Reading mode: Light Dark

100-400mm equivalent for Sony APS-C (~$400)

Go to last post
P

pkosewski

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
280
Reaction score
97
Hi,

I'm trying to estimate the cost of moving to E-mount from Nikon DX (in case a7000 is really good).

One lens fairly useful to me is the 100-400mm equivalent, so most likely a 70-300mm.

Budget is rather limited: preferably around $400. I would pay a bit more for an E-mount lens, but I don't think that'll happen... ever.

The lens of choice for Nikon DX is the Tamron 70-300 VC. There is an A-mount version (without stabilization, but lets assume a7000 will have IBIS).
Anything better than that?
It seems SAL70300G(2) is a good lens, but it is far too expensive for me.
 
pkosewski said:
Hi,

I'm trying to estimate the cost of moving to E-mount from Nikon DX (in case a7000 is really good).

One lens fairly useful to me is the 100-400mm equivalent, so most likely a 70-300mm.

Budget is rather limited: preferably around $400. I would pay a bit more for an E-mount lens, but I don't think that'll happen... ever.

The lens of choice for Nikon DX is the Tamron 70-300 VC. There is an A-mount version (without stabilization, but lets assume a7000 will have IBIS).
Anything better than that?
It seems SAL70300G(2) is a good lens, but it is far too expensive for me.
Click to expand...
Sony 55-210 used: $212 (Amazon) 82 - 315mm equivalent

Olympus 1.7x Telextender: $135 (Ebay) 140-535mm equivalent

Workable, not necessary optimal. Good luck.
 
daveh6700 said:
Sony 55-210 used: $212 (Amazon) 82 - 315mm equivalent

Olympus 1.7x Telextender: $135 (Ebay) 140-535mm equivalent

Workable, not necessary optimal. Good luck.
Click to expand...
I think I'd rather crop to the 400mm equiv than use something like that, but still an option. Thanks. :)

Anyway, since I live in EU, used lenses from amazon/ebay are out of the question (I occasionally buy something on ebay.co.uk, but never across the Atlantic - import tax and shipment make it really expensive).
 
I have been looking at the Tamron 70-300mm lens myself. They have a $50 rebate offer until the end of the month I believe but you also have to account for the A-mount adapter as well. I have also been looking at the Sony 55-300mm which also needs an adapter but is $100 less than the Tamron.
 
Superglue said:
I have been looking at the Tamron 70-300mm lens myself. They have a $50 rebate offer until the end of the month I believe but you also have to account for the A-mount adapter as well. I have also been looking at the Sony 55-300mm which also needs an adapter but is $100 less than the Tamron.
Click to expand...
If I were to buy an E-mount camera, I would have to get the bloody expensive LA-EA4 anyway.
At the moment the E-mount lineup (APS-C) has no lens I personally could call desirable. 10-18/4 is OK, but expensive. I'm sure I would go for something else (even without the AF).

Tamron (and Sony) lenses are actually relatively cheap in Europe (at least on the continent, prices in UK are higher).
Tamron 70-300 VC is $370.
Sony 55-210 is $320.
No rebates are included. These are standard prices in most shops in Poland.
 
pkosewski said:
Hi,

I'm trying to estimate the cost of moving to E-mount from Nikon DX (in case a7000 is really good).

One lens fairly useful to me is the 100-400mm equivalent, so most likely a 70-300mm.

Budget is rather limited: preferably around $400. I would pay a bit more for an E-mount lens, but I don't think that'll happen... ever.

The lens of choice for Nikon DX is the Tamron 70-300 VC. There is an A-mount version (without stabilization, but lets assume a7000 will have IBIS).
Anything better than that?
It seems SAL70300G(2) is a good lens, but it is far too expensive for me.
Click to expand...
The Tamron and Sony G are essentially the same lens. Both are very decent and some of the better 70-300mm type lenses. The Sony crop 55-300mm is about as good, a little wider angle and sometimes cheaper but also definitely smaller but AF is noisy by comparison.

