View Full Version : Indoor shots with 18-55 and 50-200mm

12-15-2006, 09:58 AM
How do these 2 lens perform indoors, say for sporting events? I was wodnering if anybody had examples of indoor shots with these two lenses? I'll be getting the 18-55 wit the kit, but for more zoom, I'm trying to decide between the 50-200mm vs sigma 18-125mm vs sigma 18-200mm.

Also if you have indoor shots with the 18-125/200mm please post. I have a 50mm 1.7 on the way, thinking about getting a 135mm 2.8 or 3.5 for indoor sporting events.

Thanks J.

12-15-2006, 01:35 PM

To start off, the K100D has a very small buffer and you will supposedly only be able to take 3-5 or so jpgs in a burst if you are so inclined. You can't just fire off 10 in a row.

First, try the 50-200 outdoors at a similar type event, at the approximate distance you expect to be (nose-bleed bleachers or front-row?) and try to get a feel for what focal length you need.

If you are only shooting around one focal length, then perhaps a fast, fixed lens would be OK (Sigma 180 f3.5 $539, just over 2 lbs). If not, you need a faster zoom and the price goes up (Sigma 70-200 f2.8 $750 almost 3 lbs.)

I would bump up the ISO a little and see how the 50-200 works before spending that kind of money.

12-15-2006, 02:41 PM
It wouldn't be nose bleed seats, and not front row seats either. But some events we go to(MMA-ufc type fighting)sometimes we're close to the ring/cage, and other times we're not so close, but still close enough to decent shots with a decent zoom.

Another thing I'm trying to debate is if i should just get the body since I have 50mm 1.7 on the way. And skip the kit lens and get a good walk around lens like a 18-125mm, 18-200mm, or even 28-300? If I don't get the kit lens, I want something that would give me good shots like the kit lens from 50mm and lower, but also give me that little extra zoom that the kit lens can't. But when I played with the camera, I was very impressed with the kits lens. Decisions, Decisons.... :rolleyes:

12-15-2006, 03:15 PM
You're the first person to say they were impressed by the kit lens :-) Generally anyone's kit lens is usually average at best, which is why I got the body only - to "make" me get a different lens.

However, if you like it I would keep it. I would not get an 18-200 from any maker. It think you are still better off with the kit and the 50-200. It is not difficult to change lenses, and they certainly don't weigh much. Plus, you need to have something in the camera bag with your cleaning kit and mini pod anyway.

I don't know that I'd ever use a 50 1.7...

12-15-2006, 03:34 PM
Well, the canon XT kit lens was decent, but the Nikon D50 was horriable. Plus that camera was big and bulky. I held it in my hands for like 5 seconds before I gave it back to the employee.. hahaha But for being a kit lens, I thought the pentax was very nice for what it is.

I just looked at a few photos on pentaxforums.com, some pretty decent shots with the 50-200mm... Still no indoor/arena shots with it yet. Well, hopefully I'll be getting my camera tomorrow. We'll my girlfriend might go pick it up since I have to work this weekend.. :mad: Sucks too, the weathers suppose to be really nice here this weekend for december.

12-15-2006, 09:04 PM
If you have some extra spending $$, the Pentax DA 16-45mm f4.0 ED AL is a very good standard lens. Only about $400CAN so thats like what? $300 something USD?