[Cerebum]

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.

After reading your post I looked at the sigma, its just about the same price but is sharper and has longer reach, so, even more of a bargain I refer back to threads all the time and often have to resist the temptation to respond to something long dead but still very pertinent, so, expect likes

[UncleVanya]

I owned the earlier non-WR version of the DA 50-200. It was great as a light simple zoom for my 6mp K100D Super. But as Norm has pointed out the lens is weaker than the alternatives.

[reh321]

I am pIanning on replacing my k-r and tamron lens. I was thinking about the KP. However, the question was asked of me if I still think Pentax and DSLR is the way to go for me because I don't have much equipment and I'll be replacing what I use the most. Honestly, I don't know what would be best for my photographic needs. 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. I've been told that Pentax might not be the best camera for my needs. What do you think? I would like to spend around $1,000 or less.

I have trouble with trying to match a particular budget. Yeah, I know that someone may literally have $1K, but someone will always say something like “if you spend an extra $n, you can get x”. In addition, it ignores other aspects, such as size, and issues such as menus and external controls. Honestly, I might not have left Canon if their MILC program had progressed sooner; they were not even thinking publicly about cameras such as the M-500 when I switched in 2015. I have been told that the 70-300mm lens I purchased in 1995 is one of the ‘worst lenses ever made by Canon’ ... but, honestly, their lenses since they switched to the EF-mount in the late 1980’s have few “dogs” ..... their bodies are why I came back to Pentax. Pentax has limited resources, so their progress is slow. I am now 73, so the KP I purchased two years ago may last me until I die, but if I were younger I might be looking for someone with more resources, someone who can offer me more choices, more opportunities to match what I actually need.

[normhead]

but if I were younger I might be looking for someone with more resources, someone who can offer me more choices, more opportunities to match what I actually need.

That would be assuming you can't get what you actually need from Pentax or the legacy market. And that would be a tough case to make. Pnetaxx, with the addition o the DFA* 50 1.4, DF*85 1.4, DFA* 70-200, DFA 70-210, DFA 15-30 and DFA 24-70 are in a stronger position than they've been for years. Especially since the APS_c line has been filled out with the DA*11-18.

I'm not sure why people have this propensity for selling Pentax short. Apart form a 24mm tilt shift and other special lenses, they really aren't missing much, if you include legacy K-mount glass.

Pentax still has to be the best dedicated APS-c manufacturer with quality and complete line up. And APS-c is certainly o interest to beginners.

People say other manufacturers have better line ups, but a lot of lenses have come out since that was a popular opinion.

These days I expect when someone says that they give specific examples relevant to themselves. A lens they would buy if it were available from Pentax. suspiciously, a lot of people who complained about the lack of ultra-wide didn't buy the 11-18. But they did stop whining that it wasn't there so some good things have come of it.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-05-2021 at 03:50 PM.

[mikesbike]

I now have the KP and a K-1 II. So far, for me the advantages of the FF model are best for wider angle use. In terms of image quality, the KP is very close, remarkably so for APS-C. It remains my primary camera.

APS-C has a practical advantage for telephoto use. A 200mm lens will provide a picture size similar to a 300mm lens on a FF body. A "fast" aperture telephoto zoom lens like a 70-200mm f/2.8 will be most needed mainly if shooting night games, and then depending on how brightly lit will be the playing field. This is so because the larger f/2.8 aperture can let in more light, providing a faster shutter speed for action shots. That said, the KP's excellent ability to deliver quality imaging at a higher ISO setting will also bring a meaningful upgrade. It can allow a lens not having such a large aperture capacity to be used with a higher ISO setting to still get the needed shutter speed. If you use your Tamron 70-300mm within the 70-200mm range on a KP this might do the job well enough, but the DA 55-300mm PLM would be a better action-shooter, especially with the KP, and yet better if there are no night games, or they are very brightly-lit.

[DeadJohn]

FYI, the OP's posting history shows they have an 18-55 in addition to the Tamron 70-300. That 18-55 probably meets landscape needs for now, and suggesting upgrades to 18-135 or 16-85 doesn't help with the Tamron 70-300 that the OP wants to upgrade.

[Cerebum]

That would be assuming you can't get what you actually need from Pentax or the legacy market. And that would be a tough case to make. Pnetaxx, with the addition o the DFA* 50 1.4, DF*85 1.4, DFA* 70-200, DFA 70-210, DFA 15-30 and DFA 24-70 are in a stronger position than they've been for years. Especially since the APS_c line has been filled out with the DA*11-18.

