Reading mode: Light Dark

mirrorless lenses, and camera recommendations?

Go to last post
M

Morriekins

Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Looking for some help finding excellent quality lenses from wide angle (landscape) to telephoto (wildlife, birds) and/or primes.

I am a relative beginner amateur hobbyist...lol.

I am looking to buy a mirrorless camera and lenses only because I prefer more compact/lightweight equipment. I take my camera hiking and/or biking every day, and I also travel a lot.

I am looking for lens recommendations that would include an everyday lens and a long telephoto lens that are superb, and then I will buy the mirrorless camera that goes with the lenses. I don't want gigantic heavy lenses or that defeats the purpose of a smaller camera body. Does that make sense?

I played with the Nikon D750 in the store and it's a beautiful camera. Is it possible to get that kind of quality with a smaller system?

My budget is about 3000-3500 for a camera body and maybe 2 lenses?
 
D Cox said:
Leonard Migliore said:
D Cox said:
I played with the Nikon D750 in the store and it's a beautiful camera. Is it possible to get that kind of quality with a smaller system?
Click to expand...
I would say not. I just played with the D750 and it's real good. You will not get the same quality, especially in low light, with APS-C or 4/3. But you can do quite well with the smaller sizes.
Click to expand...
The Sony full frame mirrorless cameras will give the same image quality as a Nikon full frame DSLR, if you use a good lens. The A7ii would be the equivalent of the D750.
Click to expand...
Agreed, since they use the same (or very similar) sensor. But the OP was looking for a smaller system. While the A7 itself is considerably smaller than a D750, either package with a long telephoto for birding is going to be essentially the same size.
 
Leonard Migliore said:
While the A7 itself is considerably smaller than a D750, either package with a long telephoto for birding is going to be essentially the same size.
Click to expand...
And that's what it always comes back to. Fast super-telephoto lenses are big, even on smaller systems like Micro Four Thirds. The Olympus 300mm f/4 won't be a lot smaller than Nikon or Canon 300mm f/4, or a full-frame 600mm f/8 which has the same field of view without cropping and the same physical aperture diameter.
 
Ido S said:
Leonard Migliore said:
While the A7 itself is considerably smaller than a D750, either package with a long telephoto for birding is going to be essentially the same size.
Click to expand...
And that's what it always comes back to. Fast super-telephoto lenses are big, even on smaller systems like Micro Four Thirds. The Olympus 300mm f/4 won't be a lot smaller than Nikon or Canon 300mm f/4, or a full-frame 600mm f/8 which has the same field of view without cropping and the same physical aperture diameter.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that.



Take a look at the Albinar 300mm reflex lens for m4/3:




Albinar 300mm reflex f/6.3





about 2 inches long and 2 inches wide. 600mm effective field of view and only $124.00.



Tedolph
 
Can't think of many instances where a mirror lens is useful... Here's a good explanation for those who aren't familiar: http://www.photozone.de/mirror-lenses

Plus, at f/6.3, I wouldn't call it a "fast" lens.
 
Can't argue with actual photographs
tedolf said:
You don't want a "fast" 600mm equivalent focal length lens.

The DOF is shallow enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Not for depth of field, but for low light. Wildlife photography basically requires freezing action, and one may often find that f/6.3 is not wide enough.
 
Ido S said:
Can't argue with actual photographs
Ido Scharf said:
You don't want a "fast" 600mm equivalent focal length lens.

The DOF is shallow enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Not for depth of field, but for low light. Wildlife photography basically requires freezing action, and one may often find that f/6.3 is not wide enough.
Click to expand...
First of all, no one makes a " fast" 600mm lens, and there are a few good reasons. Fist it would be ungodly expensive. Second it would be huge-think telescope size. More importantly, an f/2.8 600mm lens would have a DOF so thin that the only thing you could use it for would be astro-photography!

TEdolph
 
tedolf said:
Ido S said:
Can't argue with actual photographs
tedolf said:
You don't want a "fast" 600mm equivalent focal length lens.