There is the Minolta 100-300mm and 100-400mm APO lenses, the latter of which is quite small for a 400.
 
abortabort said:
abortabort said:
Hi,

I'm trying to estimate the cost of moving to E-mount from Nikon DX (in case a7000 is really good).

One lens fairly useful to me is the 100-400mm equivalent, so most likely a 70-300mm.

Budget is rather limited: preferably around $400. I would pay a bit more for an E-mount lens, but I don't think that'll happen... ever.

The lens of choice for Nikon DX is the Tamron 70-300 VC. There is an A-mount version (without stabilization, but lets assume a7000 will have IBIS).
Anything better than that?
It seems SAL70300G(2) is a good lens, but it is far too expensive for me.
Click to expand...
The Tamron and Sony G are essentially the same lens. Both are very decent and some of the better 70-300mm type lenses. The Sony crop 55-300mm is about as good, a little wider angle and sometimes cheaper but also definitely smaller but AF is noisy by comparison.

There is the Minolta 100-300mm and 100-400mm APO lenses, the latter of which is quite small for a 400.
Click to expand...
I have also been looking at the Sigma 120-400mm for my A6000 with the LA-EA4 too. Anyone have any experience with that combo?
 
Keep in mind that a mirrorless camera is capable of using an adapter with a lot of other lenses. You could likely get the expensive adapter as a 1 time purchase and pretty much use all your existing lenses on your A7000 or whatever.
 
Joseph Mama said:
Keep in mind that a mirrorless camera is capable of using an adapter with a lot of other lenses. You could likely get the expensive adapter as a 1 time purchase and pretty much use all your existing lenses on your A7000 or whatever.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's a lot of fun.

Not interested. :)

BTW: SLRs are also capable of using similar adapters.
 
Last edited:
pkosewski said:
Hi,

I'm trying to estimate the cost of moving to E-mount from Nikon DX (in case a7000 is really good).

One lens fairly useful to me is the 100-400mm equivalent, so most likely a 70-300mm.

Budget is rather limited: preferably around $400. I would pay a bit more for an E-mount lens, but I don't think that'll happen... ever.

The lens of choice for Nikon DX is the Tamron 70-300 VC. There is an A-mount version (without stabilization, but lets assume a7000 will have IBIS).
Anything better than that?
It seems SAL70300G(2) is a good lens, but it is far too expensive for me.
Click to expand...
You could get a Canon 55-250 STM + adapter within that budget. AF would suck though. Anything with decent AF and reach will involve one of the fairly expensive LAEA adapters. If you need reach and good AF, I wouldn't bother with E-mount. A DSLR or DSLT are better choices.
 
I use a Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, bought used, on a Yongnuo Smart Adapter. It's a very good lens and IMO Sony can't come close to that IQ for the money.

Autofocus on the Smart Adapter is slow.
 
pkosewski said:
Hi,

I'm trying to estimate the cost of moving to E-mount from Nikon DX (in case a7000 is really good).

One lens fairly useful to me is the 100-400mm equivalent, so most likely a 70-300mm.

Budget is rather limited: preferably around $400. I would pay a bit more for an E-mount lens, but I don't think that'll happen... ever.

The lens of choice for Nikon DX is the Tamron 70-300 VC. There is an A-mount version (without stabilization, but lets assume a7000 will have IBIS).
Anything better than that?
It seems SAL70300G(2) is a good lens, but it is far too expensive for me.
Click to expand...
I can recommend the Minolta 100-400mm APO, you should be able to get one in your price range. It works with AF on the LA-EA2 or LA-EA4.