I'm not sure why people have this propensity for selling Pentax short. Apart form a 24mm tilt shift and other special lenses, they really aren't missing much, if you include legacy K-mount glass.

Pentax still has to be the best dedicated APS-c manufacturer with quality and complete line up. And APS-c is certainly o interest to beginners.

People say other manufacturers have better line ups, but a lot of lenses have come out since that was a popular opinion.

These days I expect when someone says that they give specific examples relevant to themselves. A lens they would buy if it were available from Pentax. suspiciously, a lot of people who complained about the lack of ultra-wide didn't buy the 11-18. But they did stop whining that it wasn't there so some good things have come of it.

I am with you 100% Canon have loads of lenses but they don't work on all the cameras because they change mounts on a whim! Nikon mirror less beauties (I do genuinely like them) have a pretty poor line up, Fuji have gorgeous native lenses but who makes AF lenses for X mount? There is nothing wrong with the Pentax range! We have DAs, FAs, limiteds, star lenses and more manual glass than you can eat! Then there is the fact that stuff which has been a Pentax staple for years (ibis, wr, astrotracers, pixel shift) suddenly becomes noteworthy when it appears on a Fuji or a Sony! Pentax gives the best bang for buck of any camera brand! I just think some people are determined to enjoy a good whinge!

[tibbitts]

After reading your post I looked at the sigma, its just about the same price but is sharper and has longer reach, so, even more of a bargain I refer back to threads all the time and often have to resist the temptation to respond to something long dead but still very pertinent, so, expect likes

Which Sigma? Longer reach compared to what?

[UncleVanya]

FYI, the OP's posting history shows they have an 18-55 in addition to the Tamron 70-300. That 18-55 probably meets landscape needs for now, and suggesting upgrades to 18-135 or 16-85 doesn't help with the Tamron 70-300 that the OP wants to upgrade.

That is a good catch. Then a 55-300 PLM and a body seems like a doable goal for the K-70 option. KP is still very tight at that point but within the realm of possible as long as used is OK.

[Cerebum]

Which Sigma? Longer reach compared to what?

@normhead was demonstrating how the sigma 70-300mm is sharper in tests than the Pentax 50-200mm at the same price point, ergo, better value. I have a later 50-200mm WR and I either got a great copy or I nailed the calibration because I know some people find it to be worse than the kit lens

[Rondec]

That is a good catch. Then a 55-300 PLM and a body seems like a doable goal for the K-70 option. KP is still very tight at that point but within the realm of possible as long as used is OK.

I saw used KP for 600-ish on e bay. I would think you could get a used PLM for 350 to 400 range.

[mbceft]

When I jumped into digital I went Nikon (D90). Then I bought a K-x for my wife and loved it so much I jumped back to Pentax, having started with Pentax in film days. I was mainly interested in landscapes and family photos definitely not sports. However, when my lad started playing lacrosse I started taking sports photos. I used predominantly second hand K-5 and second hand K-3 (I also am lucky to own a K-1).
In all honesty most camera systems would suffice, unless you shoot professional and need crazy expensive wide aperture telephotos. In the end though it comes down to practice and knowing the game. I am definitely not an expert, far from it - just a dad with a camera. I have included some examples.
I would think a K-P with the PLM would be great. I have always wanted a K-P but I am waiting for the K3-III

Sorry to highjack the thread but I wanted to comment on your photos. I shot lacrosse for the teams when my kids played. Seeing your post brings back memories. K5ii + DA* 50-135 did a fine job as a sports camera and lacrosse is a fast, tough sport to shoot in low light.

[normhead]

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.

And I rarely use my DA*60-250. I wonder how many great lenses are sitting on shelves now because of the PLM.

[pres589]

Cerebum, where are you seeing a 55-300 PLM, a 16-50, and a brand new KP for $1000 USD? I think you get one of those lenses or the other with a new KP at $1000 USD.


Based on what mom2mny has shared, a KP sounds like a great camera and a lens like the 55-300 (any of them but especially the PLM) or one of the third-party 70-200 f2.8's would be great. The 70-200's are not light weight or small though.

[UncleVanya]

I saw used KP for 600-ish on e bay. I would think you could get a used PLM for 350 to 400 range.

Tax and shipping make that very tight.