The DOF is shallow enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Not for depth of field, but for low light. Wildlife photography basically requires freezing action, and one may often find that f/6.3 is not wide enough.
Click to expand...
First of all, no one makes a " fast" 600mm lens, and there are a few good reasons. Fist it would be ungodly expensive. Second it would be huge-think telescope size. More importantly, an f/2.8 600mm lens would have a DOF so thin that the only thing you could use it for would be astro-photography!

TEdolph
Click to expand...
Perhaps I failed to explain what I meant by "fast" in this instance. In this range, I classify the upcoming Olympus 300mm f/4 as a fast super-telephoto, even though it's not really that fast, especially when compared to f/2.8 standard and telephoto zoom lenses, etc. Given that that lens will most likely be smaller than a full-frame 70-200mm f/2.8 (or maybe around the same size), it's not really so big.

Both Nikon and Canon have 600mm f/4 lenses. They are definitely big, heavy and expensive, no doubt.

Sorry for not mentioning my meaning of fast super-telephoto. I was sure I already did…
 
tedolf said:
Ido S said:
Can't argue with actual photographs
tedolf said:
You don't want a "fast" 600mm equivalent focal length lens.

The DOF is shallow enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Not for depth of field, but for low light. Wildlife photography basically requires freezing action, and one may often find that f/6.3 is not wide enough.
Click to expand...
First of all, no one makes a " fast" 600mm lens, and there are a few good reasons. Fist it would be ungodly expensive. Second it would be huge-think telescope size. More importantly, an f/2.8 600mm lens would have a DOF so thin that the only thing you could use it for would be astro-photography!

TEdolph
Click to expand...
Most consider f/4 fast. Both Canon and Nikon make 600mm f/4 lenses. Sigma makes a 500mm f/2.8 beast for both mounts as well.

There is also as Ido said focus speed. I've yet to see a mirror lens focus and track a moving object fast and accurately.

More importantly you didn't link to a 600mm lens, but a 300mm one and used an equivalent FOV (crop factor) and then implied that this was the only way. A Nikon or Canon 400mm f/2.8 both exist and both also have 200-400 f/4 lenses all of which if paired to APS-C bodies would get you closer and have much better optics as well as faster focusing, better tracking, etc.

To flip your favorite game back. I shoot at the m4/3 equivalent f-stop of 600mm f/3.2 and 450mm f/2.8 all the time and DOF is just fine. Even 400mm f/1.4 is not a problem to keep the subject in focus.

Your constant arguments that these nicer lenses don't work right or are of no use misses the rather subtle point that there are 100s of 1000s if not millions of these lenses in use across the globe.

--
See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
Last edited:
here is a guy who calls himself "beginner amateur hobbyist" looking for mirrorless system i.e. somewhat small and portable. Also not to mention relatively cheap. And you guys are talking about really expensive and really heavy lenses...!!
 
Ido S said:
tedolf said:
Ido S said:
Can't argue with actual photographs
Ido Scharf said:
You don't want a "fast" 600mm equivalent focal length lens.

The DOF is shallow enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Not for depth of field, but for low light. Wildlife photography basically requires freezing action, and one may often find that f/6.3 is not wide enough.
Click to expand...
First of all, no one makes a " fast" 600mm lens, and there are a few good reasons. Fist it would be ungodly expensive. Second it would be huge-think telescope size. More importantly, an f/2.8 600mm lens would have a DOF so thin that the only thing you could use it for would be astro-photography!

TEdolph
Click to expand...
Perhaps I failed to explain what I meant by "fast" in this instance. In this range, I classify the upcoming Olympus 300mm f/4 as a fast super-telephoto, even though it's not really that fast, especially when compared to f/2.8 standard and telephoto zoom lenses, etc.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes then you are correct. F/4 is a "fast" telephoto.

I presumed that you meant something like f/2.8 and my presumption, as most presumptions are, was wrong.
Ido Scharf said:
Given that that lens will most likely be smaller than a full-frame 70-200mm f/2.8 (or maybe around the same size), it's not really so big.
Click to expand...
True.
Ido Scharf said:
Both Nikon and Canon have 600mm f/4 lenses. They are definitely big, heavy and expensive, no doubt.
Click to expand...
yes.
Ido Scharf said:
Sorry for not mentioning my meaning of fast super-telephoto. I was sure I already did…
Click to expand...
The fault was mine.

