Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Long Range Lens

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447

    Long Range Lens

    So for fathers day im going to be getting myself a long range lens to take over for the crappy 55-200 kit lens. I would like all of your opinions as i wish to keep this for a long while.

    Id like it to be Something along the lines of 70-300
    Last edited by Switchblade906; 04-21-2011 at 04:59 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557
    This question comes up about twice a year ... and while 300mm seems significantly longer that 200mm ... in the grand scheme ... 400mm is significantly longer ... 300mm is more like ... kinda longer.

    The list is relatively short for choice in this range, because there are good 70-300(400) lenses ... and there are cheap 70-300 lenses. If you are really planning ahead, do not buy cheap ... or you're going to wind up replacing it, in a year or so, once you start looking closer at your images.

    My advice: Just buck up ... and pay the rate. I can say this, because it is YOUR money. My main interest is relieving the pressure of the National Debt and keeping the manufacturers profits way, way up! Yeah, that will be the day.

    Anyway, since you have asked:

    The TAMRON Model a005 for SONY (<- click on link) (27-oz) (best price of the high-end bunch) *** If you do buy this lens, please provide some sample shots. It is kind of new. *** There is currently a $50 rebate on this lens, from TAMRON

    The SONY 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G SSM (<- click on link) (28 oz) (best budget "keeper" lens)

    The SONY 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM (<- click on link) (54 oz) (best overall "keeper" lens)

    Anything other than these ... well, you will find out if you buy it. I trust you will, because the temptation of buying a cheap 70-300 is enormous, based on the choices of S.O. everywhere and other budget-crushing decision-makers and "know-it-alls." This is not being cynical ... this is the sad truth.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-21-2011 at 06:10 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    What do you mean "Good luck with your $150 choice"?? Are you implying that im going to buy a lens for $150?

    The one i was looking more into is the SONY 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G SSM because the SONY 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM is $700 more.

    I was also looking at the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF as well
    Last edited by Switchblade906; 04-21-2011 at 06:18 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557
    Okay, sorry about the $150 crack, we've had some debate about these lenses, in the past.

    The fact is, I actually gave one of these $150 lenses (TAMRON AF 70-300 f/4-5.6 LD) away, in a contest (<- click on link), a year or two, ago. That was kind of fun and no one else has done anything like that, since.

    I would argue that with the $50 rebate (<- click here for rebate sheet), which lowers the price @ B&H Video to effectively $399 ... the TAMRON USD is the best one for what you are looking to do. It's light, less money and looks excellent in the tests.

    But, hey ... SONY will take your money, no questions asked.

    As far as the "difference" between the 70-300 and the 70-400 ... the 400 just solves so many issues ...


    and it is actually brighter at 70mm than the 300 is. What's that worth?

    I am currently looking to go to the SIGMA 120-300mm f/2.8, which is quite a jump (more like a jump and a half, to be honest). I have "coverage" with my TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3, so I am willing to part with my relatively new 70-400 G SSM to provide some funding to make that leap, if you are interested. It is a great lens, as I have stated, but I want aperture for indoor work. It costs a bundle to get it.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-21-2011 at 07:02 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    I bet the 70-400 is better then the 70-300 but its 1600 dollars and thats a lot of damn money (2 times what my camera costs)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Exclamation First rule of camera-dom

    Quote Originally Posted by Switchblade906 View Post
    I bet the 70-400 is better then the 70-300 but its 1600 dollars and thats a lot of damn money (2 times what my camera costs)
    "Switch" ... the first rule of camera operation is:

    NEVER equate the cost of the continually disposable end (your camera) of your craft with the glass you will use in front of it.

    They are mutually exclusive. A good lens will last you, easily three times the life of the camera, perhaps a lot more, if you take care of your glass. The fact is, the lens, without question, is the greatest asset your camera will have. If you use a lousy lens to shoot through, it does not matter how GREAT the camera is behind it, it will never make up the difference.

    Look, in my signature below is a "Remember:" quote that holds true right down the line. You want to improve your photography ... get better optics. That is the single most importance contribution you can make to putting out a better product. Once you have the best glass on whatever camera you have ... get a better camera.

    There are 35mm-sized lenses out there that cost $30,000! I kid you not. It has nothing to do with the camera they go on. They are $30,000 on the good ones and the not-so-good ones. Still, the lens does what it does, despite the camera.

    The mission of the lens is to get the best image circle to the sensor it can.



    Crappy glass, crappy image. The same thing applies in digital computers ... garbage in, garbage out. This isn't a recycling plant.

    So, in conclusion ... quit comparing apples to oranges, here. The price of your camera's replacement will probably go down, once again, as they make them cheaper and faster, but that solid piece of glass on the front ... I don't think so. At least not anytime soon. If you are serious about your craft ... top drawer glass. Then you will know that the image failure is your fault and cannot be improved by a better lens. You already have it covered.

    Also, I do not want to be misinterpreted, here, either. If you do not know how to use your camera or understand the principles of light, then you could have the best combination of glass and camera in the world ... and chances are ... you are still going to turn out something less than what you desire. You have homework and practice to consider. It is a learning process where experience simply cannot be discounted. When you make mistakes, you learn. If everything turned out perfect, every time you did it ... where's the learning? So, do not be too quick to throw away shots that did not turn out that nice. Examine them ... learn from them. Make the corrections and the next set of images ... should be better. Better tools (equipment) simply means you have a better chance at getting the desired outcome ... but, also having the knowledge of its proper use cannot be ignored.

    It took me a couple years to get the 70-400, but it replaced a cheaper (and much lighter -> 30-oz) Tokina 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (also available, if you're interested), which was pretty much the same range, but the optics inside and construction are entirely different ... and most of all, it shows in the images created! In this case it is very true, you pay for what your get. The 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM is an amazing lens. Rocket focus ... and sharp as heck.

    Name:  1692.jpg
Views: 338
Size:  194.8 KB
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-21-2011 at 10:58 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    looooooooooooooooooooooong range ;-)
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    Wow, what is that 1000mm?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    LOL, nice one.
    Steve pulls that out when he wants to impress.
    Better than looking in your trousers, eh Steve. LOL.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    Lol..600mm

Posting Permissions

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