[DSims]

I thought about the DA* 60-250 as it offeres good range and flexibility, but lacks the F2.8, although the DA* 200 sweet spot seemed to be F3.5-F4.0. Bokeh is a major factor here as well. The Tamron's price is attractive, but reviews aren't stellar for focus speed and reliability. The DA* 300 may give me what I need, with a sacrifice in versatility. Anyone know a good way to protect non WR lenses?
Thanks

Here are some pics using the DA* 200 F/2.8. Quality was amazing, but focus ratio was about 30%.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646147915514/

You have to realize that almost all the reviews of the Tamron's focus speed are on older bodies, so don't pay too much attention to them. AF Speed has dramatically improved with the K-5 II/IIs and K-3 bodies (K-30/K-50 also, to an extent), with the K-3 being the fastest.

The DA*60-250 has worked for some people for sports - certainly faster than DA*200 in focusing, but not quite as fast as the DA*300, I believe. It's worth trying if the weather sealing is crucial.

[Khoff2]

Here are some comparison shots from the K3 with the DA*200 and the Sigma 70-200 EX, both F2.8. Trying to decide which to keep. Both are pretty fast on the K3. The keeper rate and focus speed is about the same, so I'm mostly looking at IQ and Bokeh. What do you think.

DA* 200mm F2.8

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646112164807/

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646116326429/

[richardwong]

Keith - they both look good. With the Da200 they seem to have that little more punch in contrast compared to the Sigma, not much but just a bit. The clarity and detail seem to be about the same, from my smartphone that is.

So is the big question are you going to need to have the extra range of the 70-200 compared to using the prime of the 200 and miss some shots or perspectives.

I'm interested in this as well but my comparison is the da 60-250 vs the 70-200.

Good luck I will be reading with interest.

Here are some comparison shots from the K3 with the DA*200 and the Sigma 70-200 EX, both F2.8. Trying to decide which to keep. Both are pretty fast on the K3. The keeper rate and focus speed is about the same, so I'm mostly looking at IQ and Bokeh. What do you think.

DA* 200mm F2.8

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646112164807/

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646116326429/

[crewl1]

Here are some comparison shots from the K3 with the DA*200 and the Sigma 70-200 EX, both F2.8. Trying to decide which to keep. Both are pretty fast on the K3. The keeper rate and focus speed is about the same, so I'm mostly looking at IQ and Bokeh. What do you think.

DA* 200mm F2.8

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646112164807/

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646116326429/

Nice work! Shots looks very similar, so I think IQ is even.
I did notice that with the zoom you had many shots under 150mm, did you feel the flexibility of the zoom was useful?
Only one shot was taken at f2.8 and that was with the Sigma @100mm. It looks sharp enough but may not have enough DOF for fast moving sports.

You have two good lenses there.

[bass3587]

Here are some comparison shots from the K3 with the DA*200 and the Sigma 70-200 EX, both F2.8. Trying to decide which to keep. Both are pretty fast on the K3. The keeper rate and focus speed is about the same, so I'm mostly looking at IQ and Bokeh. What do you think.

DA* 200mm F2.8

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646112164807/

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646116326429/

From my unprofessional trained eye I think the DA 200 looks better. More contrast and as others have said more "punch"!

[Mirton]

Here are some comparison shots from the K3 with the DA*200 and the Sigma 70-200 EX, both F2.8. Trying to decide which to keep. Both are pretty fast on the K3. The keeper rate and focus speed is about the same, so I'm mostly looking at IQ and Bokeh. What do you think.

DA* 200mm F2.8

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646112164807/

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM

https://www.flickr.com/photos/68750816@N03/sets/72157646116326429/

These are both great action pictures by the way. I think that the Pentax 200 has better colors, isolation/bokeh , micro contrast and sharpness at the pixel level (post processing can help bridge the gap considerably) The Sigma 70-200 is not too far behind. Sigma has flexibility, but the 200mm prime is the ultimate performer. The choice is simply boils down to best IQ possible vs. flexibility

[crewl1]

here are two shots at f4 200mm.

