Which zoom Lens

[ruthless]

Ok I am about to take the step into the over $1000 lens range. So I am stucek between the 70-400 G and the 70-200 F2.8 SSM. I shoot mostly fishing and nature photography. Suggestions.

I already own a beercan, but want more!

[David Kilpatrick]

70-400, no real argument. The beercan is as good as the 70-200mm SSM and actually much better for close-up subjects. The 70-400mm is a different range of lens and - I think - better than the 70-200mm SSM. It is after all a design produced several years later.

David

[Andy B]

70-400, no real argument. The beercan is as good as the 70-200mm SSM and actually much better for close-up subjects. The 70-400mm is a different range of lens and - I think - better than the 70-200mm SSM. It is after all a design produced several years later.

David

Wow! I guess I won't be selling my beercan anytime soon! Actually, I've been considering the Tamron 70-200/2.8 as a "budget alternative" to the 70-200 SSM, but every time I hold one in my right hand while holding my Minolta 135/2.8 in my left hand, it reminds me that I'm not getting any younger or stronger.

Andy

[KevinBarrett]

I made this decision a while back, though the $1500 for a 70-400G hasn't landed in my lap yet... The beercan has long been my favorite lens, and if David says it's as good as a 70-200G SSM, it's just confirmation. I'd have a hard time spending $1800 to replace it with a shorter lens, and I've always been hungrier for more reach.

[David Kilpatrick]

Let me qualify that - the beercan at its optimum (f/8) is as good as the 70-200mm SSM across the range, though the CA is different. The 70-200mm SSM has CA too, which is not generally realised. In the conditions where the beercan produces very strong purple fringes (f/4, against the light highlights and tree branches etc) the f/2.8 design also produces CA, though more easily corrected. Where the beercan wins is that at its minimum focus the field is very flat and it handles close-ups generally much better. Also, at f/4 and f/5.6 it has more even coverage across the frame for distant subjects at 200mm but the centre is not as sharp as the 70-200mm SSM. And the beercan has issues with into-the-light flare which the 70-200mm does not, and it focuses (fast enough) noisily. As for the rotating front aspect, I reckon a 55mm filter thread is a fair swap against a non-rotating 77mm...

The 70-400mm is an entirely different animal but I think it will also show CA wide open off centre (the pre-production sample I tried did so).

I've got a very good (pre-increase) deal on a pre ordered Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM, I wanted one to test but they had no Sony stock (sold out on the first delivery). Just for interest, I asked them for a 'journo discount' price to see if I could get one fast enough to test it before our April magazine issue. Prices had gone up by 20% that week, but they gave me a figure good enough for me to agree to buy rather than request a loan. I do not make much use of this size and range of lens, so I may well simply sell it on after doing the test. I plan to see how it stacks up on the Kenko DG 7 2X and Pro 300 1.4X converters, since no Sigma converter offers HSM yet and both of these will transfer HSM/SSM operation.

At the moment the 70-300mm SSM does everything I need, and since using it on the A900 I'm getting more accurate focus than on the A700. But I feel the beercan might have been a better choice for travelling last week. I made some really bad lens decisions - we took both the Sigma 12-24mm and Sony 11-18mm, then Shirley never once used the 11-18mm - dead weight. Really, she could have used the 12-24mm anyway when I was not using it. I took the 50mm f1.4 thinking it could be used with the 300 1.4X converter, and it can not, nor can the 28-105mm. I did not take a macro lens and there were countless macro subjects, and I did not take my 2X converter. I only used the 70-300mm SSM twice in the entire week, it was not long enough for most of the wildlife. I would have done better with 28-105mm (proved excellent even wide open), 100mm f/2.8 macro, 12-24mm, 16mm fisheye (took that, proved essential, correct decision), 2X converter and 70-200mm beercan.

David

[KevinBarrett]

So do you favor the 70-210/4 over the 70-300G SSM? How many other 70-300 telezooms have a faster maximum aperture and cost less? I am hesitant to buy a lens that starts off slower than my beercan and costs four times as much.

[ruthless]

Great answers so I guess Ill get the 70-400, i also think that 200mm is really to short for what I do. Thanks for the great input!

[David Kilpatrick]

So do you favor the 70-210/4 over the 70-300G SSM? How many other 70-300 telezooms have a faster maximum aperture and cost less? I am hesitant to buy a lens that starts off slower than my beercan and costs four times as much.

No, I prefer the 70-300mm SSM. It's a new lens and it has SSM, and it is better, no doubt at all. Also it shares 62mm filters with our 18-250mm and 28-105mm. The results with the (pre-DG type) Kenko 1.4X are not all that stunning, but it does focus even at 300mm + 1.4X (f/8). However, the 70-210mm with 2X converter focuses better despite also being f/8.

My reason for saying I might have been better off with the 70-210mm is that it only takes up one lens space in my bag, where the 70-300mm SSM demands I remove a divider and use two spaces to hold it (it will not fit vertically, the beercan will). Also, I might have used it more. The 70-300mm is very large and the lens shade can not just be put in a pocket. Really, I should not have sold my 100-300mm APO. That should have been kept for travel only. But I did. The 100-300mm APO fits inside one of the CG-1000 Z-camera cases which I use for taking lenses around with me, the 70-300mm has no chance and the 70-210mm is also too big. I am no longer able to sling a tele zoom round my neck with the 12-24mm in the other case (I use two of these cases strapped together).

