[joe.penn]

Sigma 70-300 EX DG OS HSM on one body

Sigma 70~200 2.8 OS EX HSM FLD

Keep in mind it is a monster of a lens, it weighs in at 3.15 pounds. The 200 side may be a little tiny bit short on BIG FIELD sports, but the resolution of this thing is so high that you can crop in with no issues at all...

FYI: Here in the states, the warranty for this lens is 4 years total (1 year standard and additional 3 years for being EX pro grade lens) - not sure what it is in your country though...

[Belcik]

Sigma 70~200 2.8 OS EX HSM FLD

Well of course you are definitely right 70-300 is the one I want to get rid off

I am just reading through different cases of Sigma international warranties. Since I am myself from Poland, spending much time in Russia, buying stuff from USA - this makes life little complicated

[dave2k]

A few photos from the NCAA DIII Swim and Dive championship held last month in Indianapolis, Indiana.

[joe.penn]

@dave2k - the first and the last one in your set are excellent! Great job!!!

[RonHendriks1966]

@dave2k that first is very nice. The set is very nice, I also like the diving shot (I guess 3 meter it is). Looking at your pictures I realize how luckey I am with the light in our local pool. I going next month the the EC diving and EC synchronized swimming.

[jake14mw]

On the Sigma, I guess the EX DG OS HSM is the versio to take. Inever bought the previous version, since I thought it to soft.

The DA*50-135mm I found a little short and slow focussing. Part of this is that I own a FA*85mm and then the extra reach is to short for me. But definetly a very good lens.

The DA*60-250mm is a very good lens, but at the long end it could need a stop down to f4.5.

The DA*300mm is also an option, like DA*200mm.

The Sigma is sharper at 200mm from f3.2 to f4 then the DA*60-250mm at 200-250mm and f4. The DA*300mm is sharper at F4 then the above lenses. The DA*200mm is better then the Sigma, but can give some purple fringing wide open, and the sigma is faster in focussing.

Choosing a prime over a zoom is always a difficult thing. They tend to be better performers.

Hi Ron,

You also have the Sigma 100-300 f4, right? How do you decide when to use this vs. the DA*300 or DA*60-250? Could you give comments about it like you did the others? Thanks,

Mark

[rockythegoat]

I shoot my sons basketball games and use the DA* 50-135mm and the burst rate is ok with me. That lens does a pretty decent job of focusing fairly quickly. I tried using the DA* 16-50mm to get shots right under the basket, forget it they were already heading to the other end of the court. That lens didn't want to lock on to anything. Pentax advised me to send the lens back to them. They indicated there might be a problem with the lens.

[RonHendriks1966]

Hi Ron,

You also have the Sigma 100-300 f4, right? How do you decide when to use this vs. the DA*300 or DA*60-250? Could you give comments about it like you did the others? Thanks,

Mark

I never used sigma 100-300.

I sold the 60-250 after purchasing sigma 70-200 and got the DA*300 to complement that. So no worry's about what lens to take.

[GvilleRick]

Here are a few from today's final tennis match at our school. All taken with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

[RonHendriks1966]

I visited a hockeygame in Amsterdam, where a lot of our national team is playing (you know they are Olympic Champion) and made a selection for Ellen Hoog.

1)


2)


3)


4)


5)

[saggsy]

I know these don't compare to any of the shots on this thread, this was my first time out shooting sports. I Think I've learned a lot from my first time out.

Only have a sigma 70-300, but kept it around 200mm, it gets very soft after 200mm. A footy field is very large, and 200mm only gets you so far, so a lot of action is missed from the other side of the field. I think I'd need to more concentrate on the emotional side of the sport, it seems these are the better photos, the celebrations, or the disappointments involved.

Put in the one with the rain, not because I like the shot, but to show the K-5's capabilities. It was very, very dark. There was a storm approaching and most of the crowd left soon afterwards, but I think the shot is still usable.

[bobell69]

These are excellent Ron, did you use the 70-200 or the 300 for these?

[joe.penn]

@RonHendriks1966 - as usual, excellent shots! Really love the first one, great candid...

@bobell69 - his first shot shows 300 in the exif, so I am guessing the DA*300...

@saggsy - very very impressive shots! You captured the photos right in the heat of the action, I mean really nailed it right at the climax which is very impressive regardless of what glass you are using.

[RonHendriks1966]

@saggsy welcome here with a very nice set of pictures. I guess that is rugby, or at least the fieldsize for rugby and that is huge. I guess that even 300mm isn't always enough on such a field. Don't worry about that, since it is about the good pictures you took and not about the once you missed.

@bobell69 and @joe.penn yes I used DA*300mm for this on my K-5. Also took K-01 with me for this game, but that didn't worked out at all. I had a few keepers from 250 shots and none of them where good enough in my eyes. To fast a games this is, since I did have some keepers with volleybal. That first shot is a little present, since she actually looks in my camera.

[jppp]

Field Hockey: Ellen Hoog

Nice shots again, Ron! This is a game that simply nobody plays up here in Finland. We only play ice hockey, and the World Championships just started today in Helsinki and Stockholm. However, no chance for me to get there with my camera, so it's football for me again tomorrow.
The picture #4 has the elements (even though the player is facing away) that I like with the hovering dirt, levitating player and ball frozen up in the air. I don't know why, but somehow I find that fascinating.
I will probably bore you guys again with some shots from tomorrow's match, maybe with the Sigma 150-500 for a change. We'll see...