Best budget lens at 300mm or more?

[harveyzone]

Hi there,

I have a couple of budget lenses that go up to 300mm, but I am not too happy with either of them. I have the Sigma 70-300 APO and Minolta 100-300xi. Once they get beyond 220ish they seem to loose sharpness. Much as I would love the Sony 70-400G I cannot really afford/justify either of the current G lenses.

I have had a poke around and found a couple of possible replacements that may offer improvements over what I have but, do not want to purchase if they are comparable. Would there be any advantage in getting one of the following for sharpness at 300mm...
Minolta 100-300 APO D
Minolta 100-400 APO
...or can anyone suggest an alternative budget 300mm lens that would give better results at the long end?

I have also considered the Tamron 200-500mm for the extra reach, but that is more expensive again, and starts putting me into 70-300G territory.

(Currently to be used on an A100 and sometimes an A350 - but not forever ).

Thanks,
Tom.

[David Kilpatrick]

A good secondhand Sigma 100-300mm f/4 zoom would be a fairly safe buy, they are very good at 300mm. I suggest you look carefully at the causes for unsharpness. I find the AF of the A100-A350 is not very good at 300mm, and also that SSS is not always enough to prevent loss of sharpness unless the shutter speed is kept shorter than 1/500th. It is so tempting to trust SSS at around 1/160th-1/300th and think this is enough, but actually 1/300th is already one of stop shake compensation.

So before moving on, just do some tests around 1/1000th to 1/2000th in good light.

David

[bfitzgerald]

I've found a mono pod really does pay dividends for longer focal lengths well worth picking one up.

[harveyzone]

Thanks for the comments - I have wondered about technique, and have a horrible tendency to work at the limitations of the equipment - lenses wide open, lower shutter speeds than I should, higher ISO etc, and the reduced apertures at the long end of lenses, coupled with the A100's poor high ISO (I try not to go above 400) could be contributing factors. I never feel that the blur looks like camera shake though. I do use a monopod on occasion, but usually with the heavier Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

I will try some more controlled tests to see if it is just me. I had not considered the Sigma 100-300mm f/4, as I assumed it would be more expensive, and probably a lot heaviler. The extra stop at the long end would probably help though.

[David Kilpatrick]

A new Sigma 100-300mm is nearly £1000 which is why I suggested a used one! And yes, it's big and heavy, but you were considering the Tamron 200-500mm as an option, so I assumed you were up to the weight/size of the Sigma 100-300mm.

David

[InTheSky]

There is also two versions of the 200-400mm Tamron. Usually the Hood will be missing, but it is still available at Tamron reseller. On my last lens I bought one for ~35$. This hood can really help to increase contrast due to flare. (175$ USD first time, 220$ USD second time later version like new)

I have tried both for test, and not found a big difference between them. On the Minolta 7D the old model was not that bad, I was impress with result at 400mm. On the Sony A700, around 400mm was not bad too http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/winter_gussy. The tamron felt very solid, both lens has never let show a sign of loss movement in the focus or the zoom mechanism.

400mm wide open :

There is also a very old white lens sold on vivitar names (and other brand I found later) that the mechanism look like the 200-400mm Tamron. It is a Vivitar Series 1 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7. have got this lens in the past on ebay for 90USD and was surprise by the quality on the Minolta 7D (if I'm searching on my pc tonight, there is chance I found some duck pictures taken with it).

Don't forget that Pbase.com can be a very good way to evaluate old lenses by searching picture taken by a specific lens (in fact there is the first thing that bring me on this web site in the past).

Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm AFII f/4.5-5.6, the old model without tripod collar if you are lucky can be found for not so expensive too. I had this lens for a moment and was able to get some good picture on the Minolta 7D.

In the Fix focal world :
And if you want to tried a weird experience Pentax Asahi SMC 500mm F/4.5 , in the past I got this lens for 400$ CAD : http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/pentax_asahi_500mm_45_smc

The best deal Quality Vs price is the unbeatable : Tamron 300mm F/2.8 60B Adaptall. (got one at 550$ CAD).

Hope this will help,

Regards,

Frank

[Chris Malcolm]

Whether using SSS or tripod or whatever, I find that at focal lengths of >200mm if I'm being really critical of sharpness that my shutter speed has to be at least 1/350th sec. The exact speed is probably affected by lens, tripod, etc.. Slower than that that something, either mirror or shutter vibration, definitely starts blurring sharp edges. It starts as a near vertical doubled image, and as shutter speeds drop, becomes a near vertical smear, and then becomes a general blur.

I've seen this on both an A350 and A550. Of course with long focal lengths there are always several reasons why shots don't come out sharp, e.g. at 100 yards in sunlight thermal ripples can start distorting the image.

[InTheSky]

...
e.g. at 100 yards in sunlight thermal ripples can start distorting the image.

This is a very good point that we forget when trying to reach far object. Smug, dust, sand, mist, a lot of different atmospheric effect are in the air. This is why it is most of the time better to take picture of very far object early in the morning and also to check the Weather visibility.

Frank

[harveyzone]

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I haven't had a chance to do any further tests, and I have got to trek half way across the country for a wedding this weekend, so probably wont get the the chance until next week now, but will do so as soon as I can .

[prjohn]

How about the Minolta 75-300 big beercan? Although very difficult to find at the moment

[Wes Gibbon]

How about the Minolta 75-300 big beercan? Although very difficult to find at the moment

The first problem with this lens is making sure that you are getting a genuine 'big beercan', and not one of the later 75-300 Minolta replacements which are said to be lighter and worse! I did use a Big beercan for a while, but I just didn't feel it quite did justice to my A900, and took the financially painful decision to get a 70-400G. I haven't regretted that decision. Apart from definition, I prefer the 70-400 colour rendition as well. Perhaps the Big Beercan suffers from a bit of flare which reduces colour saturation a bit, but this is subjective - I never did any tests.

Before the Big Beercan, I tried a few recommended cheaper alternatives from Minolta and Sigma, but didn't find anything I liked at the 300mm end. For a carry-around lens, I may just stick with a beercan or maybe a 35-200xi and forget about 300mm, cropping where necessary.

The Big Beercan weighs in at just under a kilo, which may be why Minolta replaced it.