Originally posted by twitch Do you find the 60-250 to be a good sports lens? I don't have one as I have a 55-300 and a 50-135. I can't decide whether a 60-250 or Sigma 70-200, partnered with a K-3 of course, would be better for sports only. Or just quietly, whether I should change systems for sports photography
From the hardware updated in the K-3, I'm expecting much improved AF.C tracking behaviour over the K-5. We should know how well it performs when reviewers & users starting reporting on this aspect.
I recently retried the DA 55-300/F4-5.8. I haven't used it since getting a DA* 60-250/F4. I thought that the extra reach might sometimes make it preferable to the 60-250, but I think I can get better results with the 60-250 resized to the same number of final image pixels. The 55-300 has some CA, particularity at the long end, which you can correct in software (I use SilkyPix Studio Developer Pro v4). Using 300mm FL with the small aperture in darkish situations (later afternoon/heavily overcast) becomes problematic. This is the "full" version of the lens, not the cheaper version, but even so I find that, compared to the other two zoom lenses mentioned here, it feels mechanically more flimsy.
For GP sports use, I select the DA* 60-250/F4. It's a bit lighter than the70-200/F2.8, but extends (the Sigma doesn't), so it becomes a bit more unwieldy at long FLs. The weatherproofing comes in very handy. It's good for a couple of hours in heavy rain before the rear lens element fogs up, but I found I could clear this by cycling the zoom FL from min to max a few times, with the lens off the camera, to pump fresh air into the lens chamber. My conjecture is that the large internal volume changes caused by frequent min/max zooming in sports situations causes moist air eventually to get into the lens/camera (the pressure does equalise). So an IF (internal focus) WR zoom lens would perform better in this regard in heavy rain than an extending WR zoom lens. It has fairly low CA. The constant F4 is good for most situations. I like the large zoom range and find it's good for most sporting situations.
The Sigma 70-200/F2.8 II HSM is a bit faster to focus than the 60-250 and it's very quiet. It doesn't extend. It is heavier. I like to use it when the light gets weaker. Using f/2.8 for a shallower DOF produces a significanty different look than the 60-250/F4: the isolated images can look more interesting so I can understand why users become fixated with the relatively shallow DOF of f/2.8, but AF performance problems become more obvious, so it may be a more useful lens for sports on the K-3, than the K-5. I find 200mm FL a bit short for large-field sports. That's on APS-C. It's a FF lens, so I think 200mm FL would be quite restrictive for sports on a FF camera. And I find 70mm FL can be a bit narrow too, on occasions.
With soccer, I've shot quite a few matches with the DA* 60-250/F4 used exclusively in one half, and the Sigma 70-200/F2.8 used in the other half. But I still can not make up my mind, possibly because for soccer I tend to use f/5.6-f/6.3 for the 60-260, and f/4-f/5 for the 70-200 (not f/2.8).
I think that, if the weather is fine, and if the K-3 proves to have better AF tracking performance, that the Sigma 70-200 used at f/2.8-f/3.4 will turn out to be the more interesting choice, but it will depend on how far away the subject is.
Note: the shallow DOF look can very attractive for single subjects, but with junior sports I often have 2-6 subjects in a cropped shot, and I usually need a fair amount of DOF. I think shallow DOF might be more useful for adult sports (soccer anyway) where the competitors tend to be further apart.
Dan.