Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    37

    Help with "low light" lens

    Can somebody help a newbie out? I am looking for another lens for my K10D. I shoot a lot of indoor sports and am trying to use less flash. I was told I need to get a good low light lens. Possibly a f2.8. Is that what I need. I was looking at this one from Sigma:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,929
    The version for Nikon is pretty popular and is a good low light sports lens. I dont know how the Pentax version performs but I would guess it would work good. You could go to PBase.com and check out photos taken with that exact set-up.
    Jason

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once."-2Pac


    A bunch of Nikon stuff!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Davis View Post
    Can somebody help a newbie out? I am looking for another lens for my K10D. I shoot a lot of indoor sports and am trying to use less flash. I was told I need to get a good low light lens. Possibly a f2.8. Is that what I need. I was looking at this one from Sigma:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

    Thanks
    Joe,

    I have recently answered just this question for myself by acquiring the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 DG EX lens. The constant max f/2.8 aperture gives results that are a big improvement over what I got from my otherwise very satisfactory Tamron 18-200 3.5-6.something zoom. Here is a link to one of the photos I took last weekend with this new lens. (The whole gallery is shot with that lens. The white balance problems are not the lens's fault, by the way, but mine.)

    If you need more telephoto than I did, then the lens you linked to might be just the ticket.

    Will
    Last edited by Polytrope; 01-22-2007 at 10:00 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    37
    Thanks for the replies.

    So, it is my understanding that the lens will remain at f2.8 no matter if it is 70mm or zoomed in to 200mm?

    I have a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro lens that takes great shots. So I was wondering about the telephoto and the ability to shoot at f2.8 when shooting at 200mm.

    Thanks again.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,929
    Yep, thats correct, a constant 2.8 means you can shoot with an aperture of 2.8 throughtout the entire zoom range.
    Jason

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once."-2Pac


    A bunch of Nikon stuff!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    So Calif
    Posts
    3,226
    Don't forget a tripod, or at least a monopod for that big one..
    Pentax K20D/K5/15/21/40/70/10-17/12-24, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5/150-500, Tamron 90 Macro/70-200 2.8, Canon SX20 IS/Elph 500HS
    (formerly Pentax 50 1.4/50-200/55-300/K100D, Sigma 18-50 2.8/70-300 APO, Tamron 28-75, Viv 800, Tele-Tokina 800, Canon S3 IS, Samsung L210)
    http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8
    If you don't mind manual focus, you can get 135mm f/2.5 or f/2.8 primes all day for ~$50 on ebay. In the middle of your 70-200 range, but waaaaaaaay less expensive.

    Just a thought....

    Russ

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    358
    rfortson's right. Lenses like the SMC Pentax M 135mm f3.5 are cheap (under $100) and very sharp. You can also look into a 200mm prime as well.

    That is the genius of the K Mount. It retains a long range of backwards compatibility you don't really see in other lens mount offerings. Sigma lenses don't really design their lenses with Pentax in mind. Sigma really only focuses on Canon and Nikon mount offerings. The Kmount rank a low fifth on their priorities. (SA Mount being 3rd and 4/3rd 4th).

    If you like sports, remember that the difference between a 2.8 and a 3.5 is relatively minimal. If you need flash at f3.5, you'll most likely need flash for 2.8. Since you already have a flash head, try a diffuser cap? or bounce screen and get up as close to the edge of the field as possible.
    ================================
    Gallery : DeviantArt

    dSLR : SAMSUNG GX-1L
    dP&S : CASIO EXILIM EX-S500
    35mm SLR : PENTAX MZ-M w/ PENTAX FG Battery Grip

    SIGMA 24-135mm f2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF (Pentax AF Mount)
    18-55/3.5-5.6, 35-70/3.5-4.8, 70-210/4-5.6, 80-200/4.5
    28/2.8, 50/2, 135/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/3.5, 300/5.6

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialK View Post
    Don't forget a tripod, or at least a monopod for that big one..
    This is no doubt good advice, but I don't follow it, and for reasons that also seem valid. One of the main reasons to get the big aperture is so that you can shoot with a faster shutter, and if the shutter is fast enough - say, over 1/250s - using a K100D or K10D, you may be able to get away without the tripod or monopod. I have tried both tripod and monopod at my daughter's basketball games. Just too much trouble. Same problem I have using a tripod/monopod when shooting small birds - the subject moves around a lot, and I find it nearly impossible to move the camera around on the tripod or monopod and keep the subject in view. For basketball games, I've been given the advice to focus on the area under the basket and then wait for the players to get in there. So far I have not found that an effective strategy. I miss too many interesting shots elsewhere on the court.

    Will

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by CptOfGondor View Post
    rfortson's right. Lenses like the SMC Pentax M 135mm f3.5 are cheap (under $100) and very sharp.
    Yes, but also remember that auto-focus is really useful when things are moving fast.


    If you like sports, remember that the difference between a 2.8 and a 3.5 is relatively minimal.
    Well, the difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is not very big, all things being equal. But if the lens doesn't have a fixed aperture, and you use the zoom at all, you may be looking at a much more significant difference than this. My Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 replaces the Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 that I started with. I was able to get f/3.5 only at the very wide end of the zoom. Somewhere around focal length = 40mm the aperture jumped another notch. At 70mm, the difference between the two lenses was quite significant.

    I would like to buy the Pentax 50mm auto-focus f/1.4 but it's apparently out of stock everywhere. I have a Pentax M (manual focus) 50mm f/1.4, and it handles the light inside the gymns pretty well. But I really miss the auto-focus. When I used it, I got a couple very satisfying shots - and a lot of shots that were a little out of focus, enough so to be unusable. The shots I take with the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 tend to be a bit dark and need some post-processing, which is regrettable; but most of them are in focus.


    If you need flash at f3.5, you'll most likely need flash for 2.8.
    I'm able to do all right with my fixed f/2.8 and no flash - and in any case, flash is prohibited so it's not an option.

    Will

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •