[jiimaa]

It was this time of the year again. Took a 70-200 HSM II instead of the DA*300 I had last year. Mixed results, some good ones thanks to the shorter focal length, but a lot of missed frames - and I mean a lot. This is one of the good ones.



Oh, and positioned straight against the sun for a cool effect. Did not disappoint.

Edit: another one










Edit edit edit: j***** f**** c*****, comparing the DA*300 rendered images on a K-5 and these 70-200 pics at K-3, the conclusion must be that DA*300 consists of magic powder. I'll take that one again next year.


Edit: Well they didn't turn out all bad. Full set of 75 pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jiimaa/sets/72157646566791925/

---

Last edited by jiimaa; 08-22-2014 at 10:04 AM. Reason: Sorry, flickr broke links - fixed.

[DSims]

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/

I don't think any of these shots are very demanding on the AF. The movement looks almost entirely lateral, across the frame (meaning virtually no refocusing is necessary, since the distance to the athlete remains about the same as you pan).

While I slightly prefer images that come out of the DA*200, the latest Sigma (the OS version, which you have) should be much faster at focusing if the athlete is coming toward you. If you don't plan on doing that type of shooting, then pick whichever you like. But if you do, keep the Sigma (or get a 70-200/2.8 Tamron), or get an FA*200 or a *300. Even the DA*60-250 has worked for some action shooters. But you'll start pulling your hair out after only 10 minutes of trying to capture athletes quickly moving toward you with the DA*200 (using a fast aperture - e.g. f/3.5) in AF-C!

[dadipentak]

DA*300 consists of magic powder..

True

Well they didn't turn out all bad.

Also.

[Mirton]

Great Stuff, my compliments to you all!

[richardwong]

jiimaa - Nice combination of more bokeh and less bokehish shots.

It was this time of the year again. Took a 70-200 HSM II instead of the DA*300 I had last year. Mixed results, some good ones thanks to the shorter focal length, but a lot of missed frames - and I mean a lot. This is one of the good ones.



Oh, and positioned straight against the sun for a cool effect. Did not disappoint.

Edit: another one







Edit edit edit: j***** f**** c*****, comparing the DA*300 rendered images on a K-5 and these 70-200 pics at K-3, the conclusion must be that DA*300 consists of magic powder. I'll take that one again next year.


Edit: Well they didn't turn out all bad. Full set of 75 pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jiimaa/sets/72157646566791925/

[jiimaa]

Thanks! I changed settings a few times. I only wish the 70-200 would've pulled it through wide open; I missed a lot of shots trying to shoot f/2.8. Next time I won't go below f/4 with the 70-200 HSM II. Sad thing is, I already knew that I probably shouldn't unless the lack of light demands it, which it certainly didn't yesterday. I was at 1/1250-1/2000 most of the time.

The K-3 burst mode saved the day in the end.



I ain't even mad it looks as it does - the sword is right where it should (at f/2.8 above).


And here I'm in completely impossible angle to capture the action, yet the K-3 managed to slip a frame where there's a whole story there nonetheless. This must be one of my favorites from the shoot (at f/3.5 below).

[Canada_Rockies]

And here I'm in completely impossible angle to capture the action, yet the K-3 managed to slip a frame where there's a whole story there nonetheless. This must be one of my favorites from the shoot (at f/3.5 below).

I love that shot - it's terrific!

[Khoff2]

I don't think any of these shots are very demanding on the AF. The movement looks almost entirely lateral, across the frame (meaning virtually no refocusing is necessary, since the distance to the athlete remains about the same as you pan).

While I slightly prefer images that come out of the DA*200, the latest Sigma (the OS version, which you have) should be much faster at focusing if the athlete is coming toward you. If you don't plan on doing that type of shooting, then pick whichever you like. But if you do, keep the Sigma (or get a 70-200/2.8 Tamron), or get an FA*200 or a *300. Even the DA*60-250 has worked for some action shooters. But you'll start pulling your hair out after only 10 minutes of trying to capture athletes quickly moving toward you with the DA*200 (using a fast aperture - e.g. f/3.5) in AF-C!

All pics are subject moving towards me with slight panning. The pics have been aggressively cropped for subject isolation. My tests have shown that the DA* 200 was actually better than the Sig with subjects moving towards me, even though reviews with other cameras say different. On the K-30, the Sig is faster, but on the K-3, not much difference.

