but how does the 70-200 sigma compare to the 60-250 pentax....

obviously longer reach but is it worth the extra money? cant seem to find a 60-250 in marketplace...

1500 is the least expensive I can find

thanks!

spineguy

[nanadoo]

the sigma 70-200 is a wonderful lens.....the 400 rocks. I use the 400 for wildlife and sports in good lighting, as it is 4.5 f stop. the 200 is much faster with the 2.8, tho. lighting is the key.

[Winder]

hello all:

im a nikon convert as of this week. order a k5 from BH and really enjoying the new interface.

im just a photo enthusiast that loves to catch the kids in their activities. Outside and indoor as gymnastics and dance is one of my most challenging shots.

with the k5 I bought the customary 18-55 and the 55-300. Had a dance competition this weekend and used the 55-300. while the k5 did really really up to 6400 iso, I was forced to keep speeds down.

question: whats my next step? 70-200mm? is the reach long enough? sigma? id love the afford the 60-250 pentax but I just dont know if I can justify having 3000 in camera equipment being just a dad if you know what I mean.

I look forward to heading your thoughts...

The lens is probably more important than the camera body. If your hobby is worth a $1,400 camera body then it should be worth a $1,400 lens.

The 55-300 is a $500.00 lens.
The 60-250 is a $1,600.00 lens.

Why do you think the 60-250 costs 3x the price? Will IQ be 3x better? Probably not, but they will be significantly sharper, have better color, and better contrast.

If you are on a budget and looking for the best value then I would recommend the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

[dgaies]

The lens is probably more important than the camera body. If your hobby is worth a $1,400 camera body then it should be worth a $1,400 lens.

The 55-300 is a $500.00 lens.
The 60-250 is a $1,600.00 lens.

Why do you think the 60-250 costs 3x the price? Will IQ be 3x better? Probably not, but they will be significantly sharper, have better color, and better contrast.

If you are on a budget and looking for the best value then I would recommend the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

The 55-300 is likely the better value, and is also smaller and a lot lighter. The 60-250 has the speed, build and IQ. I have both at the moment and wouldn't hesitate to recommend with one depending on the situation.

That said, if you want the best IQ for the least cost, as Winder suggested, the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is probably your best bet.

[jie88]

Who much would a USED sigma 70-200 f2.8 cost?

[crewl1]

Sigma 70-200 used about $700 for the previous non-os version.
For indoor gym type sport photography highly recommend this lens due to fast speed AF and low light ability.
I've shot dance competitions before with this lens on a K-x and you can freeze the dancers in mid air and get sharp output at f4 1/500 using 3200 iso.
Haven't had a chance to use it for an event with my K-5 but looking forward to the improved fps.
From what I hear the sdm in the Pentax offering is slower than the hsm in the Sigma.
Works great for me, YMMV.

[dave2k]

I would also recommend the Sigma 70-200. I've had my non-OS Sigma for over a year now and it is excellent for sports. I had to decide between the Tamron and the Sigma, and the Tamron had some advantages but the Sigma AF was said to be better and that is key for action shots. I've had no problems with the lens and I've gotten many sports shots with the K-5 / Sigma 2.8 that I could not have gotten with a slower lens or less capable camera.

[Winder]

The bad reviews for the Tamron AF all come from the Canon mount where there is no screw drive and it depends on Tamrons old EF motor.

The screw drive version of the lens is actually very fast. It is not HSM fast of quiet, but it is fast. I really like Sigma HMS, but optically the Tamron is better

[rvannatta]

I can say that a lens I recently acquired that has performed well beyond expectations
is the DA* 50-135 The optical quality is so outstanding that cropping a bit won't cause
you any hesitation.

[spineguy]

im about ready to put up the money for the 60-250 but have two final questions:

1. has anyone every used it inside gym or therate? everyone talks about needing the 2.8 lenses and wondering if the 4.0 lens would be ok? I think the pentax lens overall would be a great lens.

2. where do I find the lens??? seems like everyone is out of stock... I will just return the 55-300 under the 15 day return policy but b&h does not have the 60-250 in stock. From what I can gather hardly anyone has...

thank you so much for your responses!

spineguy

[twitch]

There is a big difference between f4 and f2.8. I take pics of my son playing indoor soccer and I find even f2.8 is too slow and have started using f1.8 primes so I can keep ISO to 1600. f2.8 would give me 3500+, f4 would be over 6400 which would be simply unacceptable. It doesn't matter how sharp the lens is, if I'm over 6400 on my K-x I'm not going to be happy with the results.

IMHO f2.8 is the bare minimum to consider for indoor sports unless you are shooting with a pro level FF Nikon or Canon. Why don't you review your shots taken with the 55-300 to see which focal lengths you used? If they fall in 70-200 range then I think a 70-200 f/2.8 would be the best choice. If they are 50-150ish then the Pentax 50-135 or Sigma 50-150 would also be good choices.

[Winder]

im about ready to put up the money for the 60-250 but have two final questions:

1. has anyone every used it inside gym or therate? everyone talks about needing the 2.8 lenses and wondering if the 4.0 lens would be ok? I think the pentax lens overall would be a great lens.

2. where do I find the lens??? seems like everyone is out of stock... I will just return the 55-300 under the 15 day return policy but b&h does not have the 60-250 in stock. From what I can gather hardly anyone has...

thank you so much for your responses!

spineguy

Adorama had it in stock. The K-5 should have the ISO quality to allow you run at F/4. At 200mm focal length f/2.8 is getting pretty narrow for sports. While having f/2.8 is always better than not having it, I usually am stopping down to f/4 when shooting sports.

[rvannatta]

im about ready to put up the money for the 60-250 but have two final questions:

1. has anyone every used it inside gym or therate? everyone talks about needing the 2.8 lenses and wondering if the 4.0 lens would be ok? I think the pentax lens overall would be a great lens.

2. where do I find the lens??? seems like everyone is out of stock... I will just return the 55-300 under the 15 day return policy but b&h does not have the 60-250 in stock. From what I can gather hardly anyone has...

thank you so much for your responses!

spineguy

the price has been rising on the 60-250 of late, but there is as of today still 1 listing for them on EBAY I"ve been wondering if their production was being impacted by the Tsunami issues in Japan?