No apology necessary.

Tedolph
 
Bjorn_L said:
tedolf said:
Ido S said:
Can't argue with actual photographs
Bjorn_L said:
You don't want a "fast" 600mm equivalent focal length lens.

The DOF is shallow enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Not for depth of field, but for low light. Wildlife photography basically requires freezing action, and one may often find that f/6.3 is not wide enough.
Click to expand...
First of all, no one makes a " fast" 600mm lens, and there are a few good reasons. Fist it would be ungodly expensive. Second it would be huge-think telescope size. More importantly, an f/2.8 600mm lens would have a DOF so thin that the only thing you could use it for would be astro-photography!

TEdolph
Click to expand...
Most consider f/4 fast. Both Canon and Nikon make 600mm f/4 lenses.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was my mistake. I assumed Ido meant something really fast, like f/2.8.
Bjorn_L said:
Sigma makes a 500mm f/2.8 beast for both mounts as well.
Click to expand...
Other than astronomy or wide field photography I have no idea how you would actually use that.
Bjorn_L said:
There is also as Ido said focus speed. I've yet to see a mirror lens focus and track a moving object fast and accurately.
Click to expand...
Most mirror lenses are manual focus.
Bjorn_L said:
More importantly you didn't link to a 600mm lens, but a 300mm one and used an equivalent FOV (crop factor) and then implied that this was the only way.
Click to expand...
This is a thread about mirroless cameras, maybe you didn't notice?

Other than the Sony A7, all of them are crop sensor cameras. So, 1.5x, 1.6x. 2.0x or 3.0x-take your pick.
Bjorn_L said:
A Nikon or Canon 400mm f/2.8 both exist and both also have 200-400 f/4 lenses all of which if paired to APS-C bodies would get you closer and have much better optics as well as faster focusing, better tracking, etc.
Click to expand...
But you are still dealing with a fast 600mm FOV lens. There are not many subjects that are going to fit into the DOF at any non infinite distance, a hummingbird maybe?

No way you are going to be able to use it say at the zoo.

Don't make me go to a DOF table!

Here we go, down the rabbit hole:
Bjorn_L said:
To flip your favorite game back. I shoot at the m4/3 equivalent f-stop of 600mm f/3.2 and 450mm f/2.8 all the time and DOF is just fine.
Click to expand...
Example please, with full EXIF data.
Bjorn_L said:
Even 400mm f/1.4 is not a problem to keep the subject in focus.
Click to expand...
Example please, with full EXIF data.
Bjorn_L said:
Your constant arguments that these nicer lenses don't work right or are of no use misses the rather subtle point that there are 100s of 1000s if not millions of these lenses in use across the globe.
Click to expand...
So, there are millions of f/1.4 400mm lenses in use across the globe?

You mean maybe a few hundred, few dozen?

In fact, I don't think I have ever seen one.

Show me one.
Bjorn_L said:
--
See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
Click to expand...
Tedolph
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
here is a guy who calls himself "beginner amateur hobbyist" looking for mirrorless system i.e. somewhat small and portable. Also not to mention relatively cheap. And you guys are talking about really expensive and really heavy lenses...!!
Click to expand...


Not me.

My Albinar 300mm Reflex lens is about the size of a half beer can an costs $124.00.








Albinar 300mm f/6.3






Albinar 300mm f/6.3

nandbytes said:
--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/
Click to expand...


Tedolph
 
nandbytes said:
here is a guy who calls himself "beginner amateur hobbyist" looking for mirrorless system i.e. somewhat small and portable. Also not to mention relatively cheap. And you guys are talking about really expensive and really heavy lenses...!!
Click to expand...
Well, we have one member here who thinks every beginner should start out with a Nikon D4, and about $12,000.00 worth of high end glass including a 300mm f/4 telephoto.

