K5 for sports anyone?

treebeard · 03-05-2012, 07:59 AM

Okay, anyone who has used the K5 for sports please give me your opinion on it's capabilities. I want to hear from real shooters....I don't want a review from a website. I know how good the K5 is with static subjects but that is not my concern. I had someone tell me that he thought the AF using the DA 50-135 was on par with the AF on his 5DMkII....which really does not have me too enthusiastic.

RonHendriks1966 · 03-05-2012, 08:05 AM

Well there is a thread where you can find at least some sports pictures:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/115277-k-5-sports-photography.html

The Da50-135 is I gues one of the slowest focussing lenses. I do a lot of sports, but unless you specify what sport or to what level of pictures you want to take you can't get very good advice.

treebeard · 03-05-2012, 08:08 AM

I guess for sports it would be for any situation that a newspaper would require of me...such as indoor basketball, night baseball...football and etc....I have heard that the 50-135 is slow (wonderful bokeh though!). I have looked at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the newer Sigma 70-200 2.8 OSM but a new Sigma is out of my price range. I used the older non-OSM Sigma 70-200 2.8 on a canon body and a Nikon body and it was a great lens (I had a sharp copy for sure!).

asp1880 · 03-05-2012, 08:30 AM

I've only shot outdoors sports (road cycling and american football) using the K-5 and the DA200. It can do the job but it's quite unforgiving of sloppy technique. Don't let your focus point drift off target but keep it on the same spot on your subject or AF tracking will suffer. I have no experience shooting indoors or nighttime sports. Neither have I tried any of the competing systems, Canon 7D etc. I'd imagine that the faster focussing lenses and the more flexible AF systems (AF point expansion and whatnot) gives you a higher keeper rate and works better with imperfect technique.

Regards,
--Anders.

joe.penn · 03-05-2012, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by treebeard

such as indoor basketball, night baseball...football and etc....I have heard that the 50-135 is slow (wonderful bokeh though!). I have looked at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the newer Sigma 70-200 2.8 OSM but a new Sigma is out of my price range.

The 50~135 is a great lens for sports, when used in Manual Focus only! The 50~135's advantage over the Tammy and Siggy 70~200 is the overall IQ, the disadvantage of the 50~135 is it's focal range - the 135 on the long end just doesn't cut it when shooting across a football field.

RonHendriks1966 · 03-05-2012, 08:52 AM

For indoor (I do a lot of volleyball) I use FA*85mm, DA40mm, (very rare DA*55, but not lately) and Sigma 70-200mm (OS version) and for long shots from above DA*300mm. Only having 50-135mm wouldn't be a problem from focal range wise for these indoor sports. For a big fiels it is different, but I also used FA*85mm for soccer, so that can be done. Just a matter oif where you are standing and what to take on your image.

Ubuntu_user · 03-05-2012, 09:23 AM

I use the K-5 for indoor/outdoor sports and it works great! However, I primarily use the Sigma 50-150mm HSM f/2.8, DA* 200mm, and DA* 300mm. Those lenses all focus very fast and are excellent sports lenses.

RonHendriks1966 · 03-05-2012, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Ubuntu_user

I use the K-5 for indoor/outdoor sports and it works great! However, I primarily use the Sigma 50-150mm HSM f/2.8, DA* 200mm, and DA* 300mm. Those lenses all focus very fast and are excellent sports lenses.

Really? I found the DA*200mm very slow in focussing and returned it because of that. It was a great lens in image quality.

treebeard · 03-05-2012, 09:28 AM

When I used to shoot Nikon and Canon I used an 85 1.8 for alot of indoor shots, of course I was using a MkIII and a D700 so that helped. I guess I am not really hearing what I want to hear about the choices of lenses for the K5. I am not impressed too much with the shots I have seen from the Tamron 70-200 and while I like Sigma lenses the 70-200 2.8 OSM lens is a bit out of my price range. The Pentax 50-135 seems like a great lens...not for sports though. I really want to stick with Pentax since I have a K-r and several MF primes I enjoy using. I guess I should just bite the bullet and get the K5.

