[RonHendriks1966]

Hello there. Always a big question to get your gear together when starting.

- I think the main issue with the K-50 is the smaller buffer. It can take only like 9 images if I'm correct before the buffer is full. While K-3/K-5iis can go as far as 24 images. That is not ideal, but also not perse the biggest issue.

- On the lenses. I don't think you can expect to take good images with the kitlenses (18-55, 50-200 and 18-135) in probably dimm lighted regional sportsvenues. It is even not very handy having those in well lith national sportscentre's where also TV registrations are being made.

I do some sports, but to much lately. For indoors my FA*85mm is by far my most used lens. It is also a good fast focussing lens, next to being fast in aperture. I think for many things the 50mm is on the short side, unless you can get close to the action. So the Tamron 70-200mm would be a good lens for sports (I sometimes use my Sigma 70-200mm lens). Or look into budget for the 70mm/f2.4 lens.

So look into your budget and buy camera and lens that can work for you and look into budget for a next purchase. Don't wast money on a lens you can't use for your choice of photography.

[crewl1]

Everyone here has made spot on suggestions.

From your intended use the biggest issue you need to address is the demands of indoor sports in dim gym lights.

To get shots that are better than your point and shoot you will need to spend some money on the lenses.

No way around it.

The Tamron suggestions are the most economical answer.

When I started out with a K-x (which I bought from @Dsims BTW) my gym sports pictures did not give me the quality I wanted until I stepped up to a f2.8 zoom.
The difference was night and day.

Quite honestly any current Pentax camera will do OK, with some models having extra benefits, but the key is the lens.
You can get good used deals here in the marketplace if you are OK with going that route.

Bottom line is plan on investing on the lens, with the camera choice secondary.
If you don't want to or can't spend the money - for indoor sports photography, skimping on the lens will get you not much better results than just staying with your point and shoot.

Below with K-5, Sigma 70-200 @ f2.8, ISO 2500, 1/320

[radman]

Thanks so much for all the excellent advice and recommendations:

I think ultimately that I will go with the Tamron 70-200 given its flexibility vs the fixed 135mm.
DSims,,,Thanks a lot for the summary plan!
Please comment on the Tamron 17-50 versus the Sigma 17-70 - the price is about the same and I see there is more range in the latter lens.

cahudson - thanks for the advice. I am glad it worked out for you. I am not sure about my manual focusing skills though. I have never used a SLR before.

Bagga_Txips - i like the idea of the 135mm - I see it is a better price than the Pentax 100mm f2.8.,,,and of course better reach. What manufacturer do you recommend? I do not find one on amazon. On ebay I find many priced under $50. I imagine those are manual focus --- how do I know if they would fit a K-50 or K-5,,,do they need adapters?
The 1 Pentax SMC FA 135mm is used with a price tag of $500 -- I imagine that is the one I would need for a newer camera and the "need" for autofocus.

Thanks,

radman

[DSims]

I think ultimately that I will go with the Tamron 70-200 given its flexibility vs the fixed 135mm.
DSims,,,Thanks a lot for the summary plan!
Please comment on the Tamron 17-50 versus the Sigma 17-70 - the price is about the same and I see there is more range in the latter lens.

I believe most on the forum would agree the DA16-45 and the Tamron 17-50 are the two better choices here. I had the DA17-70 and liked it. Now I have the DA*16-50 (purchased at the lower used price, but still fairly expensive), and I'd still recommend it to you, but not at this stage. It just isn't a priority right now. I think you'll be better off with the similar Tamron 17-50. I found both the Tamron and Sigma here, for example:

Pentax Digital Non-Mfg Zoom Lenses - KEH.com

KEH is a trustworthy source. They'll take the lens right back if there's a problem with it. Great reputation.


Here you can see examples from the Tamron 17-50 on a K-5 (results will be similar on any recent Pentax body): Advanced Search

Bagga_Txips - i like the idea of the 135mm - I see it is a better price than the Pentax 100mm f2.8.,,,and of course better reach. What manufacturer do you recommend? I do not find one on amazon. On ebay I find many priced under $50. I imagine those are manual focus --- how do I know if they would fit a K-50 or K-5,,,do they need adapters?
The 1 Pentax SMC FA 135mm is used with a price tag of $500 -- I imagine that is the one I would need for a newer camera and the "need" for autofocus.

If you're interested the FA135 is here right now: Pentax Autofocus Fixed Focal Length Lenses - KEH.com

It's one of my favorite lenses. I previously had three different Manual Focus 135mm lenses, but AF makes it so much more useful so they're all gone now.




