Which zoom Lens

[Vidgamer]

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.
....

As long as you're comparing lenses, I'm curious how the 100-300 APO compares (aside from being easier to travel with)? I've had good results with it so far, but I don't have much of a reference for comparison.

About the beercan, it's just such a good bang-for-the-buck value. Maybe it's just as well that Sony doesn't have a 70-210/f4, as how could it compete in price AND quality? I'd be surprised.

To the OP -- I'm sure for wildlife, the more mm, the better.

[David Kilpatrick]

Duncan McEwan projected some 100-300mm APO images in Sunday which made me think his 100-300mm was much better than the one I used to have. I guess there is some variation. If mine had been that good, I would not have sold it after getting the 70-300mm SSM. In fact if it had been that good I would have sold the 70-300mm and used the old 100-300mm instead.

So, you might have one like that - or not...

David

[Vidgamer]

Duncan McEwan projected some 100-300mm APO images in Sunday which made me think his 100-300mm was much better than the one I used to have. I guess there is some variation. If mine had been that good, I would not have sold it after getting the 70-300mm SSM. In fact if it had been that good I would have sold the 70-300mm and used the old 100-300mm instead.

So, you might have one like that - or not...

OK, you're not making it easy, are you?

I'm not sure how my images would compare to Duncan's, but I was impressed with the 70-300 SSM photos I've seen. I think the bokeh is generally better on the 70-300, although I'm getting enough sharpness out of my 100-300 that I suppose it doesn't matter if the 70-300 is better or not, when it comes down to it. It's good wide open, but really good at f8. I think my biggest problem is forgetting that I'm at 300 mm and need to take more care when hand-holding! It's so lightweight and small for what it is that I get lulled into thinking I can just wave it around or something. But seriously, the size is one of the best parts. The more I remind myself how large the 70-300 SSM is, the less "lens lust" I have for it, as I don't want to lug around a large lens (at least on some trips). I still can't help to be curious to know if I'm "missing out" on anything, though.

(I can also say that it's much better than the 100-300xi I had briefly. )

[David Kilpatrick]

The point about the 70-300mm SSM is guaranteed performance. Sure, you might get lucky and find a fantastic 100-300mm APO D, but if you buy a 70-300mm SSM you are guaranteed something excellent.

David

[Vidgamer]

Fair enough.

[Wes Gibbon]

The point about the 70-300mm SSM is guaranteed performance. Sure, you might get lucky and find a fantastic 100-300mm APO D, but if you buy a 70-300mm SSM you are guaranteed something excellent.

David

In another thread http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=792 alfake reported:

David has recently written on several threads about vignetting and distortions suffered by the 70-300mm SSM when used on the A900. (For example: “After trying the 70-300mm SSM on the A900, I realise it is intended mainly for the A700 (better illumination and geometry on the smaller format, by far).”) .

I haven't had time to search out the threads he is referring to, but is the vignetting and distortion serious, and how does it compare with the beercan and other possible quality telezooms?

I have also seen the occasional reference to a 'bbc' or 'big beercan'. Is this a different lens? If so, what is it, and how does it perform on the A900?

Many thanks for any comments

[David Kilpatrick]

I need to do more thinking and more tests on the 70-300mm SSM, let's just say I am underwhelmed on the A900. Quite apart from the vignetting, which is much the same as the 100-300mm APO despite all the extra bulk, the distortion is again just as marked. And although it proved excellent on the A700, I am so far not getting the results I want on the A900. The 70-400mm, even in prototype form as I tried out at the press launch, appears to be a different class of lens - though both are labelled G.

If I was without a tele zoom of this range right now, my first step would be to buy a Tamron 70-300mm and try it. If it was good enough, I'd stick with it and save many hundreds. If it was not, I'd sell it and buy a Sigma 70-300mm APO (preferably with HSM, which I believe is due). If that was good enough, slightly higher cost but still a big saving. Only if those proved not good enough would I try the Sony 70-300mm SSM.

A700/APS-C users - the 70-30mm SSM is superb. The central area is unaffected by the vignetting, and the distortion doesn't show as much either, and it is also the sharpest zone.

