Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

 

Call me old fashion but I like to limit my zooms within one specific range: wide angle (like 20-35) / medium (like 35-70) / tele (like 70-200 or 200-400 or even 100-400). No way would I even consider buying a lens that covers everything from wide angle to tele  :wacko: Besides, isn't fiddling with lenses fun?  :D

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

We are singing from the same hymn sheet Philippe.

 

I have the Nikon 14-24, Tamron 24-70, Tamron 70-200, Nikon's new 200-500. By the way, for the price, the 200-500 is tack sharp at all focal lengths. I used it at a radio control model air display recently. Photos on Alamy. :)

 

All used on D750 full frame body. That is the only body I have at the moment. Apart from the one I walk about in. :D

 

OK you may be asking as I am a Nikon shooter why am I using Tamron lenses. Well at the time I got them they gave better IQ (sharpness) than Nikons equivalent.

 

Allan

 

 

I am even worse than that and prefer fixed focal length with wide apertures,

Main lenses are 35, 50, 85mm all f1.4's (&Sigma's), because I am a fan of shallow DOF. 

On the wide and long end I do use zooms, 11-24 and 120-300 respectively.

 

When I go out shooting I take two additional lenses at most and do use my feet as zoom. 

More and more I find myself to select one lens for the day and "work with it".

 

Personally would only consider a superzoom only if it came in f2.8 and be tack sharp - but such a lens may easily render un-affordable if it existed at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

OK you may be asking as I am a Nikon shooter why am I using Tamron lenses. Well at the time I got them they gave better IQ (sharpness) than Nikons equivalent.

 

Allan

 

 

It's not that they are necessarily better than the equivalent Nikkors but that they are an awful lot cheaper and the pro Tamron lenses are at least just as good in terms of image quality. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 is between a third and half the price of the equivalent Nikkor (the new one with vibration control) and it is a really excellent lens.

 

 

 

At the time I was checking these lenses out on DX Labs.

They had tested both Tamron and Nikon lenses on the D750 body and in both cases they rated the IQ of the Tamrons higher than the Nikons.

That is why I went for them.

The Tamrons being cheaper was a bonus.

 

The new Nikkor's were not out then.

 

Allan

 

The differences in sharpness between the Tamrons and the Nikkors exist but are practically negligible according to the DxO tests so the Tamrons are undoubtedly the sensible option all else being equal (not necessarily the case of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Call me old fashion but I like to limit my zooms within one specific range: wide angle (like 20-35) / medium (like 35-70) / tele (like 70-200 or 200-400 or even 100-400). No way would I even consider buying a lens that covers everything from wide angle to tele  :wacko: Besides, isn't fiddling with lenses fun?  :D

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

We are singing from the same hymn sheet Philippe.

 

I have the Nikon 14-24, Tamron 24-70, Tamron 70-200, Nikon's new 200-500. By the way, for the price, the 200-500 is tack sharp at all focal lengths. I used it at a radio control model air display recently. Photos on Alamy. :)

 

All used on D750 full frame body. That is the only body I have at the moment. Apart from the one I walk about in. :D

 

OK you may be asking as I am a Nikon shooter why am I using Tamron lenses. Well at the time I got them they gave better IQ (sharpness) than Nikons equivalent.

 

Allan

 

 

I am even worse than that and prefer fixed focal length with wide apertures,

Main lenses are 35, 50, 85mm all f1.4's (&Sigma's), because I am a fan of shallow DOF. 

On the wide and long end I do use zooms, 11-24 and 120-300 respectively.

 

When I go out shooting I take two additional lenses at most and do use my feet as zoom. 

More and more I find myself to select one lens for the day and "work with it".

 

Personally would only consider a superzoom only if it came in f2.8 and be tack sharp - but such a lens may easily render un-affordable if it existed at all. 

