Need more reach than 55-200 kit lens

jogo21 · 12-13-2015, 10:58 AM

Now that kids soccer season is over looking to get a lens with more reach than 55-200 kit lens. Picture quality is good for my needs but felt that from my location-sidelines and stands- I could use a longer lens. We have basketball season next and will be using in gym. Looking at two options-Pentax 55-300 or Sigma 70-300. Weather resistance is not necessary although nice and may need in some wet or dirty outdoor conditions. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

shuber · 12-13-2015, 11:10 AM

I think you need a 55-300. Why, here's one for sale! https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/302500-sal...ced-price.html

I'll even lower the price to $190 in the holiday spirit. You can thank me latter...

**UncleVanya** · 12-13-2015, 11:25 AM

The 55-300 seems to be preferred over 70-300 in most comparisons. The lens is a gem and performs way above expectations.

dansamy · 12-13-2015, 11:49 AM

I got the 55-300 as part of my original K-x kit. It's a great lens & I still use it now, 6 years later.

normhead · 12-13-2015, 12:03 PM

I love my now broken but still functional Sigma 70-300. I have so many good pictures taken with it. But the 55-300 is the way to go. It's better in the long end, and most people buy long glass, for the long end.

K Bill · 12-13-2015, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by jogo21

Now that kids soccer season is over looking to get a lens with more reach than 55-200 kit lens. Picture quality is good for my needs but felt that from my location-sidelines and stands- I could use a longer lens. We have basketball season next and will be using in gym. Looking at two options-Pentax 55-300 or Sigma 70-300. Weather resistance is not necessary although nice and may need in some wet or dirty outdoor conditions. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

The Sigma DG 70-300 is a good third party lens and works well for me. The newer OS version is nice too, I have both.

Good luck

**K-Three** · 12-13-2015, 02:02 PM

The problem with any of the long consumer grade zoom lenses is they are slow at the far end. The 55-300 is ƒ5.8 @300mm. Inside in a poorly lit school gym, not likely to get much unless you crank the ISO way up. Then you are fighting noise (grain) in your image.
You should try shooting in the gym with your 50-200 before you invest in another, if you can get the quality you are looking for with the 200 @ ƒ5.6, you will be happy with the 300 @ƒ5.8

A ƒ2.8 (constant) zoom at 200mm and crop to 300 would likely do better than the 55-300, but more $s.

The 55-300 also hunts focus in low light, takes some getting used to. I regularly have to manually rack it back out to infinity before starting to aim and focus again. When it missies it comes all the way back to closest focus. Annoying and time consuming. I do like it for outside work in good light though. It's a good, compact lens that performs above it's price range.

Last edited by K-Three; 12-13-2015 at 02:22 PM.

**UncleVanya** · 12-13-2015, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by K-Three

The problem with any of the long consumer grade zoom lenses is they are slow at the far end. The 55-300 is ƒ5.8 @300mm. Inside in a poorly lit school gym, not likely to get much unless you crank the ISO way up. Then you are fighting noise (grain) in your image.
You should try shooting in the gym with your 50-200 before you invest in another, if you can get the quality you are looking for with the 200 @ ƒ5.6, you will be happy with the 300 @ƒ5.8

A ƒ2.8 (constant) zoom at 200mm and crop to 300 would likely do better than the 55-300, but more $s.

The 55-300 also hunts focus in low light, takes some getting used to. I regularly have to manually rack it back out to infinity before starting to aim and focus again. When it missies it comes all the way back to closest focus. Annoying and time consuming. I do like it for outside work in good light though. It's a good, compact lens that performs above it's price range.

Somehow I missed that the current shots were outdoors and the new one's would be indoors. That is a good point. Shooting in raw and using denoise software may be an answer but only the OP will know what skill, software and tolerance for noise exists.

Fast long lenses are really expensive - particularly for zooms with good quality.

jogo21 · 12-13-2015, 02:44 PM

The gym is well lit. School auditorium isn't as bright but stage area has enough lighting to get decent pics. Thanks for the input.

**RGlasel** · 12-13-2015, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by K-Three

The 55-300 also hunts focus in low light, takes some getting used to

I have experienced the same problem with the 55-300 and for basketball you need less reach than for soccer, but better autofocus. On APS-C, 50-135mm covers the entire court unless you are way up in the stands. Being closer to the action also means you have to move the camera more and focus tracking becomes a bigger challenge. Add to that the poor lighting that school gymnasiums are famous for and the 55-300 becomes even less attractive. I've never tried the Tamron 70-300, but I can't see where it would be an improvement on the DA 55-300 for any situation. The 55-300 is great outdoors, so you might want to add it to your lens collection regardless of its suitability for getting photos in gyms.