David

[Philip]

My experience is exactly the same as David's. On the A700 the 70-300 is excellent, but on the A900 the 70-400 kicks it into touch, no contest. The extra weight of the 70-400 may be an issue, but as I frequently carried my 80-200 f2.8 around (which the 70-400 replaces under most circumstances) it hasn't been an issue with me. The difference between the 70-300 and 70-400 has led me to sell the 70-300.

Philip

[Wes Gibbon]

This is perhaps mainly a question for DK, but of course all opinions would be of interest - I have just read the (favourable) review of the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 in F2 magazine (by DK). Is this lens also a strong candidate for the A900?

DK's article (which also examines the 10-24mm SP) reviews a lens which is apparently not an 'SP' lens, but there is a lens listed on Dyxum and reviewed on DPReview which is stated as being 'SP' and appears to be remarkably similar in all other details. Is there confusion here?

Only one reviewer on Dyxum has tested a Tamron 70-200mm it on a FF camera (he's ecstatic about it), while DPReview also praised it very highly optically but found the autofocus consistely inconsistent, frequently and unpredictably not getting the focus quite right. DPReview tested the Canon version, DK Canon and Nikon (on full frame).

I think I need to get out there and take as many pictures with the beercan as I can and see if I can live with the flare (I haven't really been aware of a problem yet, except when obviously shooting into the light, but I haven't given it enough of a work-out yet, and I'll have a critical second look at the pics I have already taken). The Tamron (and presumably the equivalent Sigma) is about half the price of a Sony 70-400, faster (presumably it can use the extra f2.8 autofocus sensor in the A900) and lighter, but the 70-400 is not so much heavier and offers twice the focal length at the long end. Autofocus and f2.8 is not necessarily critical as I will normally be taking landscapes on a tripod, but I do tend favour the longer lenses so being able to go up to 300 or 400mm would be nice (though it's always possible to compromise by cropping down - you lose detail in theory but a distant shot at 400mm is probably a bit blurry anyway due to atomspheric haze). In the meantime, if one of the alternatives that DK recommended becomes available I'll give that a try as well.

Problems, problems...

[David Kilpatrick]

The Tamron is probably an SP, actually I did not realise they classed the original 11-18mm as an SP (Special Performance) lens as well. It seems that most of their lenses are called SP unless they are derivatives of the XR long range zooms. There is also an error in my Canon review, due to jetlag - I mixed up notes made on the 450D for a previous review with the 50D, and said it had an SD card slot. It has CF and UDMA. Fortunately I did not do the same in a BJ review of the camera which appeared the same day. f2's article was not written under ideal conditions (very tired, half of it written when abroad away from my computer with no camera to handle - because they only let me have it for 10 days).

So any anomalies in the Tamron report may be due to the same cause, both were written against the clock.

We were examining the Sigma 70-200mm new HSM version II for Nikon last week. I've got an Alpha version on order. I believe it is a better choice than the Tamron, mainly because the Tamron has this very definite 'glow' of aberrations at full aperture while the Sigma appears to be crisp., Also, Sigma HSM converters are due to be released soon. The whole issue about 400mm reach disappears when you can buy a 70-200mm f2.8 (using the f2.8 sensor) and a 2X converter to get your 400mm f5.6 into the deal, and still have money in the bank.

But the Sigma lenses may not be as low cost as the Tamron.

David

[Wes Gibbon]

The whole issue about 400mm reach disappears when you can buy a 70-200mm f2.8 (using the f2.8 sensor) and a 2X converter to get your 400mm f5.6 into the deal, and still have money in the bank.


David

Aaargh!! I logged in, composed a reply and found I had been logged off again. I'll have to recompose this and hope that I can do it in time.

Thank you for your comments. How does the beercan work with teleconverters, and is there one you recommend? Would a 1.4 be better if it gives a max aperture of f5.6 instead of f8?

Your comments also confirm my feeling that I should stick with the beercan, unless I find that the flare does cause me too much of a problem, when hopefully the best alternative will be clearer. It's not just the cost, but the weight that I would prefer to avoid (and, at least with the Tamron and 70-400, 77mm filters as well - I have other lenses with 72mm threads).

Slightly off the subject, I have occasionally heard of a 'big beercan'. Am I right in thinking that this was Minolta's first attempt at a 75-300, which was a good lens but so big and heavy that they had to replace it with something else which was smaller, lighter, and ...worse?