 

 

GIven that you are using a 50MP Canon, sticking to top quality primes is very sensible or more likely essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

you can be sure the optics have improved, however from my experiences super zooms and long lenses on crop sensor body's don't give sharp images especially if you are trying to get fine detail with bird photography, i found this out when using the Canon 600 f/4 and Sigma 150-600 sport, both lenses are almost tack sharp on full frame cameras.

 

Downsizing might be the answer for super zooms on crop sensors, i have never tried doing so.

 

Paul.

 

 

This concurs with my limited experience. It is not a problem with QC, but a general problem of not getting the fine details of things very well, particularly as you get closer to 200 mm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AlessandraRC

 

 

This concurs with my limited experience. It is not a problem with QC, but a general problem of not getting the fine details of things very well, particularly as you get closer to 200 mm. 

Not sure what gear you have,  if you can attach your lens to a full frame camera then do a test comparing crop to full frame you may see a difference, advantage should go to full frame for detail.

 

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting fine detail of a bird at 400mm on my crop camera X-T1. It happens. And that's a 16mp camera, not a 36-50mm.

See G1PP40 and G1PP47.

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't buy a superzoom, and for a while wouldn't buy any zoom. I have a Sigma 105mm Macro prime lens which is so much sharper than anything else I've had, other than my old "Nifty 50" Nikon f1.8D, which I regretfully sold and replaced with a poor Nikon 35mm f1.8G, which I returned (also returned a second copy as despite what some say, it's only good right in the centre). Then after much research I went for the Sigma 18-35 Art lens, which I have to say is the best lens I've had, it's absolutely stunning, and according to every review is as sharp or sharper than any prime (apart from at the far reaches of course). So I am open to another zoom as it does keep the cost down and optics have improved, but I wouldn't have a superzoom as they have to compromise somewhere and it shows in the quality of the results. I'm in the market for something that'll give me around 300mm but I can't afford a 300mm prime, so I'm looking at one of the 70-300mm options or possibly even a newer 150-600mm, although all I really need is 300mm (thereabouts) so I may look at something second hand.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Don't know how much you are thinking of spending but Nikon's 200-500 is an excellent bit of kit for just over £1000 and coming down in price at the moment but you will need to act fast before the photo trades price hikes come in sometime in August I believe from what I have read.

 

Allan

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't know how much you are thinking of spending but Nikon's 200-500 is an excellent bit of kit for just over £1000 and coming down in price at the moment but you will need to act fast before the photo trades price hikes come in sometime in August I believe from what I have read.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Thanks for that Allan. I've been working my way through the options and hadn't seen that one as yet. For now it is quite a lot more than I'm able to spend unfortunately. I just had a quick look at a review for it and it seems highly thought of. The price is about the same as the non-VR version of the Nikon 300mm prime, but I really think I need VR if at all possible, and the 300mm prime with VR is about £1500.

 

There is also the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm lenses which look to be pretty sharp at 300mm, and also cheaper. I'm going to have to try and get credit no matter what I do and even the 150-600mm lenses are really pushing things financially. There's no point getting something I won't be happy with though. I have to say that even though I wasn't looking at more than 300mm before, the thought of getting some nice closeups on the moon, ships at sea (I live by the sea) and other distant things with a 150-600mm lens, even if for myself and not for Alamy, is tickling my fancy quite a lot!  :)

 

Geoff.

 

I had the Sigma 150-600 (Contemporary) for test over a weekend and must say it is a really nice lens, tack sharp, not heavy and excellent shake reduction. 

Also I like the Sigma dock that allows you to modify lens parameters. I think in combination its real value for the price tag.  

It was only the aperture range that was not to my liking. 

Edited by hdh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AlessandraRC

 

 

This concurs with my limited experience. It is not a problem with QC, but a general problem of not getting the fine details of things very well, particularly as you get closer to 200 mm. 

Not sure what gear you have,  if you can attach your lens to a full frame camera then do a test comparing crop to full frame you may see a difference, advantage should go to full frame for detail.

 

Paul.

