[andre-mz5]

If you can spend the $$$ go for that 55-300. I know a number of pentaxians on the dutch forum that are shooting great pictures with that lens.

[nick52]

I'll see what I can get when I get there

And I'll be sure to take note of everyone's advice!

[SpecialK]

Now that I think about it, the pictures wont ever be blown up above 4x6, so I guess Image quality isn't as much of a priority putting that into consideration!

I Think I might go with the 55-300, or maybe even the Sigma 50-200

The 55-300 is a better choice for the reach.

[nick52]

Thank you! Im taking alot of things into consideration right now!

[twitch]

55-300 is an excellent lens. I used it in preference to my 50-135 yesterday when I needed the reach to photograph my kids playing outdoor sport. I wasn't disappointed with the results at all, and the lens is nice and lightweight too.

You just have to give it a bit of help to focus sometimes using quickshift as the throw is long and slow, this is one lens where I really do use quickshift a lot, so it's one lens where you really want the DA version not the DAL version.

[dylansalt]

The 55-300 is certainly not the fastest kid on the block for sports but it can be done in good light.



In low light i.e. 1600/3200 territory and fast moving - it becomes way more difficult as the auto-focus is a tad agricultural.

But in terms of IQ - it's very good

[Northern Soul]

I'd be tempted by a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4 TC - so you'd also effectively have a 98-280 f4.

If you're near enough to cope without the teleconverter you have the wide aperture you may need in low light, and if you do need it, you've still got a max aperture of f4, which is better than many of the longer zooms.

If that's still not enough reach you can get a 2x converter to make it 140-400 f5.6, which might be marginal for autofocus, but is still a very useful reach (don't forget that with the crop factor it's the equivalent of 210 - 600 f5.6)

It might be a bit out of budget, but personally I would (am!) saving up to get something that fits exactly what I need (although there is no such thing as a 10-1000 f0.95 that weighs abut a kilogram, so this is what I'm making do with!)

[nick52]

I'd be tempted by a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4 TC - so you'd also effectively have a 98-280 f4.

If you're near enough to cope without the teleconverter you have the wide aperture you may need in low light, and if you do need it, you've still got a max aperture of f4, which is better than many of the longer zooms.

If that's still not enough reach you can get a 2x converter to make it 140-400 f5.6, which might be marginal for autofocus, but is still a very useful reach (don't forget that with the crop factor it's the equivalent of 210 - 600 f5.6)

It might be a bit out of budget, but personally I would (am!) saving up to get something that fits exactly what I need (although there is no such thing as a 10-1000 f0.95 that weighs abut a kilogram, so this is what I'm making do with!)

Lol Amen.

Further down the line, I'm getting a Leica M converter for my K-5, they make some lenses at f0.95 which I had never seen before! I thought it must be amazing! But that glass is worth a kidney (and most other major organs)

[nick52]

The 55-300 is certainly not the fastest kid on the block for sports but it can be done in good light.



In low light i.e. 1600/3200 territory and fast moving - it becomes way more difficult as the auto-focus is a tad agricultural.

But in terms of IQ - it's very good

Good photo! Im going to be doing stuff In quite low light, but we have turf on our field. I've noticed that on turf, the light reflects off the field more than grass would ( sorry if that sounds weird ).

I think I might just settle for the 55-300!

[liukaitc]

Oh sorry, I thought I put what sports Im shooting.
Soccer, Football, Golf and Baseball

The sports u mentioned are pretty much outdoor..and with large space.
so if u r on budget, pentax 55-300 is a good choice.
if u have plenty money, then pentax 60-250 or sigma 70-200
the 50-135 i think is not long enough for those kind sports.

[nick52]

The sports u mentioned are pretty much outdoor..and with large space.
so if u r on budget, pentax 55-300 is a good choice.
if u have plenty money, then pentax 60-250 or sigma 70-200
the 50-135 i think is not long enough for those kind sports.

Yea!

It may seem odd, but I've heard of people using the D FA 100mm macro for sports... Seems odd to me, but do you think that might work?

[joe.penn]

Yea!

It may seem odd, but I've heard of people using the D FA 100mm macro for sports... Seems odd to me, but do you think that might work?

Basketball, ok, outdoor sports, not ok - you need the reach for the outdoor sports...

EDIT: Let me rephrase that, basketball and shuffle board would be ok with the 100, FIELD sports would not. However, if you are not concerned with close up action shots, then the 100 would work - but again, what is the use of covering a sport shoot without mixing in some up close and personal shots....





----

[nick52]

Ok, thanks.

I just came across the FA 80-320mm. Would it be good?

[JeremyP]

Ok, thanks.

I just came across the FA 80-320mm. Would it be good?

You may want to check out the following threads.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/11797-pentax-f...ns-sports.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/34419-sports-k20-fa80-320mm.html

They're a little old, but they may help you make your decision.

Plus, there's the forum review page for that lens.
Pentax-FA 80-320mm F4.5-5.6 Reviews - FA Series Zooms - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database

[nick52]

Thank you for the link! I think I might stick to the 55-300mm