[K(s)evin]

That's virtually a kit lens, mom2mny, never a quality one.

Here's one I took just the other weekend with the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 on the Pentax K-1:

I can second this selection. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 is a bargain right now, as you have to buy them used. You'd stay awfully close to your $1000 budget.

I used the Tamron for the last 6 years with a K-5, K5iis and K-1 to get great photos of my daughter playing soccer, from 7th grade through her senior year. The available fast aperture allowed faster shutter speeds. It also worked well for shooting off-season indoor soccer games. Anyway, Good Luck in your search!

[aslyfox]

. . . I take a lot of pictures outside of flowers, landscapes and animals. I have kids in sports that I would like to be able to take quality pictures. So, I need a camera that takes quality photos of high school soccer, football and baseball. I enjoy taking pictures of mountain landscapes, birds (telephoto) and macro shots of flowers, bees, etc. . . . .

again, I claim no particular expertise but to me good photography is knowledge plus experience plus gear

2 thirds of the " equation " I control, the last is controlled by budget

take a look in the " articles " sections for hints

ask the forums for advice on techniques and gear

______

take sports photography, it can be predictable to a degree

one of my first attempts at it was photographing car racing at Road America. I learned that the best chance i would have would be where the racing cars would slow for turns and curves and collect for passing attempts

so I would preposition myself at those spots along the 4 mile track, I read about how to pan with a SLR

__________________________

when trying to shoot basketball, I would pick what action I wanted to photograph and position myself to get it,

the backboard to grab an action shot of rebounding,

the look of concentration on the player shooting a free throw,

the team gathered around the coach in the final seconds getting instructions

baseball,

the batter swinging at the pitch,

the pick off at first,

the play at the base

_______________________________________________________

when I started with digital, I used old vivitar film slr lenses which were the best lenses I had when I shot film. I then reseached my options for improving my gear.

I took this, purchased for $70 on my first trip to Tanzania as my long lens

Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Tele-Macro [1:2] (Model 772D)

"A silver-version of the lightweight, compact telephoto macro zoom lens with a Maximum Magnification Ratio of 1:2 at the 300mm setting. It's ideal for shooting sports, theatrical events, and wildlife. By switching to macro mode, subjects as close as 95cm can be shot within the focal range of 180-300mm, for true macro photography."

Read more at: Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Tele-Macro [1:2] (Model 772D) Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

______________________________________________________

good luck on your choice

no problem with gaining knowledge before making it

Pentax, I am convinced is a good choice but only you can determine if it is the right choice for you and what you need

look at the photos posted by others use the exif data to see what was used:

Out at 2nd, Cubs vs. Rockies June 10, 2019 - PentaxForums.com

Opening Day at the" K " - K 3 + D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 or DA* 300mm F4 - PentaxForums.com

sometimes you just have to admire good baseball - PentaxForums.com

[clackers]

Baseball means fast moves in (usually) poorly lit school gyms, at short to medium distance.

Baseball, not basketball, Jens.

[JensE]

I should have known not to post after a looong day

[Rondec]

I think you could easily fit your budget with Pentax and do better than what you are currently. I would look at a used KP -- it will have a significant boost in high iso performance over what you have been using and should have fast enough frame rate. Then, I would add the 55-300 PLM. I haven't used that lens, but there are lots of good photos with it on the Forum and it is one of the fastest focusing lenses you will find from Pentax.

As others have said, weather sealing, in body image stabilization, and decent quality glass that won't break the bank are things that I have come to expect from Pentax.

[aslyfox]

Baseball, not basketball, Jens.

I should have known not to post after a looong day

just call me a blind follower

My interests are similar; I also like doing the urban walk-around thing, and include birds among "animals". I have a k-1, a kp, and a Canon 5ds-r. All three have terrific resolution for what they are, which really helps with subjects that don't move fast, such as the moon, flowers and mountains. You can pack a lot of landscape in with a 15mm lens on a 50mpx full-frame sensor, and be able to crop and enlarge like crazy. But the convenience of the KP is great for the street thing and macro. If you want to do sports or fast-moving animals something with a better frame rate (and better buffer-clearance speed) would be better, and if I were doing that stuff, I'd probably want a k-3 or derivatives thereof. Those are all water-resistant, by the way, and I only buy lenses that are, as well.