UpNorth · 03-05-2012, 10:35 AM

Somewhat off topic - somewhat on.....

For the last couple of years I've spent the Spring shooting high school baseball, and the Fall shooting high school soccer - and the lens for probably 80% of those shots has been the 50 - 135. I think it does a great job. While not moving at the speed of NASCAR, those high school girls can move pretty quick on that soccer field!

I've shot in bright afternoon sun, at night games with just the stadium lights as a light source, and even on dark rainy days. While it does do some hunting sometimes, I can usually work within its "limits" pretty well. I use the time late in the night games, and on the dark rainy days for getting more coach-talking-to-a-player/girls-sitting-on-the-bench and boys-in-the-dugout shots - but having the ability to "track" the action with a zoom in that range is very helpful. Normally I'll bring two bodies - with the 55 - 300 kit on the other body - but, like I said, 80% of the shots come with the 50 - 135.

(I noted this was somewhat off-topic because I don't have a k-5 (yet)

so I've got my 50 - 135 hooked to my K20D most of the time. This past season it even worked well on my K10D - as my K20D was "in the shop" for the entire soccer season.)

Tim

Belcik · 03-05-2012, 10:49 AM

Well.... Let's put everything as it is suppose to be done.
1. What type of sports? (chess is also a sport)
2. What type of lightning (indoor/outdoor)
3. The speed and size of objects - chess vs. car rally vs. Bobsleigh

What I can say from my incredibelly small experience is that my sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro will work on some events..... but for indoor gymnastics it is not enough...

By sneaking into others

Photos were made mostly by very fast lenses:

or here You see:

But in general, phographers were simply close enough and used some standard lenses:

Of course, with some exceptions, like this guy:

that made this photo:

(exif available)
Bu hey.... somehow I canot afford to invest into lenses that cost as much as my car

so I am being left with photos like this (almost no PP done, I am too lazy now)

Sorry for flooding.

But anyway, you have always to consider plenty of different variables, and only then decide which lenses to buy. Are you going to be able be close to the subject or not (I was in the furthest available point at that gym event in Moscow)

Cheers!!

joe.penn · 03-05-2012, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Really? I found the DA*200mm very slow in focussing and returned it because of that.

SDM sucks ass for any moving object (unless panning) - the issue is the "huge delay" between the lens confirmation "ready" to the body, this is why screw drive lenses (a majority of them anyways) focus and trigger over twice as fast on pentax bodies as there is no communication between the lens and the body before the actual shot is triggered...

EDIT: FWIW, SDM can fool a user in believing that focus is fast - when shooting left to right there is near 0 change in distance so the subject will stay in focus for quite a while, it's when erratic movement of the subject comes into play and where SMD fails miserably...

treebeard · 03-05-2012, 10:56 AM

you did not flood....you posted examples which is what I want.

I could be shooting anything from an indoor event in poor lighting to a nighttime baseball game.

treebeard · 03-05-2012, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by joe.penn

SDM sucks ass for any moving object (unless panning) - the issue is the "huge delay" between the lens confirmation "ready" to the body, this is why screw drive lenses (a majority of them anyways) focus and trigger over twice as fast on pentax bodies as there is no communication between the lens and the body before the actual shot is triggered...

Exactly what I was looking for! You just answered a crap-load of questions for me!

Belcik · 03-05-2012, 11:01 AM

In that case I wouth rather thing about speed+focal length.

You can always do some tricks with AF, but anything improving those above two (boost up ISO or crop) will to do some deterioration in quality.
So IMHO, you should search for low F with high FL - anything being in Your budget, and do not care about speed of AF.

Honestly, I have even started to thing about MF lenses, just to have some buffer for speed and FL. But it is me....

03-05-2012, 07:59 AM	#1
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793	K5 for sports anyone? Okay, anyone who has used the K5 for sports please give me your opinion on it's capabilities. I want to hear from real shooters....I don't want a review from a website. I know how good the K5 is with static subjects but that is not my concern. I had someone tell me that he thought the AF using the DA 50-135 was on par with the AF on his 5DMkII....which really does not have me too enthusiastic.

