[Rexlawyer]

Recycled myself into photography just two years ago - after a two decade hiatus. With so much interest and wants, added to my "re-beginner" status, it only made sense to buy used. Interest was reawakened primarily while taking pictures of my daughter's high school soccer games. So, I purchased a very good condition K-r and pristine condition DA 55-300 ED WR (f4-5.6) for the purpose. The problem I am having is perhaps obvious -- the need for speed. I am happy enough (for now) with the camera and lens during daylight, but after the sun sets and the field lights come on -- not so much. At close in, I can drop the ISO to 6400 and shoot at f4 or f4.5 (ISO shots not good when pushed past 6400 and beyond horrible past 12800), and then, provided the subject is in a bright zone, I'll get an OK shot. But usually I need to push the ISO to 12800, which is very grainy on the K-r (can't imagine taking a picture by going beyond native to ISO 25600). Soooooooooooooo, I'm thinking I'll need to spring this fall for a faster lens. Because of my frugal minded budget, I'm looking at the following "used" options: Tamron 70-300 f2.8 DI LD Macro, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro, or possibly the Pentax DA* SMC 50-135 f2.8 (IF) SDM WR. Any suggestions, recommendations? Is money better spent on faster glass or a camera with better ISO abilities (can't get both now)? I would think faster glass. Wouldn't the 50-135 be frustratingly lacking in reach?

[boriscleto]

50-135 on APS-C is the same as 70-200 on FF. You would need a 105-300/2.8 on FF to match a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C.

A 70-200 is probably what you want. The 50-135 is slow focusing anyway.

[mikesbike]

You'd need a 70-200mm f/2.8 to get up to 4x the shutter speed of the zoom lens you now use, or 1/4 the ISO, and with a 1.4 or 1.5x teleconverter would give you f/4 or so and a reach close to 300mm. Such lenses generally yield superior image quality and are not cheap. They are also larger and heavier. Another alternative would be a 300mm f/4 or so prime lens having more reach, but then you lose the variable framing of a zoom lens.

Yet another alternative would be to sell your K-x and put your money into a newer body with a much more updated technology- like the K-70. It can deliver cleaner results at higher ISO settings, making your present lens able to perform similarly to a faster zoom lens on your K-x, but with better image quality than a K-x can manage. That in addition to many other advancements.

[Igor123]

I have the tamron 70-200 2.8 and it's great (very sharp, lightest of all the af 70-200f2.8s, still nice build quality, and good or ok everything else)! Largest difference vs other similar lenses is the corners wide open, but being an ff lens corners aren't "used"/visible/in frame on aps-c, so looking at bang for buck, especially on aps-c, it's superior to the other 70-200s I'd say.

But I also agree with mikesbike; for similar money maybe you can get a K70 (new?) which is also probably around 2 stops "faster" than a Kr for a given IQ due to cleaner images at same iso, higher resolution (giving you more headroom for more crop-zoom on daytime images) and other benefits too.

If satisfied with 1 stop faster but sharper than your zoom and cheaper, and if you're old-school and up to manual focusing, the SMC Pentax-M 200F4 is a great lens in IQ and build, and gives you one stop, better IQ (and feel =)), but is perhaps less versatile since it's prime at 200mm...(can be found for less than $100 I think?).

[pschlute]

Is money better spent on faster glass or a camera with better ISO abilities (can't get both now)?

Well the Kr is an old model now and 12800 ISO is a hell of a lot better on modern cameras like the KP and K1. Personally I would suggest a camera would be a better upgrade for what you want, but appreciate it is down to cost. f5.6 to f2.8 is two stops so will make a difference if you go down that route (ISO 3200 versus 12800). Also learning some PP skills especially with noise reduction can help too.

I'm looking at the following "used" options: Tamron 70-300 f2.8 DI LD Macro, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro, or possibly the Pentax DA* SMC 50-135 f2.8 (IF) SDM WR

Three very different maximum focal lengths there. With your current set-up what FL do you shoot most at ? This has to be one of your main deciding factors.

50-135 on APS-C is the same as 70-200 on FF. You would need a 105-300/2.8 on FF to match a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C

I am not sure a FF/aps-c comparison is helpful here. The OP has not mentioned FF. Either way his current Kr has less MP than the K1 in crop mode.

[BigMackCam]

I'm another who thinks, in this instance, a K-70 would be a better idea than a faster lens. If you go for a 70-200 f/2.8, you'll lose a fair bit of reach compared to your 55-300 at the long end, which, for sports, could be critical - or, at the very least, frustrating. The K-70's high ISO capability is quite astonishing compared to older bodies like the K-r, plus you get the extra resolution, articulating screen and a bunch of new features (which may or may not be useful to you - but I'd guess at least some of them will be, at some point).