2nd photo - Viewed full size the DA*200 shows the reason I cannot adapt it on the Q. You can see the magenta fringe in high contrast areas such as the knuckles.

1st photo - The Sigma does not have those tendencies, as they would have shown up in the shine on the knee

Attached Images

   

[Mirton]

here are two shots at f4 200mm.

2nd photo - Viewed full size the DA*200 shows the reason I cannot adapt it on the Q. You can see the magenta fringe in high contrast areas such as the knuckles.

1st photo - The Sigma does not have those tendencies, as they would have shown up in the shine on the knee

Lightroom should address the issue of purple/magenta fringing...

[mariakruse]

Below are several of the better shots taken from a youth premiere soccer match. The lens used was the Sigma 100-300mm f4. The time of day provided a good test for both the K-3 and the lens as the first half was in diminishing daylight, and the second half was under the lights.

To level-set matters, both the camera and the lens were new to me. I've been shooting outdoor soccer regularly for the past four years with a Canon 7D and the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L lens.

The 7D + the 100-400mm are pretty much the best APS-C performance body and reasonably priced super-telezoom combo going. It gives me a standard to judge most aspects of the K-3 + Sigma against.

This was also my first time using the K-3 grip. Things started off poorly as the camera immediately froze, leaving me flabbergasted and a bit nervous as I wanted to test a few things out in those 10 minutes prior to the match. I quickly removed the grip and did a quick in/out with the battery and things were OK. I've never had a DSLR freeze before so it's an unwelcome item to stash in the back of my mind with this camera,

That said, I'm very happy to have the grip. To me it is essential to help balance the large size and weight of the Sigma lens. Without the grip the camera felt too small and unstable. For chaotic sports like soccer I eschew camera supports with these sized lenses.

One of my objectives this evening was to test out the different AF modes and menu settings, as well as pay attention to how usable the Pentax menu and button interfaces are. Having owned three prior Pentax DSLRs I was fairly familiar with the Pentax way and routinely switch between using the 7D and my K20D for all sorts of photography. But I know things have changed.

I also want to set some scope here: my impressions of the K-3 are very preliminary. Shooting sports (and birds) is not easy at all. It takes a lot of time to configure any camera to match one's particular shooting approach, and then for the user (me this time) to develop that seamless feel with the camera. I pretty much shoot on trained instinct as I've learned the movement of soccer well, and I'm also aware that half the time I'm uncertain if what looked good in the viewfinder will transform. Stuff happens too fast and too much: typically I'll generate about 1500 shots.

A bit about expectations. First, neither the 7D nor the K-3 is among the best sports cameras out there. I'm just not good enough, and there isn't anything close to a ROI, to make it worth purchasing a Nikon D4 or a Canon MKIV and comparable superfast AF glass. But if I can freeze action, have it in focus, and have enough keepers to convey the event accurately, then I'm a happy man.

The AF settings I’m still figuring out, but this is what I used:

16. 1 Release priority

17. 1 Focus-priority

18. 3 medium


I started off mistakenly with AF.S mode but decided to go with it for a short while just to see. The results weren't terrible but having to keep pressing the AF button to track action was too much of a hassle. I always use back-button focus (that's a Canon world term).

Next I chose AF.C and somehow the spot focus was my mode. It responded OK to slower action but was outpaced overall when I simply held down the AF button and changed targets. So I again had to keep pressing the AF button to capture action in close proximity to the original target. This felt like too much nursing for fast action.

Most of my time was spent with AF.C and the Expanded Area Small setting or the Expanded Area Medium setting. I didn't see a significant difference between both of these modes.

Unlike the spot AF, I was able to keep the AF button pressed for extended periods, tracking action in and out of frame. Both modes missed about half the time, especially the first shot of a sequence. Looking at the EXIF, it seems like the AF system needed about 2 seconds to lock on the target of a moving soccer ball or player; once acquired, it would stay on target rather nicely. In comparison, my 7D would be about 20% more accurate right away. Where this really matters is when I quickly swing the camera about 30-degrees to capture a quick header 30 yards away. Once target is locked however, both the K-3 and the 7D performed about the same—which is saying a lot for the K-3.

