Tamron 70-200 on K-1 (either version)

I have a K-3 and a K-50. My K-50 has recently started experiencing the aperture solenoid problem. So I’m considering replacing it with something more recent. If I do so, one thing I’d like to accomplish is getting a little faster AF speed from my Tamron 70-200 than what I currently get on the K-3, particularly with my son’s flag football games. I can get really good shots with that combo, but the keeper rate is pretty low. I don’t really have a huge attraction to full frame, but I would be open to the K-1 or K-1 II if it would improve the performance of the Tamron 70-200.

So with that in mind, I have two questions about the K-1 (either version):

1. If you have experience using the Tamron 70-200 on both the K-3 and the K-1, how do the AF speeds compare? I would think that more light would equate to better AF capability, but I’d like to hear from someone who’s actually used this lens on both cameras.
2. For my sports purposes, I’d be shooting in crop mode. How does the quality of crop mode on a K-1 compare to what I’d get from a K-3? I realize it would be fewer megapixels, but there’s more to IQ than just megapixels.

Another option I have is to wait for the K-new later this year and hope the AF improvements with it will give me what I want.
Or another option is to buy a used Nikon D7500 and a Nikkor 70-200/2.8 just for fast action shooting. I'd rather not go to a dual system, but I'm willing to do so if I think it's a better choice than a K-1 or a K-new. That would be a last resort, though.

I dont have the Tamron but for me its a no brainer: wait for the K New.

(I shot my daughters netball games with K1 and DFA 70-200 and no complaints)

Hi Joe,

I have no experience with K1 so I can not speak about the focusing abilities. Most users claim that K1ii was a little faster/secure/stable in AF vs. K1 and K3/K3ii. None stated huge differences.

I use Tamron 70-200 plus a few more fine lenses on 16 and 24MP cameras. The crop mode of K1 gives you 15MP, so miliar to my K5ii/K-01.

In good light and base/low ISO the higher resolution is always welcome. And the absence of AA in my case is again an extra boost in perceived resolution. Resolution is something I always appreciate, and I believe most of us do.

Going high ISO though can be a different story, depending on the magnification. From ISO 1600 and up, the 16MP cameras have the edge if you are looking at 1:1 magnification and it is obvious, at least to me. But if you go for same viewing size then both noise and resolution are about the same. Actually, I find that the 24MP are a little more malleable in NR and they also print just a little better. Maybe a different sharpening before printing could minimize the differences, but this is my experience until now.

So, all in all, I think the 24MP of your K3 will please you a little more than the crop mode of K1, either low or high ISO. But utilizing the full dimensions of K1ii sensor is going to be even better than K3. Better DR, resolution, noise, DoF control.

The Tamron is a wonderful lens. It really deserves a FF sensor behind it. Selecting crop mode on K1ii will be a give and take between "resolution + Noise and DoF control" and "speed + reach". From all my lenses, it is the one that screams "give me a K1ii"..

I'm still using the Tammy 70-200 on my K5IIs. AF was inconsistent for the first couple of years, AF calibration didn't help much, I decided to send it for servicing to the Tamron main dealer in UK. The lens now is super sharp with quite snappy and accurate AF. Not for exactly the combo to keep up with fast kids running towards you, but is well within Pentax AF performance expectations.

brett nz wrote:

I dont have the Tamron but for me its a no brainer: wait for the K New.

Are you saying you would favor the higher MP count of the APS-C compared to the lower MP count of the K-1 in crop mode? Or that you think the K-new will have faster AF than the K-1? (Obviously that second question is a guess at this point.)

(I shot my daughters netball games with K1 and DFA 70-200 and no complaints)

I have considered replacing the Tamron with the Pentax, but to do that I'd have to be convinced that its IQ is on par with the Tamron. When stopped down to f/4, that Tamron is easily as sharp as any lens in my bag (including the Limiteds and Sigma EX).