03-05-2012, 09:28 AM	#9
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793 Original Poster	When I used to shoot Nikon and Canon I used an 85 1.8 for alot of indoor shots, of course I was using a MkIII and a D700 so that helped. I guess I am not really hearing what I want to hear about the choices of lenses for the K5. I am not impressed too much with the shots I have seen from the Tamron 70-200 and while I like Sigma lenses the 70-200 2.8 OSM lens is a bit out of my price range. The Pentax 50-135 seems like a great lens...not for sports though. I really want to stick with Pentax since I have a K-r and several MF primes I enjoy using. I guess I should just bite the bullet and get the K5. Last edited by treebeard; 03-05-2012 at 10:08 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x does sports?	gebco	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	03-06-2012 12:21 AM
K-5 and sports	dndcdr	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	8	02-17-2012 09:31 AM
Kx for sports?	sanox	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	21	06-26-2011 03:29 PM
Sports Who says the K7 can't do sports??	Javaslinger	Post Your Photos!	7	02-13-2011 04:34 PM
Sports A*1200 and sports?	SteveM	Post Your Photos!	24	04-25-2010 09:09 AM

03-05-2012, 08:05 AM	#2
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Well there is a thread where you can find at least some sports pictures: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/115277-k-5-sports-photography.html The Da50-135 is I gues one of the slowest focussing lenses. I do a lot of sports, but unless you specify what sport or to what level of pictures you want to take you can't get very good advice.

03-05-2012, 08:08 AM	#3
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793 Original Poster	I guess for sports it would be for any situation that a newspaper would require of me...such as indoor basketball, night baseball...football and etc....I have heard that the 50-135 is slow (wonderful bokeh though!). I have looked at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the newer Sigma 70-200 2.8 OSM but a new Sigma is out of my price range. I used the older non-OSM Sigma 70-200 2.8 on a canon body and a Nikon body and it was a great lens (I had a sharp copy for sure!).

03-05-2012, 08:30 AM	#4
asp1880 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Lyngby, Copenhagen Photos: Albums Posts: 742	I've only shot outdoors sports (road cycling and american football) using the K-5 and the DA200. It can do the job but it's quite unforgiving of sloppy technique. Don't let your focus point drift off target but keep it on the same spot on your subject or AF tracking will suffer. I have no experience shooting indoors or nighttime sports. Neither have I tried any of the competing systems, Canon 7D etc. I'd imagine that the faster focussing lenses and the more flexible AF systems (AF point expansion and whatnot) gives you a higher keeper rate and works better with imperfect technique. Regards, --Anders.

03-05-2012, 08:44 AM	#5
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by treebeard such as indoor basketball, night baseball...football and etc....I have heard that the 50-135 is slow (wonderful bokeh though!). I have looked at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the newer Sigma 70-200 2.8 OSM but a new Sigma is out of my price range. The 50~135 is a great lens for sports, when used in Manual Focus only! The 50~135's advantage over the Tammy and Siggy 70~200 is the overall IQ, the disadvantage of the 50~135 is it's focal range - the 135 on the long end just doesn't cut it when shooting across a football field.

03-05-2012, 08:52 AM	#6
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	For indoor (I do a lot of volleyball) I use FA85mm, DA40mm, (very rare DA55, but not lately) and Sigma 70-200mm (OS version) and for long shots from above DA300mm. Only having 50-135mm wouldn't be a problem from focal range wise for these indoor sports. For a big fiels it is different, but I also used FA85mm for soccer, so that can be done. Just a matter oif where you are standing and what to take on your image.

03-05-2012, 09:23 AM	#7
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	I use the K-5 for indoor/outdoor sports and it works great! However, I primarily use the Sigma 50-150mm HSM f/2.8, DA* 200mm, and DA* 300mm. Those lenses all focus very fast and are excellent sports lenses.