[DeadJohn]

To summarize, as a replacement system for sports photography on a $1000 budget, you want the Pentax 55-300 PLM lens (the non-PLM version focuses slower). It costs around $450. That lens does not work with your K-r so you have to also upgrade your camera. KP was your first choice, but that goes a little over your budget to $1150 total. You might buy used, or you can get the K-70 and PLM lens new for almost exactly $1000. The K-70 is a good camera.

Regarding your thread title, would *I* start over by changing brands? I am not sure. I mostly enjoy astrophotography and night landscapes, which my K-1 is very good at, but 3rd party astro control software rarely supports Pentax. My use case is so different than yours that I won't bore you with details.

Should *you* change brands? I think you should stay with Pentax. If your budget was $10k for birding I might say change brands to get high-end specialty lenses, but with a $1k budget Pentax is a great choice.

You also mentioned macro photography. The 55-300 PLM can focus fairly close for a telephoto, getting 0.3x magnification, which might be enough for dabbling in macro. If you need more, you can add an adapter (like the Raynox DCR-250 for $70) to get more magnification.

[Cerebum]

I am currently using a mint 50-200mm WR that cost me £50. Try matching that with another brand

[normhead]

If you have no decent lenses, there's little disadvantage to changing brands.

But given what you've said I'd suggest a used K-5 and a used Tamron 70-200 is the best possible combination that will get you what you want as close as possible to your budget.

Many of the cheaper cameras you might purchase still don't have the rating a K-5 does, and that Tamron if it's a good copy is excellent. However the out of box failure are was pretty high, close to 10% by forum reports.. You have to make sure you don't get one from the low end of the sample. It's also a pretty heavy beast.

I don't own this lens....but I'm well aware of it's reputation.

And oh, unfortunately there are way too many people saying things like "Pentax may not be the best for you" because they know nothing about Pentax. It's rare you hear Pentax shooters say that.

Again based on my own experience, the K-P will completely expose the weaknesses of your 70-300 due to it's higher resolution. I can't imagine a scenario where a K-P with that class of lens is going to make you happy, where as the Tamron 70-200 tested right up there with the best Nikon and Canon offerings.

But bottom line, if you are starting from scratch anyway, look at everything. Most of us here haven't checked out what other brands have to offer since the K-1 came out. Once you have good lenses, you have a commitment. I'm curious what you shoot your landscapes with.

The best base kit for you with current equipment would be K-P, DA 16-85, DA 55-300 PLM, DA 50 1.8.
If you do go for the K-P, you can do well with a 70-300 in the short term with a view to upgrade laters, since most images are reduced to at leas half size, and reducing image size cleans up a lot of softness. I personally sh with a 70-300 long after I swathed to a higher resolution images. I was only when I got better gear I found out what I was missing. With your kids growing up, there won't be change fo retakes.

I feel like I'm going back and forth between different options, but that's the way this topic is. No knock out punch clear winner, just a lot of things you might want to think about...or not.

[UncleVanya]

I have trouble with the recommendations offered. Few are within the budget specified. Unless the existing Tamron’s focusing issues are the fault of the camera rather than the lens, I’d say the minimum kit is a body with two lenses. Using the K-70 with a kit lens and the 55-300 non-PLM version looks rational. Trying to squeeze in a KP seems to really squeeze the dollars but with cheaper da 50-300 options it seems just barely possible but it is very tight.

Looking for used bargains, the k-3/k-3ii and an 18-135, a da 50, a da 55-300 (several types), could make the budget work and add a fast prime to the gear if willing to buy used gear.

A likely unpopular option to consider is a micro 4/3 kit like the Panasonic G85 w/12-60 & 45-150 or GX85 12-32 & 45-150. These offer compact size and features like 4K photo to get those Facebook moments of the winning shot without breaking the bank. On top of which they offer wireless transfers of the files which is hard to reach within the budget with Pentax. The autofocus is less advanced than some other offerings but my experience is that the Panasonic af is maligned as much as Pentax with similar levels of over the top generalizations that are at beat half true. Obviously the quality of the image I will most often lag behind the modern APSC and larger sensors, but for the right purpose it doesn’t seem like a bad compromise. These m43 kits are between $600-800 new with a two lens kit covering 24-300mm equivalent angles.

It really boils down to carefully understanding the goals.

Does the op need large prints or online photos? How big? Will the prints be produced at home or by service?

Is new preferred over used? Warranty?

Is a high frame rate desired even if it reduces the size and quality? How small is too small? How fast is needed?