Where the K-3 really excels--and this is the big gain for me--is its ability to work in lower light.

I put my 7D away if I cannot get 1/500 at ISO 3200. That means rainy grey Pacific Northwest days, and times when stadium lights are being used at dusk and later. With the K-3 I was able to get acceptable shots at dusk at ISO 6400 and then under the lights at ISO 12,800. Some of that is the Sigma's constant f4 compared with the 100-400's f4.5-5.6. But a lot is the superior sensor. It was quite satisfying being able to shoot under the lights and most likely reason enough to keep the K-3.

I have not yet performed any lens AF calibration or testing. I do use faster memory cards that claim 90+MB/second speed.

Other factors: In changing the AF and focus point modes I really started to dislike the info screen. It's annoying. There are too many unimportant options there and the presentation is too cramped. The 7D's QuickScreen has about 15 items; the Pentax, 19. The graphics on the Canon are simply easier to read and act on.

While the K-3's viewfinder is pleasant and good, the 7D's is a little larger and noticeably brighter. And the on/off grid is excellent.
The push/pull zoom control of the Canon 100-400m lens lets you change focal length a little quicker than the Sigma. That matters in a fast moving sport.

During an injury break or after a questionable call I’ll chimp to see what happened. It took way too long for a string of five shots to appear on the rear LCD immediately after the shot. I have been spoiled by the 7D’s two processors. I hope Ricoh can speed operations along some with a firmware update.

Summary: Overall,the K-3 AF is competitive with the 7D using the lenses I noted. While the 7D's AF seems 20% quicker and more accurate in good outdoor light, the K-3's superior sensor allows it to be used in darker, stadium-lighted venues. That opens significant new territory for Pentax shooters. Now Ricoh has to focus on hiccup-free performance.

I abandoned Pentax for shooting sports four years ago, so the reality that the K-3 is "good enough" for my needs is indicative of what a fine camera the K-3 is overall. Ricoh (and third parties) has to fulfill the whole promise of this good camera by releasing modern zoom super-telephoto lenses.

I hope you find this useful.

M




1/750 @ f5.6, ISO 3200



1/750 @ f5.6, ISO 3200




1/500 @ f5.6, ISO 3200



1/500 @ f5.6, ISO 3200



1/750 @ f4.5, ISO 6400



1/1000@ f4.5, ISO 6400





1/750 @ f4.5, ISO 6400



1/750 @ f4, ISO 6400




1/500 @ f4, ISO 12800




1/750 @ f4, ISO 12800

M

Very nice photos. You caught the action wonderfully. Would you tell me which Sigma lens you used, I saw a couple of Sigma 70-300 at Amazon but did not know which one you were using.
Thank you,
mariakruse

[Khoff2]

I agree that the DA* 200mm has better color, depth, sharpness, and bokeh. As for the zoom, I was just standing closer. With the fixed lens, I stand further back. Its not an issue to zoom with my feet. Yes, purple fringing is big, but LR takes care of it. I may not have done it on that pic. The DA* due to its WR and much lighter handling size, I think wins for me. The Sigma is the 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM.
Thanks all

[dosdan]

Flying kick - U13 soccer (mixed genders still allowed in this age group)

K3 + DA* 60-250/F4 @250mm FL, 1/1000s, f/7.1, ISO500

Resized to 1084x1000, so you you may need to open it up as a new image to see it with the intended sharpness.



Dan.

[Mirton]

The Sigma is the 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM.

I don't mean to be fastidious but I think you mean: Sigma EX DG 70-200mm f2.8 HSM Macro II......(unless its the newest OS version)

[rawr]

An AFL player who forgot he is playing soccer?

[Khoff2]

I don't mean to be fastidious but I think you mean: Sigma EX DG 70-200mm f2.8 HSM Macro II......(unless its the newest OS version)

Negative, it is the newest OS version - non macro.

[dadipentak]

Flying kick

Nice! It took me a while to figure out which player was closer.