By the way, if you really want to look like the "Dad who's gone overboard," you get two inexpensive bodies and you put the shorter lens on one and the longer on the other. It's virtually impossible to get higher quality photos without splitting up the focal length range into at least 2 lenses, so this is what you do if you need to cover the whole range. But most of the time you can just choose shorter or longer and stick with that (in fact, as I've said, it's surprising what good photos you can get with no zoom at all - sometimes even better because you'll have a slightly higher quality lens and will focus (concentrate) on better photos with fewer variables to worry about).

---

Last edited by DSims; 03-11-2014 at 02:54 PM.

[cahudson42]

cahudson - thanks for the advice. I am glad it worked out for you. I am not sure about my manual focusing skills though. I have never used a SLR before....radman

What's that Henry Ford quote? Something like: 'If you think you can, or think you can't - your right"

After you get your K-50 or K-5 etc, maybe borrow an old K-mount manual focus 135mm and give it a try. Manual Focus is not hard - and learning to use it will open up a tremendous selection of inexpensive-but-good glass for you to consider. Its a skill like riding a bike - nothing more.

With either DSLR you will have assistance from the 'focus indicator' through the viewfinder (which you can calibrate) and, at least with the K-50, Live View and Focus Peaking, which maybe you might like - at least indoors.

My last Pentax camera - before getting back into things recently with a K-01 (and then a Q) was an Spotmatic ES II. Probably about 1972.

I still had all my great Takumar M42 manual lenses, and decided I would use manual exclusively - buying the K-01 body-only. Yes, I needed an adapter - the Pentax 30120, and I leave it on the K-01 all the time. For the Q, I have an inexpensive Fotodiox adapter attached to each of an M42: 1.8/55, 3.5/135, and 5.6/200 - turning them into long Q-mount telephotos - plus the original 'automatic' Q 02 5-15 zoom. (The only fully auto lens I own). I'm enjoying them all. When I 'try my best' - I'm manual. But when I'm just 'banging around' - I go point-and-shoot with the Q and 02. Times for both.

Good Luck - Have Fun - and don;t hesitate to experiment - or ask. This forum has been a tremendous help to me on my 'restart' - and can be for you, too.

[crewl1]

By the way, if you really want to look like the "Dad who's gone overboard," you get two inexpensive bodies and you put the shorter lens on one and the longer on the other.

LOL - this is my MO. The short lens I prefer for indoor gym is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8.
I hesitate to recommend it to the OP only because if you are going to have just two lenses you should get something a little wider for all around use.

For indoor sports I run two bodies with the Sigma 70-200 on one and the Tamron 28-75 on the other.

This shot with the K-5 and Tamron 28-75 @ f3.5 ISO3200 1/500 sec

[Bagga_Txips]

Actually, for sports, if you are buying a 135 lens, I would NOT go for an autofocus, It all depends on where you are sitting, I suppose. If the players are travelling directly towards or away from you, there is a chance that the continuous autofocus will always be lagging slightly behind the player. In situations like that it's better to focus on a spot on the floor, then learn to anticipate the player so you hit the shot as they hit the spot. If they are travelling sideways, use zone focussing to do something similar. But what do I know, my sports photography days were decades ago, using film cameras. But a good 135mm f2.8 manual lens would be dirt cheap second hand, so you could buy one, test it, and resell it and move on to AF later if it didn't work for you.

Then you can use the saved money to upgrade your buying ability for the shorter zoom, and this is an area where you can't penny-pinch. Go for the best quality lens you can - spend to the point where you are almost crying with pain. But remember that with your super-duper 16/17-50/70 you are gonna be staring through this lens for the whole of the match. It needs to be both reliable and light, and it might be advisable to buy a monopod as well. So, think carefully about whether you want to risk the DA* 16-50 because of its reliability, and if you buy a 70-200 f2.8 enroll for weight-training first.

[radman]

Hi All,

boriscleto, thanks for the links to sports images

Just1MoreDave - It seems like the K-3 has the best autofocus of all the pentax line - I should hope so, given its price. I am leaning toward it now. You seem to lean toward a manual focus for sports - as does Bagga_Txips

RonHendriks1966 - Your point about the larger buffer on the more expensive cameras refers to taking multiple photos and then selecting the one or ones out that look the best, right? The FA*85 is out of my price range -- I am leaning toward eventually getting the Tamron 70-200 (as you and others suggested) or a 135mm fixed.

crewl1 - the images you submitted are outstanding! That is exactly what I want to be able to do...of course, I know it takes skill and it is NOT just the camera. But I am convinced that nobody (certainly not me) can get a shot like those with my point and shoot.