[InTheSky]

I'm late in the thread ... but have you considered the Bigma ? The lens is not that fast at 500mm, but you can get acceptable result a F/7.1, and better F/8.0. At 450mm the lens perform very good.

The good things about the lens is that it is starting at 50mm ... making the lens eliminating the need of bringing a zoom lens in the range of 28-70mm ... , and you can after that bring a prime in the wider angle ... or a 17-35mm ...

I have this lens since 2 months now, and I have took some good picture with it. The lens is doing vignetting at long end, but this is not so hard to correct.

http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/bigmaa900

420mm /f8.0 :



Regards,

Frank

[Wes Gibbon]

Frank,

That sparrow looks pretty good! I hadn't thought about the 50-500, so thank you for your suggestion. According to Dyxum, it's about 1800 gm, and since I was concerned about 1100 gm for the Tamron, and I would rarely use anythng beyond 300mm at the most, it's probably not the lens for me.

At the moment it looks as though I will carry a 20mm + Minolta 28-70 f2.8 for the wide end, but it's not ideal as I don't really like 20mm (too much distortion and the results seems a bit unreal to me), but I quite often find that 28mm is just not quite wide enough. Maybe my ideal would be 24mm, 35mm & 50 primes. Unfortunately, I don't feel like paying for the 35mm f1.4. Lots of money for a lot of glass when I would be quite happy with f2.8. It would be interesting to know how many of these monsters Sony has sold. But that's an old argument! Probably the sensible choice would be to sell all my wide angles and bite the bullet - stump up the dosh for the CZ 24-70.

[David Kilpatrick]

I have just done some electronic flash tests on available stuff, won't post images, they need careful interpretation (I shot a small cactus at the closest possible focus distance, it's rounded and 3D so it shows variations in actual focus and always gives me a sharp zone).

70-210mm f/4 beercan at minimum focus, f/8 - very good sharpness indeed, large image scale at 1.1m and 210mm. Trace of colour aberration (chroma bokeh) or fringes on defocused edges only. No worse than, for example, the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro or the Minolta 85mm f1.4G.

Same with Kenko 300 Pro 1.4X converter - really surprising. One stop down at f/8 (max f5.6) sharpness appears to just get magnified, colour bokeh problem actually seems to be reduced by the converter (similar, despite the magnification, and more symmetrical). This was not a DG converter, the latest version could be expected to be pretty amazing.

Same with Kenko MC-7 DG digitally coated 2X converter - wide open at f/8. Still a very sharp core image, but diffused with a rather beautiful (unwanted!) glow and some quite strong colour bokeh defects. However, sharp focus is clean. Low contrast. Usable, and probably very good, for portraits.

70-300mm G SSM wide open at 300mm - pin sharp, no CA, no colour bokeh, very high contrast. At f/8 - even more so, extra depth of field useful, contrast increases, exceptionally high quality image. Having said that, the difference between this and the 70-210mm at f8 is only in contrast, and the elimination of CA-related effects. Sharpness of the old beercan in pure resolution terms is just as good.

Final point - the 70-300mm SSM at 300mm and 1.1m yields almost EXACTLY the same size image as the 70-210mm beercan at 210mm and 1.1m. There is no magnification benefit at all. This is due to the internal focusing system.

Old 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 'big beercan' - it performs much like the 70-210mm only with slightly higher contrast and better sharpness, still has CA. And the 1.5m minimum focus means it has just a very slight magnification advantage, at a rather greater working distance, ideal for small animals, birds, lizards, insects etc.

Conclude - better teleconverter needed. My Kenko Pro 300 1.4X is an old one which does not transmit aperture information properly. My DG MC-7 is not as good as the Pro 300 (it's a cheaper design). Thinking I may dispose of both and get a new 2X Kenko Pro 300 DG.

David

[ruthless]

OK I am a little confused, the 70-300 g SSM will produce the same size image at 3000 as the beercan at 210?

I have the a700, so would the 70-300ssm be better for me than the 70-400 ssm? I am all about sdaving some cash, if you had a $1000 US budget what current new lens (300 or longer) would you choose for shooting widlife.