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

That Pentax lens seems to give slightly better autofocus than the Tamron. The Pentax 70-210/4 gets almost the same AF ratings as the 70-200/2.8 and is slightly more affordable than the K-new probably will be, initially:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-d-fa-70-210mm-f4-ed-sdm-wr.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-d-fa-70-200mm-f28-ed-dc-aw.html

I'll have to give that f/4 a look. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of it. I typically shoot the Tamron at f/4 for sports. It's tack sharp at that aperture and still gives good subject separation. I'll have to see how the Pentax f/4 performs wide open. If it's comparable to the Tamron and has better AF, that might be an option.

kitsios_spyros wrote:

Hi Joe,

I have no experience with K1 so I can not speak about the focusing abilities. Most users claim that K1ii was a little faster/secure/stable in AF vs. K1 and K3/K3ii. None stated huge differences.

So probably not any more of a speed improvement than the K-new would be. Speculation at this point, but probably accurate if the K-1 wasn't a huge improvement in speed.

I use Tamron 70-200 plus a few more fine lenses on 16 and 24MP cameras. The crop mode of K1 gives you 15MP, so miliar to my K5ii/K-01.

In good light and base/low ISO the higher resolution is always welcome. And the absence of AA in my case is again an extra boost in perceived resolution. Resolution is something I always appreciate, and I believe most of us do.

Going high ISO though can be a different story, depending on the magnification. From ISO 1600 and up, the 16MP cameras have the edge if you are looking at 1:1 magnification and it is obvious, at least to me. But if you go for same viewing size then both noise and resolution are about the same. Actually, I find that the 24MP are a little more malleable in NR and they also print just a little better. Maybe a different sharpening before printing could minimize the differences, but this is my experience until now.

So, all in all, I think the 24MP of your K3 will please you a little more than the crop mode of K1, either low or high ISO. But utilizing the full dimensions of K1ii sensor is going to be even better than K3. Better DR, resolution, noise, DoF control.

No doubt the FF would give me other benefits besides the question of AF speed. One that I hadn't thought about until I read a comment yesterday is that you can shoot in FF mode to give a larger field of view when following the action. Then crop in PP. Lower chance of losing the subject out of the frame in fast action. But even so, depth of field will end up being the same (I think) as if I shot the same lens on the K-3.

The Tamron is a wonderful lens. It really deserves a FF sensor behind it. Selecting crop mode on K1ii will be a give and take between "resolution + Noise and DoF control" and "speed + reach". From all my lenses, it is the one that screams "give me a K1ii".

You're not exaggerating about the Tamron. The IQ is absolutely stunning with it. I just wish it didn't hunt so often during fast-action autofocusing. I've been shooting sports with it for about five years now and have gotten better, but the missed-focus rate is still too high. It's frustrating.

il_alexk wrote:

I'm still using the Tammy 70-200 on my K5IIs. AF was inconsistent for the first couple of years, AF calibration didn't help much, I decided to send it for servicing to the Tamron main dealer in UK. The lens now is super sharp with quite snappy and accurate AF.

Well I had not considered that it might be a repairable problem. The one knock on that lens is that it hunts when focusing, so I just always assumed it was a design flaw of some sort. I do frequently get great images from it, but I just never know if that will be the case or if it's going to take a few seconds to lock focus (and thus, miss the action shot). I'll have to check, but I think I may still be in the 6-year warranty period. Maybe I'll give that a try and see if Tamron service can make it more reliable.

Not for exactly the combo to keep up with fast kids running towards you, but is well within Pentax AF performance expectations.

Yeah, I initially purchased it for baseball several years ago when I was asked to shoot the teams in our local Little League. And since baseball action is much more predictable and not quite as fast as football, it performed beautifully for that purpose. Then when I started shooting football and other sports, the sluggish AF became more of an issue. It's still usable, for sure, but if I can improve it then I'd like to do so.

math guy wrote:

brett nz wrote:

I dont have the Tamron but for me its a no brainer: wait for the K New.

Are you saying you would favor the higher MP count of the APS-C compared to the lower MP count of the K-1 in crop mode? Or that you think the K-new will have faster AF than the K-1? (Obviously that second question is a guess at this point.)

