Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 2634
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
My immediate impressions are:
Very well made indeed with range limiter, focus-hold and AF/M switches and Direct Manual Focus too.
Thankfully not quite as big as I'd thought from the pictures/reviews.
Fast, SILENT and oh so smooth focussing - close focus is good – and even at 300mm will easily focus on my toes when I'm standing up 
Lens hoods don’t get more effective than the one that comes with this lens!
Nice balance on a700 with vertical grip.
Very, very sharp!
One thing to get used to is the (to me) reversing of the zoom/focus rings from usual - zoom is the front ring.
Just one quick shot ....
Full frame
Crop from 100%
Sony a700 and 70-300mm set at 300mm 1/640th at f9 ISO 800
(Converted from raw and colour balance and drastic size reduction but nothing else - except whatever CS3 does to "save for web" files ... plus whatever Photobucket gets up to ).
--------------------
Rog
|
Pommyboi
newbie
Reged: 12/06/2008
Posts: 7
|
|
Great photo, as you've posted this can I follow up with some questions about which lens I should get as the 70-300 G is on the list?
I’ve recently purchased a A300 along with the kit lens and a Tamron DII 55-200, mostly because the reviews were ok and the price was down to £43 through the web. I thought it would be an improvement on my Sigma 70-300 DG Macro I used on my D5 but having done more reading I understand the Sigma is not a bad lens for the price.
I am happy to sell my existing lens and purchase something better, I travel to great places – South Africa on safari, Canada and Morocco this year then off to India to see Tigers next April and I want to have decent photos when I come back.
So what lens or combination should I get to take landscapes and wildlife at a distance?
At present I favour:
Tamron 18-250 or Sony 18-250 and keep the Sigma or
Sony CZ 16-80 and Sony 70-300 G (i'm not sure i see the point of a 18-250 and 70-300)
Or Sony 18-250 plus Sony 500mm
The only review of the 500mm wasn’t the best I’ve ever read so I’m not sure about that (http://www.newcamerareview.com/sony_500mm_f_8_reflex_lens_reviewid208.html)
If I spend too much I’d have to buy at least one lens in Canada where they are cheaper but only come with a Canadian warranty......
thanks in advance. Jamie
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 2634
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Hi Jamie - welcome to the forums
I bought the 70-300mm and it suits me fine but it may not be fast enough (wide maximum aperture) for some people and some types of work. Other than that it’s difficult to fault.
Some combinations of the lenses you listed will cost quite a bit of money. I think the Sony CZ 16-80 and Sony 70-300 G will best best.
But if you’re into spending some serious cash then I would suggest for your safari:
Sony 70-200 f2.8 G lens plus a 2x converter … the combination will give you a 140-400mm f5.6 and an overall range (with and without the converter) of 105mm – 600mm (35mm equivalent)... without the converter you have a fast lens for those dusk/early morning and night time shots.
Sony CZ 16-80mm - (24-120mm 35mm equivalent)
That should cover everything (I think )
--------------------
Rog
|
Pommyboi
newbie
Reged: 12/06/2008
Posts: 7
|
|
Thanks for the quick reply.
so the next question is this - is the 16-80 and 70-300 a significant step up from the Sony 18-250 and therefore worth the extra expense? I think I already know the answer....
I'll skip the idea of the 70-200 as I don't want to have to sell my kidney to pay for this.
Thanks, Jamie
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 2634
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
so the next question is this - is the 16-80 and 70-300 a significant step up from the Sony 18-250 and therefore worth the extra expense? I think I already know the answer....
Yes, I think so, and I think you will too once you've used them.
Quote:
I'll skip the idea of the 70-200 as I don't want to have to sell my kidney to pay for this.
Not truly dedicated then
--------------------
Rog
|
Pommyboi
newbie
Reged: 12/06/2008
Posts: 7
|
|
I'm going to have to ask another question....
Would a novice be able to cope with a 500mm reflex lens? I only ask because I could get one for £399 (2nd hand) use it on holiday and if it doesn't work out sell it on my return. I've seen some stunning photos on the web but from more experienced people and I know there are issues with strange bokeh. The SAL18250 would then be fine for most of the year.
What are your thoughts? I'm struggling to make a decision - what if the bears, tigers and birds don't come close enough to have their photo taken at 300mm?!
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 3863
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
Would a novice be able to cope with a 500mm reflex lens?
There is no reason at all why a novice should not be able to cope a 500mm mirror lens........
I had the Tamron 500mm years ago and found it easy to handle.
In fact, I am looking at getting the Sony one for my Dynax 7d and Sony A700.
So, get one and give it a try.....
Bearing in mind that the Minolta/Sony ones are the ONLY a/f ones out there
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558)Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
timbrewulf
newbie
Reged: 18/06/2008
Posts: 1
|
|
That is some photograph. One question if I may. How far away from the subject, was the camera?
Thanks.
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 2634
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
How far away from the subject, was the camera?
Thanks.
About 5 meters ... from memory
--------------------
Rog
|
Pommyboi
newbie
Reged: 12/06/2008
Posts: 7
|
|
Some of my first photos with the 70-300mm G. Pleased with the results but as a novice I'm never sure if they are ok or should be better straight out of the camera. I've made some slight adjustments in CS3 to a couple of the photos.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26984212@N03/sets/72157605879464916/
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 2634
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
I think they're excellent, particularly the first and "eagle". It's very difficult to lose the background clutter at these places but you have tried and done well in those shots. Are you using RAW or jpeg?
--------------------
Rog
|
Pommyboi
newbie
Reged: 12/06/2008
Posts: 7
|
|
Yes theres a lot of luck on what is behind the bird when you take the shot. They were all RAW images.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26984212@N03/2624406952/
J
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9164
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Good pics.
Looks like money well spent...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
markpsf
newbie
Reged: 04/12/2007
Posts: 1
|
|
Debating about whether I can shoot wildlife with this lens without a tripod using a Sony A300.
So I'd like to know if you were able to get these great shots w.o. a tripod.
thanks.
Mark
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