A couple of posters on this forum have tried 50mm prime lenses for shooting basketball games; the wider apertures allow much more light in the camera and you can always crop. The DA 50 f1.8 is one of the least expensive Pentax lenses, leaving some money for the 55-300 if you want more reach.

jogo21 · 12-13-2015, 02:52 PM

I actually have that prime lens you mention. Never thought of using it for games. Thanks for the tip. Will have to give it a try.

dansamy · 12-13-2015, 03:04 PM

Don't underestimate the human eye's ability to see in poor lighting conditions. What your eye sees as good light is a far cry from what the camera sees as good light.

Oldbayrunner · 12-13-2015, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by K-Three

The 55-300 also hunts focus in low light, takes some getting used to. I regularly have to manually rack it back out to infinity before starting to aim and focus again. When it missies it comes all the way back to closest focus. Annoying and time consuming. I do like it for outside work in good light though. It's a good, compact lens that performs above it's price range.

My WR version has quick shift, using spot metering , spot focus & quick shift I rarely have to manually rack mine in lower light.

normhead · 12-13-2015, 06:35 PM

The Pentax metering system is -3 EV, with a 2.8 lens. An ƒ5.6 lens is going to be two stops lower than optimum. I've shot volleyball before with a 50, but you do have to be pretty close. For basketball I've shot from right under the basket with good results, also with a 50. But really, a 70-200-ƒ2.8 theoretically should be the best for this. That's as long and fast as you get in Pentax land.

**UncleVanya** · 12-13-2015, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Oldbayrunner

My WR version has quick shift, using spot metering , spot focus & quick shift I rarely have to manually rack mine in lower light.

DA version is also quick shift.

12-13-2015, 10:58 AM	#1
jogo21 New Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 12	Need more reach than 55-200 kit lens Now that kids soccer season is over looking to get a lens with more reach than 55-200 kit lens. Picture quality is good for my needs but felt that from my location-sidelines and stands- I could use a longer lens. We have basketball season next and will be using in gym. Looking at two options-Pentax 55-300 or Sigma 70-300. Weather resistance is not necessary although nice and may need in some wet or dirty outdoor conditions. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

12-13-2015, 02:52 PM	#11
jogo21 New Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 12 Original Poster	Need more reach than 55-200 kit lens I actually have that prime lens you mention. Never thought of using it for games. Thanks for the tip. Will have to give it a try. Last edited by jogo21; 12-13-2015 at 02:53 PM. Reason: Hit save by accident.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First time SF Bay DSLR user - KS2 18-55 & 55-200 WR Kit	HuntingRat	Welcomes and Introductions	24	12-04-2015 06:17 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 67 Kit - 55/105/165/200 lenses, 1-degree spotmeter, more	DJSponge	Sold Items	2	06-03-2013 02:38 PM
Is DA 55-300/ 18-55 Combo better than Tamron 28-200?	Mikesul	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	01-10-2012 11:16 AM
Need suggestions for Hoods for DAL 18-55 Kit Lens and DAL 55-300mm Lens	photoleet	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-20-2011 03:15 PM

12-13-2015, 11:10 AM	#2
shuber Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 48	I think you need a 55-300. Why, here's one for sale! https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/302500-sal...ced-price.html I'll even lower the price to $190 in the holiday spirit. You can thank me latter...

12-13-2015, 11:25 AM	#3
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,400	The 55-300 seems to be preferred over 70-300 in most comparisons. The lens is a gem and performs way above expectations.

12-13-2015, 11:49 AM	#4
dansamy Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,450	I got the 55-300 as part of my original K-x kit. It's a great lens & I still use it now, 6 years later.

12-13-2015, 12:03 PM	#5
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I love my now broken but still functional Sigma 70-300. I have so many good pictures taken with it. But the 55-300 is the way to go. It's better in the long end, and most people buy long glass, for the long end.