DSims - thanks for the links to the lenses - so instead of paying $490 on Amazon, it seems I can get an ex condition Tamron 17-50 for $275...am I reading that right? Save $200,,,also I see the 135mm AF for $364.,,I will work on getting the 1 camera first. Then when I want to totally embarrass my kids I will go for the 2 cameras as you suggested

cahudson and Bagga_Txips -- I understand what you are saying about the autofocus not catching up and locking onto the target (athlete); do you think this would be less of a problem with the K-3? For the manual focus (or even autofocus) it sounds like I could lock onto 1 point on the field/court (maybe the soccer goal or the basketball hoop) and wait for the action to come to me,,,then click away. Is that basically what you advised?

I truly appreciate all of the information and advice. There is so much to learn and I know that I am only scratching the surface. What a great community!

Sincerely,

radman

[DSims]

LOL - this is my MO. The short lens I prefer for indoor gym is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8.
I hesitate to recommend it to the OP only because if you are going to have just two lenses you should get something a little wider for all around use.

For indoor sports I run two bodies with the Sigma 70-200 on one and the Tamron 28-75 on the other.

I've been noticing your photos lately - it's definitely been working well for you.

---------- Post added 03-11-14 at 11:07 PM ----------

crewl1 - the images you submitted are outstanding! That is exactly what I want to be able to do...of course, I know it takes skill and it is NOT just the camera. But I am convinced that nobody (certainly not me) can get a shot like those with my point and shoot.

You're right about that - skill with a P&S won't help you much!

DSims - thanks for the links to the lenses - so instead of paying $490 on Amazon, it seems I can get an ex condition Tamron 17-50 for $275...am I reading that right? Save $200,,,also I see the 135mm AF for $364.,,I will work on getting the 1 camera first. Then when I want to totally embarrass my kids I will go for the 2 cameras as you suggested

Sometimes nothing's better than embarrassing your kids!


Yes, you can save a good amount of money by buying the same lens used for $300 instead of $500 new. I believe I bought over 80% of my lenses used.

I do hope you're buying a body that allows you to get either the 135 or 70-200 right away. And BTW, while manually focusing may have been the best way decades ago, AF can be very usable today - and not just on Canon.


I think capturing the drama of the event is important. The right lens can be essential here. I think composition and subject isolation are most important. Focus doesn't need to be perfect, but approximately correct. This is achievable even with an athlete running toward you at full speed. Here's an example of one of my photos that I like - not necessarily my best, but a good one. It was shot wide open, making focus even more critical. But being wide open (or close to it) is also what makes the shot, and in turns requires a quality lens. Here's what I like about the shot:

All Photos - EventTime Photos

- The athlete is positioned approximately correctly - slightly off center, running into the frame (this athlete is from one of the better teams, competing in the most important meet in southern California).
- To the left in the background, two spectators are cheering him on. Having them partially blurred adds to the effect.
- He's charging to the finish during the last 1/2 mile. There are at least 3 athletes to the right of him, slightly behind but almost breathing down his neck.

Of course I didn't plan the shot exactly this way, but I made it happen by following basic photographic composition and techniques. I was following this specific athlete using the upper right AF point for a few seconds. When you do this the other pieces will often fall into place. Don't sacrifice artistic concerns because of technical objections like "but the center AF point is more accurate!" BTW, I shot lowest quality 1-star (but full resolution) JPEG straight out of the camera, because it was more practical for my shooting scenario. You don't have to shoot sports RAW and edit later - unless somebody cares to make it worth your time.


A couple of other favorites from my first year shooting sports, this time with my FA135. Some people could complain about my framing, but to me they convey the excitement of the event:

Top Highlights - Central Park Invitational 2012 - EventTime Photos
Highlights - South Coast League Cluster Meet 2012 - EventTime Photos

[Bagga_Txips]

cahudson and Bagga_Txips -- I understand what you are saying about the autofocus not catching up and locking onto the target (athlete); do you think this would be less of a problem with the K-3? For the manual focus (or even autofocus) it sounds like I could lock onto 1 point on the field/court (maybe the soccer goal or the basketball hoop) and wait for the action to come to me,,,then click away. Is that basically what you advised?

That's exactly what I mean, yes. And I have my K-5 set up so that autofocus is triggered by the AF button on the back of the camera, rather than by the shutter release. Thibking about it, that could be very useful, because if I saw an athlete charging towards a photographable situation I could quickly focus to that distance, then wait for the athlete to get there. Here's another idea, and I would need the opinions of people who actually do sports photography - how useful is catch-in-focus for sports shots?

The K-3 has fast autofocus, that's what the reviews suggest, but it's a very expensive camera, and money is usually better spent on better glass.

[DSims]

That's exactly what I mean, yes. And I have my K-5 set up so that autofocus is triggered by the AF button on the back of the camera, rather than by the shutter release. Thibking about it, that could be very useful, because if I saw an athlete charging towards a photographable situation I could quickly focus to that distance, then wait for the athlete to get there. Here's another idea, and I would need the opinions of people who actually do sports photography - how useful is catch-in-focus for sports shots?