Will this form the core of a larger system with more expensive lenses/gear added over time? What lenses are projected to be added; dedicated macro, fast portrait prime, fast tele-zoom?

Is wireless transmission of files desired to allow the in the moment upload to Instagram/text/Facebook?

Does weight and size matter much? If so where is the cutoff? How much gear will be carried at one time?

[normhead]

I am currently using a mint 50-200mm WR that cost me £50. Try matching that with another brand

A lens I've avoided and have heard very little commentary on. Maybe you could tell us more about it, but I'm not sure t would be better than a Sigma or Tamron 70-300. Those 70-300 are excellent lenses up to about 200mm, but they are a little soft in the long end. If the 50-200 is sharp until 135 mm and then weak in the long end it might be a serious step down and not even worth keeping. I have absolutely no problem using a 70-300 as a 70-210, with excellent results.

Opticl limits would suggest that is the case even with lower MP camera. That will be seriously accentuated with modern sensors.


The Tamron still has an excellent centre at ƒ8 and 200mm, so the 50-200 would likely be a step down.
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Compared to the Tamron 70-200 these lenses are simply inferior, and that will show up even on 10 MP cameras.



In my experience 200 lw/ph difference is visible in eye tests with careful examination, but just barely visible even pixel peeping. What I look for in these graphs because they aren't really comparable numerically, is how much of their range is rated as excellent on the graphs. The Tamron 70-200 is rated excellent in 10 of 36 metics, and that is darn hard to beat.

[northcoastgreg]

I would not change brands, but then Pentax fits well with what I do (mostly scenics, landscapes, critter portraits). When complaints are made against Pentax, it's usually on the score of not having as good tracking AF for action shooting (which would include sports, of course). That may be true, but there's a catch. The Canon, Nikon, and Sony gear that is thought to be clearly better than Pentax for sports usually costs well over $1,000 (for both the cameras and the lenses). The president of my local camera club shoots high school sports. She has probably well over $7,000 of Canon gear for her sports shooting. But it's that kind of money you need to spend if you really want to leverage the advantages of other brands in photographing sports. At $1,000 I doubt you're going to see much of a difference between Pentax and the larger players in the market.

I agree with other posters who have recommended the KP and the DA 55-300 PLM. I mostly use that combo for landscapes (where it's been absolutely terrific), but I've shot horse racing with it, and it did quite well (certainly better than the m43 option I had tried the year before).Years ago I owned a Tamron 70-300 lens --- I'm not sure it's the same one as being discussed. The 55-300 PLM is significantly better. It focuses faster and more accurately and is sharper, contrastier, with much better color. In the 55 to 200 range it's nearly as good as pro glass, and even at 300mm it produces nice images.

I also own the Tamron 70-200. It's also a very nice lens --- but rather large and heavy. Since acquiring the 55-300 PLM, I rarely use the Tamron.

[Cerebum]

.

Ah.
That is some quality analyticals, however, I was replying to the OP talking about swapping systems and my post referred to the likelihood of picking up a canon, Nikon, Fuji or Sony 50-200mm for £50.

As for the lens, your conclusion is spot on. The pentax 50-200mm is a decent lens, not spectacular but decent. Its cheap, light and you can take it out when its wazzing it down, which it does here, a lot. I have had some very satisfactory results from it, once it had been calibrated. At the end of the day its a £50 lens. It isn't going to make your life better because you have better stuff already, but for some, particularly those on a very tight budget, its a perfectly serviceable addition to the bag.

[normhead]

Ah.
That is some quality analyticals, however, I posted this in the wrong thread. I have two on the go. In the other, the OP is talking about swapping systems and my post referred to the likelihood of picking up a canon, Nikon, Fuji or Sony 50-200mm for £50.

As for the lens, your conclusion is spot on. The pentax 50-200mm is a decent lens, not spectacular but decent. Its cheap, light and you can take it out when its wazzing it down, which it does here, a lot. I have had some very satisfactory results from it, once it had been calibrated. At the end of the day its a £50 lens. It isn't going to make your life better because you have better stuff already, but for some, particularly those on a very tight budget, its a perfectly serviceable addition to the bag.

No problem, after all we don't know who else looks a these threads for information beyond the OP. Even mistakes can be useful to someone. Most of us look for information, and a lot of it can be applied to varying circumstances.

Sometimes I get likes for a post like this, years later. You just never know.

Was it an error, or is it part of someone else's fated reading material. You just never know.