Sony 70-300G or 70-400mm

Started Jan 12, 2010 | Discussions thread
WaltKnapp Forum Pro • Posts: 13,857
Re: Sony 70-300G or 70-400G for hand held pics?

Robsphoto wrote:

FEM2008 wrote:

That's interesting, I own the 70-300G, and although I can hand-hold it reasonably well at 300mm, I really need to use a tripod for best results above 200mm. The 70-300G costs $1700 in New Zealand and weighs 760G. The 70-400G costs $2800 and is nearly double the weight at 1.5kg.

So, do you mind explaining, please, why you can get steadier hand-held pictures with the 70-400G when it's twice as heavy as the 70-300G?

The extra weight adds inertia which requires more energy for the same amount of vibration so vibration tends to be less. So it helps to steady shutter/mirror vibrations. Also the greater dimensions give you more leverage to subdue movement. Of course all that depends on having enough strength to not be straining too much supporting it. You still want to use any support help you can find.

BTW, my heaviest lens right now is a Tamron 400mm/f4 which comes in at 5lbs for the lens alone. I have managed handheld with it. But am good for maybe a max of 10 minutes before my arms tire and get shaky.

Definitly if you can a tripod is a far better way to have good shooting with a long lens. Do that anytime you can. And the longer the FL of the lens the better your tripod needs to be.

Walt

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
fsw
fsw
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow