Long zoom options on APSC

[2CtheWorld]

Quick question. Slow windup.

I have decided I want a long zoom (600mm) for whichever Sony APSC camera I'm using after Santa visits.

The notion is that I will be going backcountry with a pal to look for wildlife. And I think I need to go beyond my Sony 70-350mm for this quest. My pal certainly thinks so (he's a Fuiji user).

I thought I did my homework thoroughly. I watched and read reviews. I even went to a trade show and held various models (Tamron 150-500, Sigma 60-600, Sigma 150-600, Sony 200-600).

I settled on the Sony 200-600 for lots of reasons (internal zoom was one of them). I didn't think a lot about the minimum focus distance of the Sony (about eight feet or 2.4m vs about two feet for the Sigma options).

But this morning I went for a walk in my local park. A place where I spend a lot of time. An excellent spot to see migrating birds.

And I realized that very often ... those birds come a lot closer than 8 feet. Not to mention chipmunks, rabbits and so on. And yes, the Northern Cardinals in my backyard can be six feet away ... not eight.

Key point ... I'm not going to buy two long zooms - one for backcountry and one for local hikes. One will have to do double duty. I'm happy with an eight foot minimum focus distance when getting pictures of say ... bears in the woods. But that may be an issue for getting shots of hummingbirds in the garden.

So ... has anyone else bought a Sony 200-600mm, attached it to their APSC camera ... and regretted it because of the minimum focus distance? Or with regular use does one "get over it" and adjust shooting habits?

No need to go over all the other pros and cons of the lens options. Just this one.

Because an eight-foot minimum focus distance feels like a deal breaker for me. If that sounds wrong to anyone, I would like to hear about it.

Thanks.

 

[Newbie Phewbie]

I've had that lens for a few years now and shoot a lot of birds, but haven't had a problem with the minimum focusing distance while doing that. But I haven't been that close to birds either.

At 8 ft away, given the .2x max magnification of the lens, a 5" long bird will fill the frame horizontally. The depth of field at that distance at 600mm and f/11 is just .4".

The other lenses in your list are no slouches, so if the minimum focus distance is a requirement or nice-to-have, you'll do well not to ignore it.

 

[2CtheWorld]

I've had that lens for a few years now and shoot a lot of birds, but haven't had a problem with the minimum focusing distance while doing that. But I haven't been that close to birds either.

At 8 ft away, given the .2x max magnification of the lens, a 5" long bird will fill the frame horizontally. The depth of field at that distance at 600mm and f/11 is just .4".

The other lenses in your list are no slouches, so if the minimum focus distance is a requirement or nice-to-have, you'll do well not to ignore it.

Hmmm. After years with the lens, you don't feel limited by the minimum focusing distance. That's interesting to hear. Thank you.

 

[Martin_99]

Do you plan to use your setup specifically for birds/wildlife? Described situation sounds managable for standard zoom like 18-135 which can be used for daily basis shooting, trips etc.

 

[DutchMM]

Like you, I have experience with both Sony's (70-350 and 200-600) long zooms. I use them almost exclusively for swallow-in-flight shooting. There are periods when the birds are so unafraid that they fly within the minimum AF distance; certainly for the 200-600, and I think maybe even for the 70-350. These periods do not, typically, last long enough for me to go back inside the house and change lenses.

That's why the 200-600 lives on the a6700 while the swallows are in town. Yes I miss a few, but I have the reach to crop much less often than when I was shooting the 70-350, even on max zoom.

HTH

Mike M

 

[2CtheWorld]

Like you, I have experience with both Sony's (70-350 and 200-600) long zooms. I use them almost exclusively for swallow-in-flight shooting. There are periods when the birds are so unafraid that they fly within the minimum AF distance; certainly for the 200-600, and I think maybe even for the 70-350. These periods do not, typically, last long enough for me to go back inside the house and change lenses.

That's why the 200-600 lives on the a6700 while the swallows are in town. Yes I miss a few, but I have the reach to crop much less often than when I was shooting the 70-350, even on max zoom.

HTH

Mike M

Digging through a drawer I found my old Tamron 500mm f8 mirror lens. Manual focus, fixed aperture, no stabilisation. And highlights turn into donuts.

I did a couple of test shots to compare it to the 70-350. And the conclusion is that the extra reach is very welcome. I would prefer a 600mm zoom but even 500mm feels worthwhile.