[stevebrot]

The problem I am having is perhaps obvious -- the need for speed. I am happy enough (for now) with the camera and lens during daylight, but after the sun sets and the field lights come on -- not so much. At close in, I can drop the ISO to 6400 and shoot at f4 or f4.5 (ISO shots not good when pushed past 6400 and beyond horrible past 12800), and then, provided the subject is in a bright zone

Switch to manual exposure (M mode) metering off a gray card or the grass/astro-turf of the field; that should buy a few stops EV.


Steve

[pschlute]

Another reason why a camera upgrade is the preferred option for you is this:

Yes, f2.8 allows more light through than f4.0 or 5.6. But that is only part of the story. You get a reduced depth of field with 2.8 which can make for more dramatic images (subject more isolated), but means that your autofocus technique has to be spot on. The other thing is that lenses are not their sharpest at maximum aperture.

Selecting an aperture you want rather than one you need is a more flexible approach.

[Rexlawyer]

50-135 on APS-C is the same as 70-200 on FF. You would need a 105-300/2.8 on FF to match a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C.

A 70-200 is probably what you want. The 50-135 is slow focusing anyway.

Thank you, very helpful information that leads me to eliminate the 50-135.

---------- Post added 08-06-19 at 03:43 PM ----------

You'd need a 70-200mm f/2.8 to get up to 4x the shutter speed of the zoom lens you now use, or 1/4 the ISO, and with a 1.4 or 1.5x teleconverter would give you f/4 or so and a reach close to 300mm. Such lenses generally yield superior image quality and are not cheap. They are also larger and heavier. Another alternative would be a 300mm f/4 or so prime lens having more reach, but then you lose the variable framing of a zoom lens.

Yet another alternative would be to sell your K-x and put your money into a newer body with a much more updated technology- like the K-70. It can deliver cleaner results at higher ISO settings, making your present lens able to perform similarly to a faster zoom lens on your K-x, but with better image quality than a K-x can manage. That in addition to many other advancements.

Thank you. I wasn't sure exactly how much more "speed" I would get so that information is very helpful. As for a another camera -- that thought process has been in the works. I am only now getting very comfortable with my K-r, and would almost certainly want to keep it, and instead add a second camera. But, I appreciate your take. However, since I'll end up keeping both cameras, and both lenses (my 55-300 f4-5.6 and I suppose the newly acquired 70-200 f2.8), I am nudged toward the acquiring the lens first.

---------- Post added 08-06-19 at 03:53 PM ----------

I have the tamron 70-200 2.8 and it's great (very sharp, lightest of all the af 70-200f2.8s, still nice build quality, and good or ok everything else)! Largest difference vs other similar lenses is the corners wide open, but being an ff lens corners aren't "used"/visible/in frame on aps-c, so looking at bang for buck, especially on aps-c, it's superior to the other 70-200s I'd say.

But I also agree with mikesbike; for similar money maybe you can get a K70 (new?) which is also probably around 2 stops "faster" than a Kr for a given IQ due to cleaner images at same iso, higher resolution (giving you more headroom for more crop-zoom on daytime images) and other benefits too.

If satisfied with 1 stop faster but sharper than your zoom and cheaper, and if you're old-school and up to manual focusing, the SMC Pentax-M 200F4 is a great lens in IQ and build, and gives you one stop, better IQ (and feel =)), but is perhaps less versatile since it's prime at 200mm...(can be found for less than $100 I think?).

Thanks for your take. Now my head is twisting about just a bit -- K70 at 2-stops faster at equal IQ - yummy! The K70 was actually the next camera already on my radar. Maybe I will go down that road. Also thanks for the thumbs up on the Tamron. As for primes, that's what I grew up on, and still have my 3 muskateers from my ME Super (28, 50, 135) but one day I will get a good 200. But since I'm looking at sports, a zoom is practical, and I am not as concerned about the sharpness. The girls just want me to catch their awesome shots, and my daughter wants me to catch her awesome goal keeper saves. They never complain about tack-on sharpness or color aberrations - LOL.

[RGlasel]

You get a reduced depth of field with 2.8 which can make for more dramatic images (subject more isolated), but means that your autofocus technique has to be spot on.

I'll echo the camera upgrade recommendation; as I understand it, the K-r will probably have problems quickly finding focus at f2.8 and the difference in high-ISO images is at least two stops, so f5.6 is not a problem. Your non-PLM 55-300 will have a tendency to hunt, so I also suggest working on your autofocus technique, but once this lens finds focus you can follow the play and get more in focus than out of focus shots. if you want shots of play on the opposite side of the pitch, you will need at least 200mm, even on an APS-C camera. I have used a K-30 and the same version of the DA 55-300 to photograph high school football games, trying to focus on a receiver after the catch is a problem, but following the same soccer player should be fine.