Why he believes this is a mystery.
nandbytes said:
--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/
Click to expand...
Tedolph
 
wasn't talking about you and I am sure you know who I was referring to ;)
 
Thank you all for the responses. I will continue to watch prices on the suggested equipment and hopefully make some decisions in the New Year.
 
tedolf said:
Bjorn_L said:
tedolf said:
Ido S said:
Can't argue with actual photographs
tedolf said:
You don't want a "fast" 600mm equivalent focal length lens.

The DOF is shallow enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Not for depth of field, but for low light. Wildlife photography basically requires freezing action, and one may often find that f/6.3 is not wide enough.
Click to expand...
First of all, no one makes a " fast" 600mm lens, and there are a few good reasons. Fist it would be ungodly expensive. Second it would be huge-think telescope size. More importantly, an f/2.8 600mm lens would have a DOF so thin that the only thing you could use it for would be astro-photography!

TEdolph
Click to expand...
Most consider f/4 fast. Both Canon and Nikon make 600mm f/4 lenses.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was my mistake. I assumed Ido meant something really fast, like f/2.8.
tedolf said:
Sigma makes a 500mm f/2.8 beast for both mounts as well.
Click to expand...
Other than astronomy or wide field photography I have no idea how you would actually use that.
Click to expand...
Wildlife I am told, but I'll never even bother to rent it as my support is not up to the task. Just mentioned it for your info.
tedolf said:
tedolf said:
There is also as Ido said focus speed. I've yet to see a mirror lens focus and track a moving object fast and accurately.
Click to expand...
Most mirror lenses are manual focus.
Click to expand...
Sony as a few with AF as I recall, maybe Pentax does too. Nikon might have had one, my dad claims to have used one long ago but I think he was mistaken. Point was not that mirror lenses are MF, AF or what have you but that your 300mm was practical or widely usable.
tedolf said:
tedolf said:
More importantly you didn't link to a 600mm lens, but a 300mm one and used an equivalent FOV (crop factor) and then implied that this was the only way.
Click to expand...
This is a thread about mirroless cameras, maybe you didn't notice?
Click to expand...
But your comments didn't reflect this.
tedolf said:
tedolf said:
A Nikon or Canon 400mm f/2.8 both exist and both also have 200-400 f/4 lenses all of which if paired to APS-C bodies would get you closer and have much better optics as well as faster focusing, better tracking, etc.
Click to expand...
But you are still dealing with a fast 600mm FOV lens. There are not many subjects that are going to fit into the DOF at any non infinite distance, a hummingbird maybe?
Click to expand...
Football players are generally larger than a humming bird. Also most wildlife people shoot 500 and/or 600mm. Some use crop cameras to get a narrower FOV. For example Elk and Moose are interesting subjects but not friendly.
tedolf said:
No way you are going to be able to use it say at the zoo.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I've used my 600mm lens on a full frame on a large bird at zoo-like distances. You'd be correct only in that I have not yet brought this lens to the zoo.
tedolf said:
Here we go, down the rabbit hole:
tedolf said:
To flip your favorite game back. I shoot at the m4/3 equivalent...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I was point out your double standard in how and when you apply your equivalencies so I applied them in reverse. Which if you'd read should have been clear. For example, a 400mm f/1.4 would be a 200mm f/2.8 on a full-frame and so on. And there are likely millions of this lens in use. An actual f/1.4 lens longer than 105mm I've never seen. The longest semi-common lens which is less than f/2.8 would probably be the 300mm f/2 which I've seen but never used.
 
Bjorn_L said:
tedolf said:
Bjorn_L said:
tedolf said:
Ido S said:
Can't argue with actual photographs
Bjorn_L said:
You don't want a "fast" 600mm equivalent focal length lens.

The DOF is shallow enough as it is.
Click to expand...
Not for depth of field, but for low light. Wildlife photography basically requires freezing action, and one may often find that f/6.3 is not wide enough.
Click to expand...
First of all, no one makes a " fast" 600mm lens, and there are a few good reasons. Fist it would be ungodly expensive. Second it would be huge-think telescope size. More importantly, an f/2.8 600mm lens would have a DOF so thin that the only thing you could use it for would be astro-photography!

