Hi, Please tell me if this would be a good lens for indoor sports? f1.4 is great. The 85mm will be 128mm on my pentax-not sure about manual focus???
446211
NOOOOOOOOOOO . First, you typically don't want a prime lens for sports unless your part of s team of shooters. Second, you definitely don't want s manual focus lens. You will hate life only minutes into the game because you're teying to manually focus on fast moving action. Sure that's how they used to do it back in the day, but unless you have a LOT of practice manually focusing (and even still...) this won't satisfy your sports photogrsphy.
446212
A bit short for my taste, but plenty fast especially if use at night with high ISO. Yes the manual focus may be a nuance for bursts.
183451
I shoot the same subjects and have been very pleased with the 18-250mm zoom. If you want a little more reach get the 55-300mm in place of the 18-250. With that choice I would then add the 18-55mm. I'm assuming you want to stay with Pentax brand. Neither zoom is "cheap" but then you get what you pay for. I chose the 18-250 because I hand hold the camera most of the time and here in the Pacific NW the light levels in the winter are pretty low. I doubt if I maxed out the 300mm (450mm equivalent) would I get a sharp image. Love the K20D by the way.
1700413
I bought and returned lens years ago and moved on to a Nkion system. I had problems with the lens back-focusing on the K10 which had no way of adjusting the focus in camera, so be aware of this issue depending on which body you have. As I recall, the lens was new in Pentax box with warranty. I would check the return policy just in case.
1409346
I have not but if this is your main reason for the camera I would not get this one. I noticed it does not have a sports setting. Also it depends on the environment you are shooting in, bright outdoors it will probably be okay but it has a small lens and sensor so i would not want to use it indoors. Also distance is important...closer the better.
2256203
I don't use it for that but I see professional photographers using it when I watch events on TV. As the other commenter, waverider, stated, the lens struggles as light diminishes. That's why the majority of sports photographers use fix focal length lenses because they have fewer glass elements allowing for more light. The lens you are considering, 100-400, is my go-to lens. That was an unexpected surprise. My brilliant 70-200 stays in the bag. The 100-400 even takes fantastic flower shots from a near distance. They pop!
767674
Oh, and the larger aperture allows you to play with depth of field and shoot in low light conditions without having to crank up the ISO and the associated noise. It's really nice for portraits. If you are looking for top quality in a "normal" lens(like a 50mm was in film formats) you can pay alot for the great Pentax 31mm or (right now) about the same as the 50mm for a DA 35mm that is still a very nice lens. BTW: Pentax is planning on putting out an "improved" series of fixed lenses at a higher price so you might want to take advantage of the clearance sales now.
1709380
It's a solid lens with good range. If you plan on using it outside, then the lighting should be ample to take the type of shots you're seeking. I have found that indoor shooting is not its strength. But the shots I've gotten are clear and I've been pleased with it. The additional range has come in handy.
2278160
In my experience, the lens is a mixed bag for interior shots. The great part is 28mm (equiv) can capture a lot of interior space but I have to increase the ISO to capture a shot depending on lighting conditions. The 20mm is a great lens (which I totally regret selling). The drawback is that you capture less interior space because of the 40mm (equiv) focal length. But it works great in low light. Try to get a Gen 1 20mm as DXOMark says its sharper than the 2nd gen model. I had the 1 gen. model and it was tack sharp.
1913609
I have this lense and a Canon 6D. I have used it indoors for volleyball and basketball games. You will need the ISO Iin the 3200-6400 range, but the photos are very good even at that ISO.
1364459
This lens is perfect for outdoor but for low light indoor will not be good. I bought me a 70-200 f2.8 lens that will work with the right settings.
1759794
Oh, I'll add this:"Great for indoor" yeah that's matketing lingo for "this lens has a big, fast maximum aperture of f2."All lenses are mostly "good for outdoors/broad daylight". But faster max apertures can suck in more light than others which is particularly useful A) if you want amazing bokeh and shallow depth of field (B) you're inside and have horrid light and the extra 2-3 stops will get you the shot.
1681730
This is a fantastic lens for sports photography in its focal length range. I use it to take pictures of tennis players, both during the day when the light is very good and at night when it isn't. There is a faster (f2.0) 200mm fixed focal length lens that could be useful if the light is really poor, but it is much more expensive. The real question is whether you will be so far away that 200mm isn't enough; I have not used any of the tele-converters.
1150470
I'll second that, I use the Canon 85mm 1.8 for indoor basketball on my 1d mkiii. Ihave the 85L but that is too slow in focusing. That is my primary portrait lensindoor basketball go for the 85 1.8, about $350 used
143450
It wouldn't be my first pick for anything other than macro photography. f/3.5 is pretty slow for indoors (it's like looking into a cave), it isn't a zoom, it doesn't have stabilization, and focus is somewhat slow (comparatively speaking). For portraits, I would prefer the 70-200 f/2.8. It's a perfectly keen lens for macro, though; you can take pictures of the tiniest things!
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
2058093
I am using this lens primarily for sports - synchronized swimming. So far only outdoors (wish you would ask it a few months out -the indoor meet is coming up then). It is a beautiful lens for landscaping or nature shots, but so far i cannot say i am 100% satisfied with it for sports. Based on what i see, i can imagine it might be problematic with low-light conditions and sports as even outdoors it still hunts that focus point. But off course reflections can be the cause, at least for me. It probably as good as we can go at this price point, but definitely do not expect flawless photos. As to comparing it against Tamron - sorry, no experience there.
2034642
I would not use my 85mm for sporting events, I would use my AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED. And use the sports mode on the dial. I am not a pro though.