Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 12, 2006, 11:26 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 27
Default

I have a km5D and am going to be shooting at a football game and want a better zoom than the 18-70 kit that I have. An f/2zoomwould be nice, but budget does not allow.

I am looking at the "legendary beercan" (70-210mm f/4). But then I found a sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and a sigma 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5. What is your expert opinion of these three? Orcan you suggest anyother lenses?

Thank you so much!
kuulaaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 13, 2006, 12:34 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

kuulaaid wrote:
Quote:
I have a km5D and am going to be shooting at a football game and want a better zoom than the 18-70 kit that I have. An f/2zoomwould be nice, but budget does not allow.

I am looking at the "legendary beercan" (70-210mm f/4). But then I found a sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and a sigma 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5. What is your expert opinion of these three? Orcan you suggest anyother lenses?

Thank you so much!
I am a big proponent of the Tamron 28-300XR. It almost never comes off my KM5D. I also had a Sigma 70-300, and the Tamron is at least as good and covers a wider range.

Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2006, 1:58 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 27
Default

Thanks so much for the advice. I'll look into it.

Anyone else with an opinion on the tamron 28-300 or the other lenses?
kuulaaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2006, 7:14 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

I too love my 28-300. It was available last I looked for under $200 from Cameta on eBay. As far as 70-210, I have both the beercan and 3.5-4.5 Minolta 70-210, and the 3.5 does a great job with less weight and less up front cost. Many who own both prefer the 3.5 for most of their work. If you can wait a couple of months, Tamron is introducing an 18-250 for APS sensors that will probably be an ideal lens for you. Amazon is taking pre-orders on the lens.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2006, 10:42 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

kuulaaid wrote:
Quote:
Thanks so much for the advice. I'll look into it.

Anyone else with an opinion on the tamron 28-300 or the other lenses?
The 28-300 is a great lens until you are in a low light situation. Fantastic if the day calls for carrying one lens to do it all and your shooting is mostly outdoors. Indoors I generally use something else that is better in low light since I normally don't need a lot of zoom. If you need a lens to shoot indoor sports with poor lighting it won't fit the bill.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2006, 12:17 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

I got the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 2.8-4 for that purpose (low light sports, etc.). However, I am not too happy with it's performance. It seems to "wash out" and blur images. I'd love to compare it to the "beercan" sometime.

Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2006, 1:01 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 107
Default

I had the Sigma 70-300 and was generally happy with it. It was the range that I had a hard time with. 70mm is just not wide enough and the lens was just too big as a walk-around. I sold it on E-Bay and I'm awaiting the Tamron 28-300 XR Di. You can get the older version for under $200, but the newer Di version will be much more if new. I got it used from Keh.com for about $250.

You can read about both versions at dyxum.com.

Those reviews (plus the excellent feedback from this forum) are what made me go toward the Tamron vs the Sigma 28-300mm. I just never really heard anyone say much positive about the Sigma.

If you've been watching the prices, you know that the beercan used to be had for under $100, now some are over $200. Supply and demand at it's finest. Reviews on that lens are excellent, but it's large and heavy and 210mm might not cut it for sports.

DrChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2006, 1:58 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

DrChris wrote:
Quote:
I had the Sigma 70-300 and was generally happy with it. It was the range that I had a hard time with. 70mm is just not wide enough and the lens was just too big as a walk-around. I sold it on E-Bay and I'm awaiting the Tamron 28-300 XR Di. You can get the older version for under $200, but the newer Di version will be much more if new. I got it used from Keh.com for about $250.

You can read about both versions at dyxum.com.

Those reviews (plus the excellent feedback from this forum) are what made me go toward the Tamron vs the Sigma 28-300mm. I just never really heard anyone say much positive about the Sigma.

If you've been watching the prices, you know that the beercan used to be had for under $100, now some are over $200. Supply and demand at it's finest. Reviews on that lens are excellent, but it's large and heavy and 210mm might not cut it for sports.
The Tamronat 300mm is F 6.3, which isnot reallybright enoughfor fast moving sports unless you have decent lighting. Don't get me wrong, you takeaction sports shots with it but don't expect miracles.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2006, 2:42 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 27
Default

You guys ROCK!!! Thanks for all the help and info.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...;rd=1&rd=1

What do you think about this one? It's f/5.6 at 300mm. Anyone tried it?
kuulaaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2006, 3:19 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

kuulaaid wrote:
Quote:
You guys ROCK!!! Thanks for all the help and info.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...;rd=1&rd=1

What do you think about this one? It's f/5.6 at 300mm. Anyone tried it?
I am sure this is a good lens. I had an older version of this once. However, the difference between f5.6 and f6.3 is minimal, just about a 1/4 f-stop, so one might as well get the Tamron 28-300 for the same price and keep it on most of the time. Any lens that's siginificantly faster at 300mm will also be significantly more expensive and heavier.I am still keeping my eyes open for one, but have not really found the perfect solution.The KM5D takes great shots even at ISO 1600, so one can use quite a fast shutter speed even at f6.3 in anything but very low light.

That new Tamron 18-250that cope mentioned looks interesting. I wonderhow fast it will be.

Rainer
rduve 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 5:05 AM.