[rawr]

Sad thing is, I already knew that I probably shouldn't unless the lack of light demands it,

Indeed. Wide open the DOF can be pretty shallow at 200mm or thereabouts. Shallow DOF at f2.8 can produce a nice effect but it doesn't always work out well for action, since it's rare that you would be shooting an object that has all of the interesting detail sitting flat along a shallow plane. f4 or f5.6 during daylight will usually include more detail - eg more of the car than just it's license plate.


Car 60 - Mitsubishi - Happy Valley stage - Border Ranges Rally
145mm, f/4.5, 1/1250s @ ISO 1600 Sigma 70-200 HSMII


Day 2 - Car 2 - Subaru WRX - Boomi stage
180mm, f/5, 1/640s @ ISO 100 Sigma 70-200 HSMII

[WillWeaverRVA]

I completely forgot this thread existed. I rented a K-3 from LensRentals.com back in March for the Atlantic 10 Conference men's basketball tournament. Here's some shots:

[jiimaa]

Thank you rawr for the insight, you're right. The thing I wanted to achieve with the 2.8 was indeed the narrow separation; I felt it was crucial the knight be clearly OOF in order for the picture to not be confusing, as I'm quite the distance away (that's at 145mm, slightly cropped frame) and too much depth of field would ruin the image if it wasn't immediately clear where they are located in space in relation to each other. In the lower image I went for the same effect, but to a much closer focus point (145mm also, I think this one is the uncropped frame), so I've stopped down to maintain some depth of field. The 70-200 HSM II suffers heavily at 2.8 shooting against the light; ii looks uneasy, there are aberrations everywhere, and all in all I had to throw away most of the f/2.8 frames. Stopped down even just a bit, things improve dramatically.

[rawr]

Stopped down even just a bit, things improve dramatically.

I've noticed that myself. Even just a tiny shift up to f3.2 or f3.5 can make a useful difference to sharpness and clarity sometimes.


Flying bull
ƒ/3.5, 98.0 mm, 1/500, ISO 4000 Sigma 70-200 HSM II

Future rider
ƒ/3.2, 200.0 mm, 1/500, ISO 640 Sigma 70-200 HSM II

[mattb123]

I completely forgot this thread existed. I rented a K-3 from LensRentals.com back in March for the Atlantic 10 Conference men's basketball tournament. Here's some shots:

Those look great! What lens? Looks like you were right up close.

[DSims]

All pics are subject moving towards me with slight panning. The pics have been aggressively cropped for subject isolation. My tests have shown that the DA* 200 was actually better than the Sig with subjects moving towards me, even though reviews with other cameras say different. On the K-30, the Sig is faster, but on the K-3, not much difference.

Perhaps Pentax has made a dramatic firmware fix to speed up the DA*200 focusing on a K-3. If not, you'd have to have a miracle DA*200 to get fast focusing in demanding situations.



In any case, when I had the DA*200 for that brief 1-2 weeks the athletes were significantly closer to me than in your shots, and they were running directly at me (at race speed). Since you're doing a fair amount of cropping, the DOF at that distance is enough that much less focus adjustment should be required, and small errors in focus may not even be that noticeable.

Every type of shooting has its own challenges - I wouldn't consider one to be "easier" than another. But since you're having to crop, you'll get a better ROI in IQ with any of the *300 AF lenses. Neither of the lenses you're using here has quite the same IQ as a *300, and for the cost of the Sigma you could have the 300 instead. Furthermore, professional photographers frequently use 400mm and 500mm lenses (on FF) for sports, and a *300 on the K-3 gives you a similar FOV. In AF lenses I go from 135mm (DA*50-135 - also slow AF - or FA135) to 300mm (F*300), without anything in between. I just don't seem to need anything in the middle. In fact, usually I can work with just the F*300 and the FA*85.


If you have a 200 with you, you'll think you don't need a 300, but if you have a 300 you'll think you don't need a 200. Since the 300s are better lenses, get one of those.

[RonHendriks1966]

I completely forgot this thread existed. I rented a K-3 from LensRentals.com back in March for the Atlantic 10 Conference men's basketball tournament. Here's some shots:

Looks great to me. A little noisy on some faces, but good enough.