[Rexlawyer]

Well the Kr is an old model now and 12800 ISO is a hell of a lot better on modern cameras like the KP and K1. Personally I would suggest a camera would be a better upgrade for what you want, but appreciate it is down to cost. f5.6 to f2.8 is two stops so will make a difference if you go down that route (ISO 3200 versus 12800). Also learning some PP skills especially with noise reduction can help too.



Three very different maximum focal lengths there. With your current set-up what FL do you shoot most at ? This has to be one of your main deciding factors.



I am not sure a FF/aps-c comparison is helpful here. The OP has not mentioned FF. Either way his current Kr has less MP than the K1 in crop mode.

Thanks PSchlute. You give another vote for camera improvement over a lens purchase. PP is definitely a time consuming learning curve. But, I am slowly getting there using Affinity. I was able to make some improvements in PP but not to any degree of satisfaction, yet I know there is more I can do there as well. As for FL (focal length? -- I presume) it wanders about as taking pictures during a soccer match (i.e. football over there and most other places) is hard enough, and wandering about gets very tiresome, so I spend most of the time planted and need the reach of a 300 (or more really, but not in my budget) and the closeness of a 50 (or closer sometimes). But, on average, I'm probably around 200.

---------- Post added 08-06-19 at 04:09 PM ----------

I'm another who thinks, in this instance, a K-70 would be a better idea than a faster lens. If you go for a 70-200 f/2.8, you'll lose a fair bit of reach compared to your 55-300 at the long end, which, for sports, could be critical - or, at the very least, frustrating. The K-70's high ISO capability is quite astonishing compared to older bodies like the K-r, plus you get the extra resolution, articulating screen and a bunch of new features (which may or may not be useful to you - but I'd guess at least some of them will be, at some point).

Thanks BigMackCam. The K70 is starting to win by a landslide. I honestly had no idea that the camera improvements were that superior to the point of being able, at least in the comparisons expressed here, overcome the speed for going to f2.8 on the K-r. Wow!!!

---------- Post added 08-06-19 at 04:14 PM ----------

Switch to manual exposure (M mode) metering off a gray card or the grass/astro-turf of the field; that should buy a few stops EV.


Steve

Whoa Steve! That's like Zen photography for me. BUT, I like it. I have a basic understanding of what you refer to and will now do some homework on it. I'm always up to learning a new skill, even if a K70 resolves my issue. Thanks!

---------- Post added 08-06-19 at 04:16 PM ----------

Switch to manual exposure (M mode) metering off a gray card or the grass/astro-turf of the field; that should buy a few stops EV.


Steve

Oh, also meant to state that I typically shoot in shutter priority mode as that is what is typically recommended for sports photography. Although, I understand real pros often opt for being all M (except focus).

[clackers]

If you're allowed to be on the sidelines, Rex, a 70-200 f2.8 (the Tamron is cheapest, the Pentax DFA best and most expensive) is fine for soccer. You spend time patrolling the goal line and maybe 20-30m up the sidelines, ignoring action in the other half of the field for a variety of reasons. You do want to catch faces as the action comes towards you, they're more important than the ball, and your daughter in goals, of course.

[Rexlawyer]

Another reason why a camera upgrade is the preferred option for you is this:

Yes, f2.8 allows more light through than f4.0 or 5.6. But that is only part of the story. You get a reduced depth of field with 2.8 which can make for more dramatic images (subject more isolated), but means that your autofocus technique has to be spot on. The other thing is that lenses are not their sharpest at maximum aperture.

Selecting an aperture you want rather than one you need is a more flexible approach.

PShulte, thanks again. Yes, I had thought about the issues I might encounter at f2.8 with auto-focus, but lacking experience --- I didn't give it as much concern as you apparently believe that I should. Good point!

[swanlefitte]

I agree with the camera upgrade also. Kr=12.4 No k70=24Mp. That means you could crop the k70 image by half and use the 55-300 at 150mm and get close to equal results you get with the or at 300 now. But you also get that half stop 150mm has or you get cropping room if you just use say 250mm. You also get better af and iso. And that is just your sports shooting. Your other glass also becomes better and like before you have better resolution that you can trade for cropping room.

[clackers]

The girls just want me to catch their awesome shots, and my daughter wants me to catch her awesome goal keeper saves. They never complain about tack-on sharpness or color aberrations - LOL.

Yeah, it's all about a high shutter speed and shooting from a tripod/monopod to freeze the action at the right moment - look at what a sports pro photographer does on the field. The IQ is secondary. Crank up the noise reduction to lose details but eliminate graininess if that worries you, what's being sought is a sense of dynamism in the athletes - limbs extended, bodies twisted, emotion on their faces, no closed eyes, etc.