I am not sure what af speed tests have been done re shooting K1 cropped but my own experience and that of some others is that for IQ I dont shoot cropped unless using an apsc lens and the Tamron is FF so I would just crop in post if using a k1. Writing speed and buffer I tested recently as was having trouble with time lapse - I found by writing to one card only in PEF format I no longer had buffer pauses when shooting 2.5sec time lapses. It also makes a huge difference on having a fast sd card.

The K new will have much improved AF system - it is not possible for it not to be with faster chipboards and updated af system. I am not saying it will be in the same class as others but it will be a significant improvement on current Pentax dslr's.

(I shot my daughters netball games with K1 and DFA 70-200 and no complaints)

I have considered replacing the Tamron with the Pentax, but to do that I'd have to be convinced that its IQ is on par with the Tamron. When stopped down to f/4, that Tamron is easily as sharp as any lens in my bag (including the Limiteds and Sigma EX).

As I said I would just wait for the K new - I am.

math guy wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

I'm still using the Tammy 70-200 on my K5IIs. AF was inconsistent for the first couple of years, AF calibration didn't help much, I decided to send it for servicing to the Tamron main dealer in UK. The lens now is super sharp with quite snappy and accurate AF.

Well I had not considered that it might be a repairable problem.

I wasn't happy about lens sharpness wide open and asked them to have a look. They fixed that and AF accuracy/consistency has improved at the same time.

The one knock on that lens is that it hunts when focusing, so I just always assumed it was a design flaw of some sort.

Mine sometimes hunts too especially with low contrast moving subjects. AF on eyebrows or face hairlines works better than focusing just on skin. This is how Pentax AF works. 😄

Not for exactly the combo to keep up with fast kids running towards you, but is well within Pentax AF performance expectations.

Yeah, I initially purchased it for baseball several years ago when I was asked to shoot the teams in our local Little League. And since baseball action is much more predictable and not quite as fast as football, it performed beautifully for that purpose. Then when I started shooting football and other sports, the sluggish AF became more of an issue. It's still usable, for sure, but if I can improve it then I'd like to do so.

I am afraid you are limited by Pentax AF system here. While K1 II will definitely improve your AF speed and accuracy, it will never be in the same league as Sony (no experience with Canon/Nikon). The difference is really night and day. As much as I like Pentax IQ and colors, I am planning to replace my Pentax Tammy with smaller and lighter Tamron 70-180/2.8 for my A7R3.

Breakfastographer 2 wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

math guy wrote:

The one knock on that lens is that it hunts when focusing, so I just always assumed it was a design flaw of some sort.

Mine sometimes hunts too especially with low contrast moving subjects. AF on eyebrows or face hairlines works better than focusing just on skin. This is how Pentax AF works. 😄

That is how all autofocus works - if you have no contrast, no texture, neither PDAF nor CDAF can deliver a focused image.

Agree in general, unless you imply that Pentax can be as good as Sony's. Because it's not.

https://youtu.be/u-1SRqVoksA

il_alexk wrote:

I am afraid you are limited by Pentax AF system here. While K1 II will definitely improve your AF speed and accuracy, it will never be in the same league as Sony (no experience with Canon/Nikon). The difference is really night and day. As much as I like Pentax IQ and colors, I am planning to replace my Pentax Tammy with smaller and lighter Tamron 70-180/2.8 for my A7R3.

Interesting that you say that...

A good friend who is a professional photographer has shot Nikon DSLRs for years, but I didn't realize that she had recently begun switching over to Sony mirrorless. When I floated my idea of getting a D7500 and a Sigma or Nikkor 70-200/2.8, she suggested I take a good look at Sony mirrorless. It's been a while since I've even looked at other systems, so I was still thinking that mirrorless AF was sluggish. Apparently that has drastically changed in the last couple of years. I stopped by Best Buy yesterday just to get my hands on a few mirrorless cameras, and I could not believe how small they were. Long story short, I've now concluded that if I end up going a different route than Pentax, I would probably get an A6400 and the Tamron 70-180. I'm also attracted by Sony's pancake 20mm - I think I could put that on the A6400 and carry it in the back pocket on my cycling jersey. I would love to have a quality camera with me while biking, rather than settling for my cell phone.