 

[2CtheWorld]

Do you plan to use your setup specifically for birds/wildlife? Described situation sounds managable for standard zoom like 18-135 which can be used for daily basis shooting, trips etc.

Birds are a given. But I'm also hoping for moose, bears and maybe even wolves. So I want more reach than my 18-135 or even my 70-350.

 

[Martin_99]

Do you plan to use your setup specifically for birds/wildlife? Described situation sounds managable for standard zoom like 18-135 which can be used for daily basis shooting, trips etc.

Birds are a given. But I'm also hoping for moose, bears and maybe even wolves. So I want more reach than my 18-135 or even my 70-350.

It was my responce to your notice, that you don't want two long zooms. So, if you want more reach, go for 200-600. And in such cases, when animals will be really close, I suggested small 18-135, which is handy also on daily basis, not just wildlife.

 

[2CtheWorld]

Do you plan to use your setup specifically for birds/wildlife? Described situation sounds managable for standard zoom like 18-135 which can be used for daily basis shooting, trips etc.

Birds are a given. But I'm also hoping for moose, bears and maybe even wolves. So I want more reach than my 18-135 or even my 70-350.

It was my responce to your notice, that you don't want two long zooms. So, if you want more reach, go for 200-600. And in such cases, when animals will be really close, I suggested small 18-135, which is handy also on daily basis, not just wildlife.

Ah, understood. And thanks.

 

[Michael Fritzen]

Hi,

when the MFD is getting a problem in wildlife photography I'd state two possibilities: 1) You're in great danger / troubles; 2) You're shooting backyard-wildlife.

Joke asside, most people are making the opposite experience that the avaliable max FL is still too short to fill the frame with the subject - across the distance of possible approach before animals move off or which should be kept for safety reasons.

I'm owning the Sony 200-600 and I'm shooting it on an a6400 - an excellent combo which I prefer by much over previous 70-400 in Sony A-mount. The trombone-style construction may have advantages for transportation purposes since it is smaller for storage by a margin, but for working in field I prefer the internal zoom of the 200-600 since the centre of gravity doesn't change when zooming. Even though I'm using it on monopod support whenever possible since increased steadyness improves on placing the AF on the right spot on the subject. It also helps when waiting for a nice(er) look/posing of the subject since physical fatigue on aiming on the subject is less of a concern.

 

[ANAYV]

My first lens with a Sony system, was the Sony G 70-350mm lens.

Like you , I wanted more reach.

So, after some reading, i went with the Tamron 150-500mm lens.

I am very impressed with this lens.

Seems to AF slightly Faster than with the 70-350.

Here's a few examples, all handheld:











.







Even Dragonflies...in flight! :

,











ANAYV

 

[Ed at Ridersite]

I use the Sony 100-400mm GM. Three pounds, minimum focus 3 feet and sharper wide open than any other zoom. Also works well with the the Sony 1.4 TC . That package isn't cheap (about $3000), but once you've used it, you won't be happy with any other lens. I sometimes wish it was a little shorter than 100mm, but, for me, that's the biggest shortcoming.

 

[2CtheWorld]

My first lens with a Sony system, was the Sony G 70-350mm lens.

Like you , I wanted more reach.

So, after some reading, i went with the Tamron 150-500mm lens.

I am very impressed with this lens.

Seems to AF slightly Faster than with the 70-350.

Here's a few examples, all handheld:











.



Even Dragonflies...in flight! :

,





ANAYV

Very impressive.

In your mind .... does getting the Tamron 150-500 mean getting rid of the Sony 70-350?

Or are the lenses different enough that keeping both makes sense?

Asking for a friend who has just spotted a used Tamron 150-500 at a decent price ...

 

[ANAYV]

My first lens with a Sony system, was the Sony G 70-350mm lens.

Like you , I wanted more reach.

So, after some reading, i went with the Tamron 150-500mm lens.

I am very impressed with this lens.

Seems to AF slightly Faster than with the 70-350.

Here's a few examples, all handheld:











.



Even Dragonflies...in flight! :

,





ANAYV

Very impressive.

Thanks.

In your mind .... does getting the Tamron 150-500 mean getting rid of the Sony 70-350?

No. I bought the Sony first...and , because of its size...I dont want to let it go...good for traveling.

But , I seem to take the Tamron out Way more.

Knowing I have more reach, has me using it way more that the Sony.

The Sony 70-350mm lens will stay. See below.

Or are the lenses different enough that keeping both makes sense?