The K-3 has fast autofocus, that's what the reviews suggest, but it's a very expensive camera, and money is usually better spent on better glass.

With a K-5 you can actually use AF-C and follow the athlete (coming toward you) while the camera keeps focus. Of course it will keep going a little out of focus and snap back in focus during this process.


On the K200D I would only have 2 or 3 times I could actually snap the shutter as a runner was coming toward me (because it was out of focus the other times). But this is still better than getting only one opportunity (with Catch In Focus, for example).

On the K-5 it would stay in focus much more regularly.

And the K-5 IIs does even better than that, such that it's rarely far out of focus.


Others report that the K-3 (which I don't have) does even better with AF, and I believe that includes this scenario. But I didn't upgrade to it this year because I thought the K-5 IIs was doing well enough (and I had to invest in video-related equipment instead). So I can't tell you how much difference it might make. But as I said, the K-5 IIs does well already.


I should point out that I always select the focus point myself, rather than having the camera select for me, because I can select the athlete and frame while I shoot. As new groups of runners approach I'll often quickly change my focus point according to what I think will look better with their positions. It's a very active process if you're trying to get interesting shots. In general, if you don't know what your subject is (which athlete you're focusing on) you have no business taking the shot. As long as I keep the focus point on the athlete as he moves the newer cameras keep focus pretty well.


But while runners coming at you is a challenge for the camera's AF speed, field sports might have more lateral and stop and start movements, which could require less re-focusing for the camera. But OTOH, players can move unpredictably, or a closer player might run in front of the camera and throw the focus off. So each sport has its challenges.



To the OP: The bottom line is, IMO, you shouldn't go higher than a K-5 IIs. It's going for a very good price now, and won't depreciate that much more. So if you later disagree with me and think you need a better camera, you can sell it without taking much loss. In the meantime you'll have a very good camera and can invest in 1 or 2 quality lenses. Also, if you shoot in Portrait orientation a lot (I didn't until I shot runners) you can get a 3rd-party Battery Grip for less than $50. Believe me, after taking over 1000 shots in portrait orientation at an event, you'll be ordering one the next day! On the K-3 the Battery Grip is an additional $225, and I thought I read about some reliability issues with it. Plus the K-3 still has a few significant bugs being worked out (they wouldn't be enough to stop me, but if it were my only camera ... I wouldn't be so happy about it).

[Bagga_Txips]

+1 on the K-5IIs. It's ample for now, and later it will make a mighty fine backup body.

[crewl1]

Glad you liked the shots.

The important element for me is having a lens that lets me keep the ISO low and shutter speed up, and has decent image quality at its wide open setting.

This can be an AF or MF lens, (but I really don't have any experience with MF lenses in this scenario so I cannot offer any opinions on that.)

Kit lenses usually don't give best IQ until f8, at it's wide open setting it is still not fast enough, so then you are dealing with higher ISO's,slow shutter speeds and less than optimal IQ from the lens.

[wtlwdwgn]

No matter what you choose in the end remember that good glass lasts forever and bodies come an go. Bodies are constantly being upgraded while the really good lenses don't need to be. So buy the best lens you can afford and use whatever's left of your budget to get a body. You can always (and will) upgrade the body later. While zoom lenses are more versatile a fixed focus lens is easier to start and learn with and cheaper too. When you have used it a while you'll have a better idea of what your next lens will be whether shorter, longer, or zoom. Just my two cents.

[radman]

Hello:

You have been very gracious with their time and advice...thanks so much.

DSims - The k5iis is seeming like a better and better option to me. Do you have a battery grip recommendation that you can make? One thing that I keep on thinking about is upgrading $600 more and getting a lens that I would want to buy anyway and then also getting the newer camera and the grip. However, the crazy mirror flapping is scaring me away from the K-3.

crewl1 - In the setting of getting a K-50 for instance. Would it make sense to NOT pay the $200 more for the 2 kit lenses? I am asking because they come at quite a discount compared to their regular price, but on the other hand,,,I think I will need to upgrade anyway to the Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 anyway. That is to catch reasonable sports and low light (without flash) photos.

wtlwdwgn - Having never owned a SLR before, please provide me with some concrete numbers that I can wrap my head around. How long does a body last for average (non-pro) users..3 yrs, 5 yrs, 10 yrs?
How long to the lenses last? When you say forever, I imagine you mean over 10 years, maybe 20, 30? If I was to buy a Tamron 70-200, isn't it realistic to think that in a couple of years or maybe a bit longer Tamron will come up with a better 70-200 with better low light performance and things that would make an upgrade desirable? Or does that just not happen that much?

Thank you all for your excellent advice. Your time is greatly appreciated.

Brian