TEdolph
Click to expand...
Most consider f/4 fast. Both Canon and Nikon make 600mm f/4 lenses.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was my mistake. I assumed Ido meant something really fast, like f/2.8.
Bjorn_L said:
Sigma makes a 500mm f/2.8 beast for both mounts as well.
Click to expand...
Other than astronomy or wide field photography I have no idea how you would actually use that.
Click to expand...
Wildlife I am told, but I'll never even bother to rent it as my support is not up to the task. Just mentioned it for your info.
Bjorn_L said:
Bjorn_L said:
There is also as Ido said focus speed. I've yet to see a mirror lens focus and track a moving object fast and accurately.
Click to expand...
Most mirror lenses are manual focus.
Click to expand...
Sony as a few with AF as I recall, maybe Pentax does too. Nikon might have had one, my dad claims to have used one long ago but I think he was mistaken. Point was not that mirror lenses are MF, AF or what have you but that your 300mm was practical or widely usable.
Bjorn_L said:
Bjorn_L said:
More importantly you didn't link to a 600mm lens, but a 300mm one and used an equivalent FOV (crop factor) and then implied that this was the only way.
Click to expand...
This is a thread about mirroless cameras, maybe you didn't notice?
Click to expand...
But your comments didn't reflect this.
Bjorn_L said:
Bjorn_L said:
A Nikon or Canon 400mm f/2.8 both exist and both also have 200-400 f/4 lenses all of which if paired to APS-C bodies would get you closer and have much better optics as well as faster focusing, better tracking, etc.
Click to expand...
But you are still dealing with a fast 600mm FOV lens. There are not many subjects that are going to fit into the DOF at any non infinite distance, a hummingbird maybe?
Click to expand...
Football players are generally larger than a humming bird. Also most wildlife people shoot 500 and/or 600mm. Some use crop cameras to get a narrower FOV. For example Elk and Moose are interesting subjects but not friendly.
Bjorn_L said:
No way you are going to be able to use it say at the zoo.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I've used my 600mm lens on a full frame on a large bird at zoo-like distances.
Click to expand...
Ok, here we go down the rabbit hole.

According to my DOF calculator here:

Loading…

photoinf.com

the DOF of an f/4.0 600mm lens on a full frame camera at 30 feet is less than two inches.

Two inches!

How are you going to fit a "large bird" into that?

Let's say you are at 100 ft., still you only have less than two feet of DOF. Your focus would have to be absolutely perfect to fit a "large bird" into that.
Bjorn_L said:
You'd be correct only in that I have not yet brought this lens to the zoo.
Bjorn_L said:
Here we go, down the rabbit hole:
Bjorn_L said:
To flip your favorite game back. I shoot at the m4/3 equivalent...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I was point out your double standard in how and when you apply your equivalencies so I applied them in reverse. Which if you'd read should have been clear. For example, a 400mm f/1.4 would be a 200mm f/2.8 on a full-frame and so on. And there are likely millions of this lens in use. An actual f/1.4 lens longer than 105mm I've never seen. The longest semi-common lens which is less than f/2.8 would probably be the 300mm f/2 which I've seen but never used.
Click to expand...
Ha!

You snipped out my challenges and didn't say "[snip]"

Really Bjorn, that is beneath you.
 
tedolf said:
Ido S said:
Leonard Migliore said:
While the A7 itself is considerably smaller than a D750, either package with a long telephoto for birding is going to be essentially the same size.
Click to expand...
And that's what it always comes back to. Fast super-telephoto lenses are big, even on smaller systems like Micro Four Thirds. The Olympus 300mm f/4 won't be a lot smaller than Nikon or Canon 300mm f/4, or a full-frame 600mm f/8 which has the same field of view without cropping and the same physical aperture diameter.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that.

Take a look at the Albinar 300mm reflex lens for m4/3:


Albinar 300mm reflex f/6.3

about 2 inches long and 2 inches wide. 600mm effective field of view and only $124.00.

Tedolph
Click to expand...
But it's a mirror lens. How can you have a mirrorless camera with a mirror? It's like dehydrated water.

--
Leonard Migliore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top