Tele-converters

[abe_hollander]

Hi: I've mostly been lurking for a month, trying to be a sponge, and get over

my newbie status, but I'm ready to out of my shell and ask a lens question

regarding my K10d.

 

I listened to my Dad and got the SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4. No regrets! He also got me

kick-started by donating his K100d kit 18-50 lens to me, so I'm in good shape

for my total dollar outlay.

 

Next up for my LBA (ooh! using my new acronyms picked up on p-net!), when the

tax man returneth some moolah will be a zoom to try to catch my young sons in

soccer action. Planning to spoil myself, and stick with green-ringers, so I

think the 50-135 is my target. I am tempted, however, by the huge range of the

Tamron/Pentax 18-250. Wow!

 

So, let's pretend I have the 50-135 what if I want to go longer? Why wouldn't I

use a tele-converter? Can I get an up/down on this? Seems like just the right

solution, theoretically.

[mc2imaging]

Depending on how much reach you need, you may be better off cropping images shot with the DA* over using a tele converter. If I had my choice between an 18-250mm or the DA*/TC combo, I'd take the combo.

 

I'm supposing an off the shelf AF TC will work with the DA*, but I can't guarantee it...

 

Super zooms like the 18-250mm give you convenience instead of image quality. A TC will slow your lens down and degrade your IQ, but if you start with a fast quality zoom, a good TC will only drag you down to average.

 

Unless Pentax releases SDM compatible TC's, expect to loose that functionality when you put it on. A 2x TC will give you 270mm @ f/5.6 - about par with the super zoom at the long end - but w/o the TC the DA* will blow the super zoom away.

[william-porter]

These two lenses are really quite different in purpose. I have the DA* 50-135 and used to own the Tamron 18-250.

 

The Pentax DA* 50-135 f/2.8 is a great lens. It will probably work fine for shooting outdoor sports--except that it's not going to be so good if the action gets right in your face, and it's perhaps going to be a bit short if the action's way at the other end of the field. Personally, for shooting outdoor soccer--presumably, in good light--I would prefer to have the Tamron. Its image quality isn't a match for the Pentax DA* in the range that they have in common, but the Tamron is certainly a very good lens, too. NOTE also that it costs a fair bit less than the Pentax DA*.

 

The Pentax DA* is idea when you need a fast lens (f/2.8 throughout the range), when you want something quiet, and when image quality is one of the very top concerns. I bought this lens for wedding and portrait photography, where these issues are paramount. I sold my Tamron 18-250 to help pay for the Pentax DA* 50-135. But if I had 'em both and was shooting outdoor sports, I'd use the Tamron, personally.

[personalphotos]

Matthew in all respects I would agree but we also have to bear in mind the shooters needs. The 50-135 is a great lens and sharp enough to crop the image to get 'closer'. But (there always is a 'but' you will loose image quality there as well. So basically either choice is a trade off. If the 60-250 was in the foreseeable future, then that's where I'd point Abe.

 

So I'd say the 18-250 is the way to go. A decent long lens and since he's shooting Soccer I will assume most will be done in daylight. The speed of the lens will not be much of an issue. The IQ of that lens is remarkably good from all the posts I've seen. There aren't many on the Pentax Gallery yet but check these out:

 

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=EXIF-LENS&subSection=2060&subSubSection=1521185&language=EN

 

Also with the K100D, the higher ISO quality is better, so Abe can shoot at 400 or 800 and more than compensate for the slower max aperture.

 

Abe, if the budget is really there for a DA*50-135mm then you might also consider a used Sigma or Tokina 70-200mm f2.8 but that will set you back $1000 +. It might also be overkill for what you want to shoot. But if you want to always buy the best lens in the class/range then the Sigma/Tokina or DA* are the best in the mid telephoto range to get.

 

You can find them on Ebay from time to time and also at KEH or a few other places. Finally the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is supposed to be out this spring but the ETA is not firm. It will come but it depends on how long you want to wait as well as the budget.

 

My vote is the 18-250. If you can try it in a store, then buy it and go have fun shooting pics of the kids!

[jacques c pelletier]

Abe,

I also have these two lenses:

FA 50 F1.4 ... great little lens for specific uses.

18-250 Pentax .... great overall but a certain amount of vignetting at 18mm which you can always get rid of in Photoshop/cropping, if you don't mind losing a bit of the picture. Other than that, it has been very good so far, for all sorts of uses.

Best of luck and have fun!

[samius]

If you are talking about outdoor daylight soccer.

You may want to go to ebay and do a search for Pentax 300mm. You may be able to find a reasonably priced Pentax F 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 and you could also afford a decent tripod. If you are talking about indoor soccer I would go with the faster 50-135.

 

Good Luck!

[shots worth sharing]

I'm glad Abe's soliciting opinions here 'cause I'm really conflicted

 

On the one hand, I've been assuring him that,the quality of my photos notwithstanding, the 18-250 (I've got the Tamron)is a very capable and useful lens: on the other, it occurred to me that if he gets the 50-135, I might be able to borrow it ;>)

 

As to the tele-converter part of the question, Sandeha Lynch's report, in an earlier thread, of using the 1.7x in combination with the 43mm piqued my interest but their scarcity suggests that they may not come cheap--anyone have any idea what the going rate might be?

[personalphotos]

Dave, You'll be hard pressed to find one under $400 on Fleecebay. They are rare and in high demand. It is an excellent TC and with the added bonus of being AF. Very little IQ loss.