So, I am cutting short on how I use lenses. I climbed the Coba Mayan pyramid leaving my bag with Shirley (she couldn't climb it, the steps and her eyesight don't agree). The 28-105mm did a very good job, it was enough, but I am not making full use of the camera by having lenses which are too large to stuff into pockets or put in smaller pouches and sling over my back or fit to my waist. I do have a Slingshot bag I used to take for Leica mount kit, and I may start using that again. I think the 70-300mm will fit in it with a wide angle zoom. I just like to have both hands free and to be able to move quickly.

David

[caporip]

So, I am cutting short on how I use lenses. I climbed the Coba Mayan pyramid leaving my bag with Shirley (she couldn't climb it, the steps and her eyesight don't agree). The 28-105mm did a very good job, it was enough, but I am not making full use of the camera by having lenses which are too large to stuff into pockets or put in smaller pouches and sling over my back or fit to my waist. I do have a Slingshot bag I used to take for Leica mount kit, and I may start using that again. I think the 70-300mm will fit in it with a wide angle zoom. I just like to have both hands free and to be able to move quickly.

David

David

The slingshot aw300 can hold the A900 with grip; 70-300ssm; 24-70 zeiss; 90mm tamron; sigma 12-24mm and sony flash in main compartment comfortably. I've only done a 4 mile walk (level!!!) with it but it seemed ok weight wise.

Richard

[David Kilpatrick]

Sorry, my error - not a Slingshot - a Sideshooter or some other similar name from Lowepro. It is a belt pack, can not easily be worn on the shoulder, and came before the Slingshot. I had to let it out by two inches, tells you how long it is since I used it

It just fits - amazingly, given its tiny size like a big belt pack - one A900 with 28-105mm, the 70-300mm (vertically, which I did not expect) and the 12-24mm. Plus room for filters, cards and batteries in a front pocket - plus netting pouches OK for water bottles on the outside once the inside is not full of gear. It has a film cassette holder like my Tenba courier bag, I use these tubes in the lid to hold antiseptic gel, sticking plasters, painkillers, Imodium instant, eyedrops, dust blower. First aid for humans and camera.

Now I've checked out this bag I will pack it in my suitcase in future. I still need the airline size Tenba to hold all the gear and the Hyperdrive, chargers, phone charger etc but this waist-pack puts no strain on the shoulders, flips round to the back for climbing, and will just fit everything I normally need except my tripod. The Tenba will actually fit the Gitzo 6X in its front pocket. I can probably get a couple of straps to hold it under the Sideshooter.

David

[Wes Gibbon]

So do you favor the 70-210/4 over the 70-300G SSM? How many other 70-300 telezooms have a faster maximum aperture and cost less? I am hesitant to buy a lens that starts off slower than my beercan and costs four times as much.

No, I prefer the 70-300mm SSM. It's a new lens and it has SSM, and it is better, no doubt at all. Also it shares 62mm filters with our 18-250mm and 28-105mm. The results with the (pre-DG type) Kenko 1.4X are not all that stunning, but it does focus even at 300mm + 1.4X (f/8). However, the 70-210mm with 2X converter focuses better despite also being f/8.

David

I'm in much the same position. I recently acquired an A900 (my main interest is landscapes) and I already have a beercan. I haven't had the camera long enough to have formed any firm conclusions, but the beercan seems to give good results edge to edge, which is important to me. In the past I have normally put the camera on a tripod and stopped down. Would I see a noticeable improvement with the 70-300G SSM?

Wes Gibbon

[David Kilpatrick]

I'm in much the same position. I recently acquired an A900 (my main interest is landscapes) and I already have a beercan. I haven't had the camera long enough to have formed any firm conclusions, but the beercan seems to give good results edge to edge, which is important to me. In the past I have normally put the camera on a tripod and stopped down. Would I see a noticeable improvement with the 70-300G SSM?
Wes Gibbon

Not much. The beercan's best results have all the same good qualities that the 70-300mm does, even wide open. I guess into the light, with CA-sensitive detail, there is a big difference. And at 300mm of course there is But the beercan is a fairly amazing old bit of glass, and if you were for example shooting studio portraits I'd rate it as a more friendly lens to aim at a sitter, and likely to produce every bit as good a final result.

David

[Wes Gibbon]

The beercan's best results have all the same good qualities that the 70-300mm does, even wide open. I guess into the light, with CA-sensitive detail, there is a big difference. And at 300mm of course there is

David

David, thank you for your comments. Very helpful as always.

Would this still apply if I shield the lens from the light source? I normally ensure that no sunlight directly falls on any part of the filter/front element (one of the advantages of using a tripod is that you can do this).

[KevinBarrett]

I shoot mostly with the beercan and it is awful for lens flare...it's the main reason I'd have for replacing it. There's almost nothing that can stop it. That said, it's sharpness at f/4 rivals my primes (50/1.7, 24/2.8 RS) at the same aperture , and it is more resistant to CA than either of those. It's a gem of a lens...a good candidate for reincarnation in Sony's "G" brand, if you ask me. There really needs to be a digital era replacement for this lens...it would seem the 70-300G would have to do for now.

[David Kilpatrick]

The beercan's best results have all the same good qualities that the 70-300mm does, even wide open. I guess into the light, with CA-sensitive detail, there is a big difference. And at 300mm of course there is

David

David, thank you for your comments. Very helpful as always.

Would this still apply if I shield the lens from the light source? I normally ensure that no sunlight directly falls on any part of the filter/front element (one of the advantages of using a tripod is that you can do this).

The 70-210mm really is extremely flare-prone. I guess that if you could make a hood for it as big as the 70-300mm, it might be safer in backlight. But this same flare tendency gives it a medium contrast with superb shadow detail and very good skin tones.

David