I need more zoom!

Setter Dog said:

Setter Dog wrote:

Alan,...I had not considered the 500mm reflex. Maybe I need to look into that.

Jack

Click to expand...

I'd look at that too. Before I bought the 70-400G I did some extensive research. My decision came down to either the 500mm mirror (used market only now), the Tammy 200-500, or the 70-400G. All have pros/cons, the only "con" with the 70-400G is the price, as it is super-sharp wide open and you can crop to the equivalent of the 500s with at least equal IQ (with wider aperture which means better shutter speed for that magnification), but as others have said, the used market price has come down dramatically as people are selling them off to upgrade to G2 (so it's only a few hundred above the other two, with the best IQ of the lot at the long end wide open). Also, I've got a 70-400G2 on pre-order, so will be looking to sell my G1 in coming weeks... That 500mm mirror lens has always seemed very attractive to me!

--
- AlanS

Jane79 said:

Jane79 wrote:

Jane79 said:

Setter Dog wrote:

You folks never cease to amaze me with your knowledge and willingness to teach! I'm pretty well convinced that the answer for me is the 150-500mm lens. I am unwilling to give up any autofocus capabiltiy or any IQ to get the zoom I need. I'll learn to live with the extra weight. The Sigma 150-500 gets very good reviews and I'm sure I'll like it.

Thanks for all the help. This forum is the best!

Jack

Click to expand...

I don't like know-it-alls and would not have mentioned the following had you not posted above comment. Your use of the word "zoom" is incorrect. A zoom lens is a lens with variable focal length. It can be a wide angle lens (and often is). What you're looking for is a longer focal length. Even though it is not strictly correct either, such lenses are usually referred to as telephoto or tele lenses. In photography, the word "reach" is often used for what you're looking for. You need more reach! Please pardon my pedantic lectures!

Click to expand...

Jane,

What I think you're trying to say is Jack is looking for a longer telephoto -- which I think we all understood ...

"zoom" = variable focal length (either wide or telephoto)
"telephoto" = magnified view

I need more zoom too, on both ends!

--
- AlanS

At shorter distances the magnification of a longer zoom won't be as much in comparison as it will be at longer distances. I really wouldn't think this would be a big issue for these lenses at 5m anyway unless you are using it for insect photography.

lens is light and quality is excellent. Bigma 50-500mm hsm is also very good but it is heavy. The lightest 500mm of course is the Sony/Minolta 500mm mirror lens.

dlkeller said:

dlkeller wrote:

At shorter distances the magnification of a longer zoom won't be as much in comparison as it will be at longer distances. I really wouldn't think this would be a big issue for these lenses at 5m anyway unless you are using it for insect photography.

Click to expand...

My Bigma works reasonably well for closeups, but it's hard to hold it steady. If I were buying a 500mm these days, I'd go for the Tamron 200-500mm because it is a pound lighter than the Sigma zooms.


Bigma, A-100, f/11 @ 500 mm, 1/640, ISO 400

--
AEH
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!

All zooms have this falloff of magnification. At least those with internal focussing. The reason is, the lens is not focussed by moving it, but by ajusting the focal length by moving the rear element.

Of course it can be used at 5m or shorter and will deliver fine results.
It is a good lens.
But if one already has a good 300mm or 400mm then he might be dissapointed about the magnification.
5m is not for insects. It is for small birds, mouses, lizards.
The shortest distance is 2.2m. I did not test it but I would not be astonished if the Sony 55-300 does better at this distance and delivers equal or better magnification. (Because this has an extending and rotating front element for focussing.)

Also I dont know how it compares at 10m to a 400mm lens.

Best,

Peter

Setter Dog said:

Setter Dog wrote:

Just returned from a trip to Teton NP, where the wildlife opportunities were wonderful. My a77 w/Sigma 70-300mm shared the duties with a Panasonic G5 w/100-300mm. I had excellent results with both cameras. However, there were situations where I really needed more zoom and I've been looking into several options.

Right now, the plan is to buy the Sigma 150-500mm. That will give me a considerable jump from the 600mm equiv of the Panasonic and I might enjoy it on my a77. However, I'm wondering if there is a lighter option. I've seen mention of adapters etc that can increase the zoom of my Sigma 70-300mm. I never paid much attention to these discussions, but now I'm interested.

Is there some adapter, extender, or whatever that will attach to the a77 and my 70-300mm giving me more optical zoom? Thanks!

Jack

Click to expand...

Jack

You need to know about the degree of focal length breathing. Personally I recommend you only the 70-400G because it is sharper and it focal breathes less than other lenses.

I did some recherche:

The Sigma 150-500 and the Tamron 200-500 both have 1:5 maximum magnification @about 2m.
The Sigma 50-500 has 1:3 maximum magnification @1.8m

SAL 70400 has 1:3.7 maximum magnification @1.5m
SAL 55300 has 1:3.7 maximum magnification @1.4m

So for smaller objects in closer distance if magnification is the only criteria, Sigma 50-500 should be the best and SAL 55300 should be better than Sigma 150-500.