12-13-2015, 02:02 PM	#6
K Bill New Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 9	Originally posted by jogo21 Now that kids soccer season is over looking to get a lens with more reach than 55-200 kit lens. Picture quality is good for my needs but felt that from my location-sidelines and stands- I could use a longer lens. We have basketball season next and will be using in gym. Looking at two options-Pentax 55-300 or Sigma 70-300. Weather resistance is not necessary although nice and may need in some wet or dirty outdoor conditions. Thanks in advance for any recommendations. The Sigma DG 70-300 is a good third party lens and works well for me. The newer OS version is nice too, I have both. Good luck

12-13-2015, 02:02 PM	#7
K-Three Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Pugetopolis, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 937	The problem with any of the long consumer grade zoom lenses is they are slow at the far end. The 55-300 is ƒ5.8 @300mm. Inside in a poorly lit school gym, not likely to get much unless you crank the ISO way up. Then you are fighting noise (grain) in your image. You should try shooting in the gym with your 50-200 before you invest in another, if you can get the quality you are looking for with the 200 @ ƒ5.6, you will be happy with the 300 @ƒ5.8 A ƒ2.8 (constant) zoom at 200mm and crop to 300 would likely do better than the 55-300, but more $s. The 55-300 also hunts focus in low light, takes some getting used to. I regularly have to manually rack it back out to infinity before starting to aim and focus again. When it missies it comes all the way back to closest focus. Annoying and time consuming. I do like it for outside work in good light though. It's a good, compact lens that performs above it's price range. Last edited by K-Three; 12-13-2015 at 02:22 PM.

12-13-2015, 02:31 PM	#8
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,400	Originally posted by K-Three The problem with any of the long consumer grade zoom lenses is they are slow at the far end. The 55-300 is ƒ5.8 @300mm. Inside in a poorly lit school gym, not likely to get much unless you crank the ISO way up. Then you are fighting noise (grain) in your image. You should try shooting in the gym with your 50-200 before you invest in another, if you can get the quality you are looking for with the 200 @ ƒ5.6, you will be happy with the 300 @ƒ5.8 A ƒ2.8 (constant) zoom at 200mm and crop to 300 would likely do better than the 55-300, but more $s. The 55-300 also hunts focus in low light, takes some getting used to. I regularly have to manually rack it back out to infinity before starting to aim and focus again. When it missies it comes all the way back to closest focus. Annoying and time consuming. I do like it for outside work in good light though. It's a good, compact lens that performs above it's price range. Somehow I missed that the current shots were outdoors and the new one's would be indoors. That is a good point. Shooting in raw and using denoise software may be an answer but only the OP will know what skill, software and tolerance for noise exists. Fast long lenses are really expensive - particularly for zooms with good quality.

12-13-2015, 02:44 PM	#9
jogo21 New Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 12 Original Poster	The gym is well lit. School auditorium isn't as bright but stage area has enough lighting to get decent pics. Thanks for the input.

12-13-2015, 02:49 PM	#10
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,227	Originally posted by K-Three The 55-300 also hunts focus in low light, takes some getting used to I have experienced the same problem with the 55-300 and for basketball you need less reach than for soccer, but better autofocus. On APS-C, 50-135mm covers the entire court unless you are way up in the stands. Being closer to the action also means you have to move the camera more and focus tracking becomes a bigger challenge. Add to that the poor lighting that school gymnasiums are famous for and the 55-300 becomes even less attractive. I've never tried the Tamron 70-300, but I can't see where it would be an improvement on the DA 55-300 for any situation. The 55-300 is great outdoors, so you might want to add it to your lens collection regardless of its suitability for getting photos in gyms. A couple of posters on this forum have tried 50mm prime lenses for shooting basketball games; the wider apertures allow much more light in the camera and you can always crop. The DA 50 f1.8 is one of the least expensive Pentax lenses, leaving some money for the 55-300 if you want more reach.

12-13-2015, 03:04 PM	#12
dansamy Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,450	Don't underestimate the human eye's ability to see in poor lighting conditions. What your eye sees as good light is a far cry from what the camera sees as good light.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2015, 04:17 PM	#13
Oldbayrunner Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by K-Three The 55-300 also hunts focus in low light, takes some getting used to. I regularly have to manually rack it back out to infinity before starting to aim and focus again. When it missies it comes all the way back to closest focus. Annoying and time consuming. I do like it for outside work in good light though. It's a good, compact lens that performs above it's price range. My WR version has quick shift, using spot metering , spot focus & quick shift I rarely have to manually rack mine in lower light.

12-13-2015, 06:35 PM	#14
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	The Pentax metering system is -3 EV, with a 2.8 lens. An ƒ5.6 lens is going to be two stops lower than optimum. I've shot volleyball before with a 50, but you do have to be pretty close. For basketball I've shot from right under the basket with good results, also with a 50. But really, a 70-200-ƒ2.8 theoretically should be the best for this. That's as long and fast as you get in Pentax land.

12-13-2015, 07:50 PM	#15
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,400	Originally posted by Oldbayrunner My WR version has quick shift, using spot metering , spot focus & quick shift I rarely have to manually rack mine in lower light. DA version is also quick shift.