Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 28, 2007, 4:07 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
Not to be picky, but I thought that the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 didn't appear in the Pentax mount.



Please show website to prove me wrong, as it may be what I am after.



Dal
http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/sto...;itemID=214002
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2007, 4:29 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
Not to be picky, but I thought that the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 didn't appear in the Pentax mount.



Please show website to prove me wrong, as it may be what I am after.



Dal
Take a look at this chart - it's a chart ofrecently discontinued Sigma lenses and it shows that they used to make a 70-200 f2.8 APO lens in Pentax mount. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_chart2.asp- Ira's post seems to indicate that Henry's still has them, there's one on ebay (buy-it-now $1300), you might find in other stores.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2007, 6:03 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

Why not get a full auto 50mm f/1.4 then crop for the closeups...Or get a 50mm f/1.4 full auto lens and add a 1.4X full auto teleconverter and have the 35mm equivalent 142mm lens then crop!! Should be able to use lower ISO's and faster shutter speeds. Won't cost that much either and you'll be able to do close photos as well with out the TCON.

Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2007, 10:43 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Just my opinion, but if you are going to add a TC, I'd go with the Pentax FA77mm 1.8 Limited - go for as long as you possibly can and as sharp as you can before adding the TC. You'll lose light with a TC, so it wouldn't be 1.8, but it might be an option. At least one person here routinely shoots wonderful pictures of birds using a 1.4 and/or a 1.7 TC. I don't have the FA 77mm 1.8 because I don't really need one, but I sure want one!

If you want to see what type of results I got using the K10 and the DA 50-200, I posted some of them here: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=80- you can see why I think it's definitely not fast enough. It will also give you some idea of what kind of results you'd get with the K10 at ISO 1600 (and also, some of the stupid mistakes I made, too!).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2007, 11:01 PM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

bigdawg wrote:
Quote:
Why not get a full auto 50mm f/1.4 then crop for the closeups...Dawg
Two reasons.

1. The focus will be too soft even in good light.

2. When shooting at high ISOs the noise destroys details. When the details are small because the subject was small the noise destroys a large portion of the details.

Believe me I wish you could crop low light action shots but it doesn't work in practice. With a 50mm lens you need to be within 15 feet of the action. At least that's been my experience shooting low light action.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2007, 11:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
bigdawg wrote:
Quote:
Why not get a full auto 50mm f/1.4 then crop for the closeups...Dawg
Two reasons.

1. The focus will be too soft even in good light.

2. When shooting at high ISOs the noise destroys details. When the details are small because the subject was small the noise destroys a large portion of the details.

Believe me I wish you could crop low light action shots but it doesn't work in practice. With a 50mm lens you need to be within 15 feet of the action. At least that's been my experience shooting low light action.
Well I asked !! LOL Harriet's Idea sounds a good one! Else you'll be spending a ton for those action shots.




Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2007, 11:57 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
d-sr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Abilene. TX
Posts: 1,486
Default

Thanks a lot everyone for your ideas. Keep'em comming. This is just a hobby to me but it just really iarks me when I find something I want to do with my camera that I can't. It sounds like the 50-200 f2.8 isn't my only option but maybe the best one. I was hoping to be able to do it cheaper.I wish there was somethinginbetween the 50-135 & 50-200 f2.8 in size and cost.

My wife is looking at me kind of funny these days cause I'm thinking about buying a new camera and lenses over this but it's like a curse I tell you, A CURSE!!!

DonR
d-sr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 12:49 AM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

d-sr wrote:
Quote:
It sounds like the 50-200 f2.8 isn't my only option but maybe the best one. I was hoping to be able to do it cheaper.I wish there was somethinginbetween the 50-135 & 50-200 f2.8 in size and cost.
Don,

based on your prior results I think any 2.8 option is going to be a poor one. You're going to spend a lot of money and get poor results. 2.8 just isn't going to be fast enough. You really do need a prime lens if you're intent on shooting action in the lighting conditions you specified.

Best of luck
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 12:50 AM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

bigdawg wrote:
Quote:
Well I asked !! LOL Harriet's Idea sounds a good one! Else you'll be spending a ton for those action shots.
Dawg
No worries. Valid question - I just wished it worked. It would save me a lot of money :G
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 6:23 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
d-sr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Abilene. TX
Posts: 1,486
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
d-sr wrote:
Quote:
It sounds like the 50-200 f2.8 isn't my only option but maybe the best one. I was hoping to be able to do it cheaper.I wish there was somethinginbetween the 50-135 & 50-200 f2.8 in size and cost.
Don,

based on your prior results I think any 2.8 option is going to be a poor one. You're going to spend a lot of money and get poor results. 2.8 just isn't going to be fast enough. You really do need a prime lens if you're intent on shooting action in the lighting conditions you specified.

Best of luck
John,

I'm confused again. Isn't that what Dawg was talking about with the 50mm f1.4? What prime lens do you suggest?

DonR

d-sr is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:14 PM.