;-)

Peter

The other point is:

If SAL 70400 really does fast and reliable autofocus with a 1.4x TC, then this combination will probably be the absolute winner for small birds.

Peter Heckert2 said:

Peter Heckert2 wrote:

The other point is:

If SAL 70400 really does fast and reliable autofocus with a 1.4x TC, then this combination will probably be the absolute winner for small birds.

Click to expand...

70-400 will only AF with third party TC like Kenko Pro300, and its AF is slow and inconsistent (need lots of light). Digital up-sampling is just as sharp as 1.4TC, and you get fast AF speed.

That's a hard one, Do you realy need more zoom, Or do you need a sharper and more clear lens maybe?

I am not sure about the situation you are in, because i am a canon shooter, But because i always shoot sport, I am also always looking for range, Nevertheless, I will soon change my 100-400mm Lens for the Sigma 120-300. First of all to get more light in, and a nicer background. But it seems to be much sharper also at f5.6 then my 100-400 is at 5.6 (Realy in the middle of the picture)

Why i post this in a topic where we are talking about more zoom. Well, because I also have a very nice macro lens (100mm 2.8 L) It is only 100mm but much more charp then the 100-400 and it has less chromatic aberration.

I Have shot before some "Macro" shots with my 100-400, and I also shooted some sport at a not realy importend game.

Well, to be fair. the quality of the pictures from the 100mm Lens are so much better that i can crop 3 times more in my pictures if i use that one compaired to the 100-400. So in fact my 100mm is like a 300mm. The only thing is that you also lose a lot of pixles then, so i would not realy recoment to crop that much. but he. If you can crop 1 time more with a other 300mm then the one you use now, your 300mm also can become a 600mm. (off course there are some other disadvantages, like a bigger depth of field it will give you in those croped pictures for exemple.)

On the other hand, You allready use a 300mm. If you upgrade to a 400mm you will not get that much closer, even the lens will be most of the time much bigger, the distance you win is only 1.33x

IF you consider those extenders: The auto focus will slow down from your camera, and you will lose some light or speed. a 1.4x will put you back one F-stop, and a 2.0x will put you back 2 stops. On some lenses that meens you will lose the abbility to use the auto focus. because your camera for exemple only support it up to F5.6.

So, I hope this also could help you a little bit with your dessition to what you gonna do.

BTW, I do not know your lens, but maybe if you stop it down to f8 it will be sharper then wide open. In that way you can find out if with sharper images and a croped image your needs are feeded off course you need to addit your pictures if you go for that option.

Telhma said:

Telhma wrote:

Why i post this in a topic where we are talking about more zoom. Well, because I also have a very nice macro lens (100mm 2.8 L) It is only 100mm but much more charp then the 100-400 and it has less chromatic aberration.

I Have shot before some "Macro" shots with my 100-400, and I also shooted some sport at a not realy importend game.

Well, to be fair. the quality of the pictures from the 100mm Lens are so much better that i can crop 3 times more in my pictures if i use that one compaired to the 100-400. So in fact my 100mm is like a 300mm.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. The resolution and IQ of the lens is very important. The resolution gets even more important on new high-pixel sensors (as the 24Mb A65,A77,A99). A high-resolution will allow 100%-crop with the same IQ.



Here is one of my first experiments with Sony 70-400mm, wide open at 400mm and 100%-crop.


Normal crop, 400mm/f5.6






100% crop of the shot above. It looks better than the original-crop to me, maybe the PP is a bit better. But this a is fast PP and it can probably improve more.

Thanks to all for the good input,...lots to consider but I'll get it all sorted out before my next Teton trip in September.

Jack

Several posts have suggested the Tamron 200-500mm lens and/or the Sony / Minolta 500mm f/8 (mirror) lens as alternatives to the Sigma 150-500mm. If you don't need the 150-200mm range, the Tamron is certainly worth investigating. I would not recommend the Sony or Minolta 500mm f/8 mirror lens. Although it will auto-focus, it has a fixed effective aperture, f/8. That means two things: (1) it cannot stop down from the aperture at which it focuses, so it can make achieving accurate effective focus more difficult, which is especially important given its quite thin depth of field; and (2) it needs more light (59% more, compared to the Sigma or Tamron at 500mm and wide open at f/6.3).

To elaborate briefly, if you have plenty of light, you can shoot the Sigma or Tamron at, say, f/13. The lens will stay wide open (at 500mm, f/6.3) while the camera focuses, then the iris closes down to f/13 just before the exposure. The net effect is more accurate (and typically faster) focusing plus more depth of field--a combination which means your picture is considerably more likely to be in focus.