Because of the size difference, indeed it does, for me. I don't really ever miss the wide end of the Sony lens.

So the 70-350mm I will keep, but only because of its size. It's a good lens, but lacks reach I want.

On a side note, I have a 1.5x TC from Nikon ( not for D SLR use) .

Its the old P&S type you put in Front of the lens, although I need to take it out and use it exclusively to determine how I.Q. looks.

Also, I came from another system camera, so I am new to Sony APS-C and their lenses

Asking for a friend who has just spotted a used Tamron 150-500 at a decent price ...

ANAYV

 

[2CtheWorld]

My first lens with a Sony system, was the Sony G 70-350mm lens.

Like you , I wanted more reach.

So, after some reading, i went with the Tamron 150-500mm lens.

I am very impressed with this lens.

Seems to AF slightly Faster than with the 70-350.

Here's a few examples, all handheld:











.



Even Dragonflies...in flight! :

,





ANAYV

Very impressive.

Thanks.

In your mind .... does getting the Tamron 150-500 mean getting rid of the Sony 70-350?

No. I bought the Sony first...and , because of its size...I dont want to let it go...good for traveling.

But , I seem to take the Tamron out Way more.

Knowing I have more reach, has me using it way more that the Sony.

The Sony 70-350mm lens will stay. See below.

Or are the lenses different enough that keeping both makes sense?

Because of the size difference, indeed it does, for me. I don't really ever miss the wide end of the Sony lens.

So the 70-350mm I will keep, but only because of its size. It's a good lens, but lacks reach I want.

On a side note, I have a 1.5x TC from Nikon ( not for D SLR use) .

Its the old P&S type you put in Front of the lens, although I need to take it out and use it exclusively to determine how I.Q. looks.

Also, I came from another system camera, so I am new to Sony APS-C and their lenses

Asking for a friend who has just spotted a used Tamron 150-500 at a decent price ...

ANAYV

Really kind of you to take the time to share your thoughts (and your pictures ... those are deal makers). Thank you very much.

 

[sherman_levine]

My first lens with a Sony system, was the Sony G 70-350mm lens.

Like you , I wanted more reach.

So, after some reading, i went with the Tamron 150-500mm lens.

I am very impressed with this lens.

Seems to AF slightly Faster than with the 70-350.

Here's a few examples, all handheld:

.

ANAYV

Lovely set. The posted images are quite small. Are they severe crops, or down-samples? Thanks

--

Sherm

Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album

 

[Dennis Bayer]

Why not just step back a couple steps?

 

[ANAYV]

My first lens with a Sony system, was the Sony G 70-350mm lens.

Like you , I wanted more reach.

So, after some reading, i went with the Tamron 150-500mm lens.

I am very impressed with this lens.

Seems to AF slightly Faster than with the 70-350.

Here's a few examples, all handheld:











.



Even Dragonflies...in flight! :

,





ANAYV

Very impressive.

Thanks.

In your mind .... does getting the Tamron 150-500 mean getting rid of the Sony 70-350?

No. I bought the Sony first...and , because of its size...I dont want to let it go...good for traveling.

But , I seem to take the Tamron out Way more.

Knowing I have more reach, has me using it way more that the Sony.

The Sony 70-350mm lens will stay. See below.

Or are the lenses different enough that keeping both makes sense?

Because of the size difference, indeed it does, for me. I don't really ever miss the wide end of the Sony lens.

So the 70-350mm I will keep, but only because of its size. It's a good lens, but lacks reach I want.

On a side note, I have a 1.5x TC from Nikon ( not for D SLR use) .

Its the old P&S type you put in Front of the lens, although I need to take it out and use it exclusively to determine how I.Q. looks.

Also, I came from another system camera, so I am new to Sony APS-C and their lenses

Asking for a friend who has just spotted a used Tamron 150-500 at a decent price ...

ANAYV

Really kind of you to take the time to share your thoughts (and your pictures ... those are deal makers). Thank you very much.

You are welcome!

ANAYV

 

[ace and jocelyne]

I own both 70-350 and 200-600. Min min focus isnt an issue for me. I would’nt go hiking with the 200-600 though. Any other q’s let me know.

 

[2CtheWorld]

I own both 70-350 and 200-600. Min min focus isnt an issue for me. I would’nt go hiking with the 200-600 though. Any other q’s let me know.

Let me take you up on that offer!

My question is ... since you don't hike with it ... can you describe how you do use it? And what kinds of images are you getting?

Thanks.