So I'm leaning heavily toward that option right now. I would still keep my K-3 and collection of Pentax lenses for a lot of my shooting that doesn't demand fast AF. I truly love a lot about Pentax... just not the AF. But I'm not alone there, for sure.

math guy wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

I am afraid you are limited by Pentax AF system here. While K1 II will definitely improve your AF speed and accuracy, it will never be in the same league as Sony (no experience with Canon/Nikon). The difference is really night and day. As much as I like Pentax IQ and colors, I am planning to replace my Pentax Tammy with smaller and lighter Tamron 70-180/2.8 for my A7R3.

Interesting that you say that...

...

I stopped by Best Buy yesterday just to get my hands on a few mirrorless cameras, and I could not believe how small they were. Long story short, I've now concluded that if I end up going a different route than Pentax, I would probably get an A6400 and the Tamron 70-180. I'm also attracted by Sony's pancake 20mm - I think I could put that on the A6400 and carry it in the back pocket on my cycling jersey. I would love to have a quality camera with me while biking, rather than settling for my cell phone.

So I'm leaning heavily toward that option right now. I would still keep my K-3 and collection of Pentax lenses for a lot of my shooting that doesn't demand fast AF. I truly love a lot about Pentax... just not the AF. But I'm not alone there, for sure.

Also check m43 (Olympus/Panasonic), great IQ, decent AF and likely the smallest lenses, Quite a few tiny fast pancakes to choose from too.

I personally cycle with Fuji X-A5 (£150!?!?!? used, super light, amazing IQ) and Laowa 9mm/2.8 for UWA landscapes and Helios 89 (30mm/1.9) for portraits. Both are manual focusing lenses and are really tiny. Actually tiny is an understatement for Helios, it's about 20mm long/80gr with M39-FX adapter. none of these toys are available for Pentax but you can use them on any MILS.

I use Sony A7R3 for low light indoor shots and Pentax K5IIs for 70-200/2.8 outdoor portraits (but not for the bike though).

il_alexk wrote:

Also check m43 (Olympus/Panasonic), great IQ, decent AF and likely the smallest lenses, Quite a few tiny fast pancakes to choose from too.

I personally cycle with Fuji X-A5 (£150!?!?!? used, super light, amazing IQ) and Laowa 9mm/2.8 for UWA landscapes and Helios 89 (30mm/1.9) for portraits. Both are manual focusing lenses and are really tiny. Actually tiny is an understatement for Helios, it's about 20mm long/80gr with M39-FX adapter. none of these toys are available for Pentax but you can use them on any MILS.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll definitely look into these. I would love to have a good camera for biking. My cell phone pictures are okay for Strava, but that's about it.

math guy wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

Also check m43 (Olympus/Panasonic), great IQ, decent AF and likely the smallest lenses, Quite a few tiny fast pancakes to choose from too.

I personally cycle with Fuji X-A5 (£150!?!?!? used, super light, amazing IQ) and Laowa 9mm/2.8 for UWA landscapes and Helios 89 (30mm/1.9) for portraits. Both are manual focusing lenses and are really tiny. Actually tiny is an understatement for Helios, it's about 20mm long/80gr with M39-FX adapter. none of these toys are available for Pentax but you can use them on any MILS.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll definitely look into these. I would love to have a good camera for biking. My cell phone pictures are okay for Strava, but that's about it.

To confuse you more...

I sometimes cycle only with an old LG G5 with LG camera/battery grip and a hacked Google Camera App (because of their HDR+ technology) instead of the stock cam app. The IQ is really amazing in good light, you get 16MP 28mm/f1.8 lens and 8Mpix ~11-12mm/f2.4 lenses in your pocket. Files are easily editable in LR with plenty of sharpness and DR for editing. A tiny Ulanzi anamorphic lens attached to this phone guarantees extra fun. 😂

But the phone is too old to be used as a phone, so it's my "go everywhere" pocketable camera. And yes, it is way better than any other phone cameras I've seen.