The Minolta 100-300mm APO is also pretty cheap and gives excellent results. I personnally find it a little soft at 300mm, but it still is a good lens for the price (very small and light, too):





The next option is the Sony 70-300mm G, but even second hand you will have trouble finding it under 650€ (although you can, like I did, with a little patience). Here are a couple of pictures shot with my a57:







Marc
 

Attachments

  • 2687360.jpg
    2687360.jpg
    2.9 MB · Views: 0
  • 2585398.jpg
    2585398.jpg
    818.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 3125699.jpg
    3125699.jpg
    2.6 MB · Views: 0
  • 3125700.jpg
    3125700.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 0
I assume you are planning to use the LA-EA2 or LA-EA4 adapters. They give terrific AF.

Sigma made the 70-300 DG OS with optical stabilization for a while in A-mount. That lets you choose in-body or lens stabilization.

It is a decent (not awesome) lens. It modestly outperforms the E-mount 55-210. Dxomark has tested it in Nikon mount so it can be easily compared.

I like mine. I picked it up recently on ebay for $200 in very good shape.

It has FF coverage if you ever go that way.
 
johnsmith404 said:
You could get a Canon 55-250 STM + adapter within that budget. AF would suck though. Anything with decent AF and reach will involve one of the fairly expensive LAEA adapters. If you need reach and good AF, I wouldn't bother with E-mount. A DSLR or DSLT are better choices.
Click to expand...
I think they are a better choice all-round, not just for the AF. :)

Still, there are pros and cons of switching to mirrorless. I think Sony a6000 minimizes the cons (as a body, because the lens choice is appalling).

Currently I can't imagine living with an E-mount camera without a full adapter to A-mount (with proper AF solution - like the LA-EA4).
 
With LAEA4 adapter you will lose A6000's 4D AF. You will be going back to using Sony's A65 AF. I believe it's 15 AF points. In my opinion that's like paying more to use old technology. However if you already have A mount glass than I see there's nothing wrong with the adapter and it's better than nothing.
 
ttran88 said:
With LAEA4 adapter you will lose A6000's 4D AF. You will be going back to using Sony's A65 AF. I believe it's 15 AF points. In my opinion that's like paying more to use old technology. However if you already have A mount glass than I see there's nothing wrong with the adapter and it's better than nothing.
Click to expand...
You might have never heard of if, but predicting movement is something AF systems have been doing for a while. :) Making a huge fuss about the great AF of a6000 is somehow amusing. Especially the "4D" name. :D
I don't know much about the AF chip in LA-EA4, but surely we'll see new adapters. I don't think anyone will be disappointed if Sony makes an adapter based on A77II autofocus. ;)
 
pkosewski said:
ttran88 said:
With LAEA4 adapter you will lose A6000's 4D AF. You will be going back to using Sony's A65 AF. I believe it's 15 AF points. In my opinion that's like paying more to use old technology. However if you already have A mount glass than I see there's nothing wrong with the adapter and it's better than nothing.
Click to expand...
You might have never heard of if, but predicting movement is something AF systems have been doing for a while. :) Making a huge fuss about the great AF of a6000 is somehow amusing. Especially the "4D" name. :D
I don't know much about the AF chip in LA-EA4, but surely we'll see new adapters. I don't think anyone will be disappointed if Sony makes an adapter based on A77II autofocus. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes. i have an a6000 and in terms of AF it is about like an entry-level DSLR from five years ago. Good enough, but special only when compared to other mirrorless cameras.

The Nex cameras have AF microadjust when using an SLT adapter, putting the adapters at high middle performance.

4D. Hmmmph. And I switched to mirrorless so I have no investment to mentally defend.

Strangely, I had a Nex 3n and now an a6000, and while the a6000 focus is way faster it is less accurate with the 16-50. Since I don't like the 16-50 I don't care much, but just saying...
 
Bang on with that comment . I am very frustrated with the lack of lenses for my a6000 . I do have the la-ea4 adapter so i can use my sony/minolta lenses . I have the sony 75-300 which i dropped on for £80 new end of range and must say for a budget lens it is very sharp , but with the a6000 no image stabilisation , so either a bright day or tripod . I also have the minolta beer can 70-210 . Built like a tank but gives chromatic aberation (easily removed in software) and not as sharp .
 
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