03-05-2012, 09:26 AM	#8
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Ubuntu_user I use the K-5 for indoor/outdoor sports and it works great! However, I primarily use the Sigma 50-150mm HSM f/2.8, *DA 200mm*, and DA 300mm. Those lenses all focus very fast and are excellent sports lenses. Really? I found the DA*200mm very slow in focussing and returned it because of that. It was a great lens in image quality.

03-05-2012, 10:35 AM	#10
UpNorth Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Minnesota, U.S.A. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 714	Somewhat off topic - somewhat on..... For the last couple of years I've spent the Spring shooting high school baseball, and the Fall shooting high school soccer - and the lens for probably 80% of those shots has been the 50 - 135. I think it does a great job. While not moving at the speed of NASCAR, those high school girls can move pretty quick on that soccer field! I've shot in bright afternoon sun, at night games with just the stadium lights as a light source, and even on dark rainy days. While it does do some hunting sometimes, I can usually work within its "limits" pretty well. I use the time late in the night games, and on the dark rainy days for getting more coach-talking-to-a-player/girls-sitting-on-the-bench and boys-in-the-dugout shots - but having the ability to "track" the action with a zoom in that range is very helpful. Normally I'll bring two bodies - with the 55 - 300 kit on the other body - but, like I said, 80% of the shots come with the 50 - 135. (I noted this was somewhat off-topic because I don't have a k-5 (yet) so I've got my 50 - 135 hooked to my K20D most of the time. This past season it even worked well on my K10D - as my K20D was "in the shop" for the entire soccer season.) Tim

03-05-2012, 10:49 AM	#11
Belcik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Russia,Moscow Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 377	Well.... Let's put everything as it is suppose to be done. 1. What type of sports? (chess is also a sport) 2. What type of lightning (indoor/outdoor) 3. The speed and size of objects - chess vs. car rally vs. Bobsleigh What I can say from my incredibelly small experience is that my sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro will work on some events..... but for indoor gymnastics it is not enough... By sneaking into others Photos were made mostly by very fast lenses: or here You see: But in general, phographers were simply close enough and used some standard lenses: Of course, with some exceptions, like this guy: that made this photo: (exif available) Bu hey.... somehow I canot afford to invest into lenses that cost as much as my car so I am being left with photos like this (almost no PP done, I am too lazy now) Sorry for flooding. But anyway, you have always to consider plenty of different variables, and only then decide which lenses to buy. Are you going to be able be close to the subject or not (I was in the furthest available point at that gym event in Moscow) Cheers!!

03-05-2012, 10:54 AM	#12
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Really? I found the DA200mm very slow in focussing* and returned it because of that. SDM sucks ass for any moving object (unless panning) - the issue is the "huge delay" between the lens confirmation "ready" to the body, this is why screw drive lenses (a majority of them anyways) focus and trigger over twice as fast on pentax bodies as there is no communication between the lens and the body before the actual shot is triggered... EDIT: FWIW, SDM can fool a user in believing that focus is fast - when shooting left to right there is near 0 change in distance so the subject will stay in focus for quite a while, it's when erratic movement of the subject comes into play and where SMD fails miserably...

03-05-2012, 10:56 AM	#13
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793 Original Poster	you did not flood....you posted examples which is what I want. I could be shooting anything from an indoor event in poor lighting to a nighttime baseball game.

03-05-2012, 10:57 AM	#14
treebeard Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Windham, NH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 793 Original Poster	Originally posted by joe.penn SDM sucks ass for any moving object (unless panning) - the issue is the "huge delay" between the lens confirmation "ready" to the body, this is why screw drive lenses (a majority of them anyways) focus and trigger over twice as fast on pentax bodies as there is no communication between the lens and the body before the actual shot is triggered... Exactly what I was looking for! You just answered a crap-load of questions for me!

03-05-2012, 11:01 AM	#15
Belcik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Russia,Moscow Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 377	In that case I wouth rather thing about speed+focal length. You can always do some tricks with AF, but anything improving those above two (boost up ISO or crop) will to do some deterioration in quality. So IMHO, you should search for low F with high FL - anything being in Your budget, and do not care about speed of AF. Honestly, I have even started to thing about MF lenses, just to have some buffer for speed and FL. But it is me....