[Rexlawyer]

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.

Thanks. I agree that the 55-300 non-PLM has a tendency to "hunt", which is one of the reasons that I had it out recently at my daughter's training camp so that I could practice with getting it focused. The coach got some nice pix. Overwhelming majority opinion is -- UPGRADE THE CAMERA.

---------- Post added 08-06-19 at 04:30 PM ----------

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.

Yepper. It took some time and reading about suggested positions before I came to that understanding, since most of the time I have side-line access. However, when the play-offs come then I can be very confined, and sometimes to one spot, so the reach is important. That is why my real goal is to have two cameras (big grin - of course).

---------- Post added 08-06-19 at 04:35 PM ----------

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.

Thanks! More good points in favor of the K70.

---------- Post added 08-06-19 at 04:42 PM ----------

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.

I mostly shoot from a monopod since I'm close to the sideline, and usually sitting in a little low folding chair. I don't want to take up more real estate than I have to as that could cause problems. But, when get confined afar, if space allows, then I set up the tripod. OH, and you know, I just realized that on the recent shots that I took which have me concerned, I didn't check to see if I had the noise reduction turned on. Lots to remember.

[pschlute]

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!

As an example if you are photographing some action from say 70 feet away. You are using 300mm FL. At f5.6 you will have depth of field of about 4 feet. At f2.8 it is less than two feet. Can make the difference between a good shot and a great one

[Aaron28]

second a second body or upgrade considering what you are wanting versus a glass upgrade

good luck with your choice and happy shooting!

[dchemist]

I recommend the reach of the 300mm.

[ChristianRock]

Is it for indoors or outdoors? You shouldn't neef 300mm if it's indoors, and you shouldn't need ISO 12000 if it's outdoors.

[swanlefitte]

I recommend the reach of the 300mm.

But the new 24Mp image when at 300mm cropped to the kr 12mp will be almost equal to 600mm on kr.

[boriscleto]

But the new 24Mp image when at 300mm cropped to the kr 12mp will be almost equal to 600mm on kr.

Do you mean 200mm? Because 200mm on APS-C has the same FoV as 300mm on FF. So cropping by another 50% would be equivalent to 600mm.

[ramseybuckeye]

I agree that the camera upgrade makes the most sense. A K-70 or KP will be an immense update. But, if you can also get the 55-300 PLM lens, it could help with its very fast autofocus, it's a lot cheaper than the 70-200, although not a 2.8.

[pschlute]

Do you mean 200mm? Because 200mm on APS-C has the same FoV as 300mm on FF. So cropping by another 50% would be equivalent to 600mm.

He means the K70 is a 24mp sensor compared to the 12mp one the OP currently uses. Twice the resolution means he can crop a lot more and it will look the same as using a 600mm lens on the Kr.


In fact it is a perfect example of the fallacy of FF/aps-c equivalence. You are correct about FOV when comparing the two formats but a lot of folk care more about "reach". They think a lens gets longer when used on aps-c. We know that an aps-c image appears larger/more zoomed than a FF image, but that is simply because it is using a smaller sensor and that sensor takes a smaller bite out of the image the lens creates. "Equivalence", if it is to have any meaning must also look at the resolution of the sensor. My k1 with a 200mm lens captures a aps-c portion on the sensor at 15MP. A Kr with a 200mm lens captures a aps-c image at 12MP. It is nonsense to say that a aps-c camera has more reach when it produces an image with less resolution for the same lens. All aps-c sensors are not the same. I know you were referring to FOV and in that you are correct.

[swanlefitte]

Do you mean 200mm? Because 200mm on APS-C has the same FoV as 300mm on FF. So cropping by another 50% would be equivalent to 600mm.

I get you but I was comparing apsc k70 and Kr so fullframe has nothing to do with it. Just the pixel crop factor is in my "equivalence ".

[swanlefitte]

Oh yeah. Pschlute explained my point better.

[RGlasel]

you shouldn't need ISO 12000 if it's outdoors.

If the lighting is just good enough to play night games and not good enough for television cameras, ISO 12,800 is probably needed for f5.6 and 1/250 second. I can't remember at what focal length maximum aperture goes from f5 to f5.6 on this lens, but it is shorter than 200mm.

[swanlefitte]

"Equivalence", if it is to have any meaning must also look at the resolution of the sensor. My k1 with a 200mm lens captures a aps-c portion on the sensor at 15MP.

After cropping the k1 the "equivalence " is the full frame k1 with a 200mm is equivalent to a 250mm on a Kr.

[Lowell Goudge]

If you are not averse to buying used, look for an older sigma 70-200/2.8. Either EX or EX DG. But not macro,

Very sharp and works well with either the 1.4x or 2x TC. I have used mine in dark theatres when my daughter prerformed in hwper school recitals, the extra bright image helps the af quite a bit as well as the additional speed

Just a side note, for me good glass is always better than new camera. The glass you will keep almost forever, the cameras will eventually get upgraded

[steve_k]

I also think that a camera upgrade is the best route.