 

 

I don't really have it anymore. I used to have a Nikkor 55-200 mm to use with my cropped frame Nikon D3100. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Sigma 50-500mm (or my Nikons) that is tack sharp all the way to 500mm and a Nikon 70-300 that is headed for eBay.

I've noticed they are both better on my D700 than on crop sensor cameras, why is that? 

 

My inexpensive Olympus 40-150mm (80-300mm equivalent) is super sharp throughout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't buy a superzoom, and for a while wouldn't buy any zoom. I have a Sigma 105mm Macro prime lens which is so much sharper than anything else I've had, other than my old "Nifty 50" Nikon f1.8D, which I regretfully sold and replaced with a poor Nikon 35mm f1.8G, which I returned (also returned a second copy as despite what some say, it's only good right in the centre). Then after much research I went for the Sigma 18-35 Art lens, which I have to say is the best lens I've had, it's absolutely stunning, and according to every review is as sharp or sharper than any prime (apart from at the far reaches of course). So I am open to another zoom as it does keep the cost down and optics have improved, but I wouldn't have a superzoom as they have to compromise somewhere and it shows in the quality of the results. I'm in the market for something that'll give me around 300mm but I can't afford a 300mm prime, so I'm looking at one of the 70-300mm options or possibly even a newer 150-600mm, although all I really need is 300mm (thereabouts) so I may look at something second hand.

 

Geoff.

 

 

 

Don't know how much you are thinking of spending but Nikon's 200-500 is an excellent bit of kit for just over £1000 and coming down in price at the moment but you will need to act fast before the photo trades price hikes come in sometime in August I believe from what I have read.

 

Allan

Like Allan, I'm a BIG fan of Nikon 200-500. It's already been a life-saver covering events effectively. (Before this, Nikon 70-200 was the farthest reach I had.)

 

Lightbox of a few news photos captured with Nikon 200-500: http://www.alamy.com/lightbox/viewlightbox.aspx?LB=1697239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have a Sigma 50-500mm (or my Nikons) that is tack sharp all the way to 500mm and a Nikon 70-300 that is headed for eBay.

I've noticed they are both better on my D700 than on crop sensor cameras, why is that? 

 

My inexpensive Olympus 40-150mm (80-300mm equivalent) is super sharp throughout. 

 

 

Which crop-sensor camera do you have? Does it have a higher resolution than your 12MP D700 maybe? That would explain the sharper image on your D700. Usually a crop sensor camera with a similar resolution and using a full frame lens looks sharper at the edges, as of course you cannot actually see the edges with a crop sensor. Another thing could be that the fine focus wasn't adjusted quite as accurately with the crop sensor camera.

 

I'm still planning on getting the Sigma 150-600mm but have to wait for the start of October for the funds. Very much looking forward to that. The next step after that will be a full frame camera. Might be a very long wait for that though!

 

Geoff.

 

 

My crop sensor backup camera is the Nikon D5100 which I bought because it was light (until I got my Oly, that is!). It's 16 MP vs. 12 for the D700. When I use my inexpensive 35mm lens on it, the photos are amazing, and several taken with the 70-300mm if used at 200mm or below are super-sharp too. I bought the 70-300 before a 9-day trek to Russia, Sweden, Iceland, and Estonia because I didn't want to cart the huge Sigma, and was buying the D5100, as well as a high-end 20mm lens (for an architectural shoot I did that summer and to use on the trip), so I was tapped out and it seemed like a good compromise. I got some great images with it on the trip - especially from a moving boat with the VR. I'm thinking of selling the D5100 and a few of my lenses to help finance a new Oly or perhaps some new lenses for it. I'm going to keep the D700 for studio work since I just love that camera even if it's heavy for travel with my old and aching back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wouldn't buy a superzoom, and for a while wouldn't buy any zoom. I have a Sigma 105mm Macro prime lens which is so much sharper than anything else I've had, other than my old "Nifty 50" Nikon f1.8D, which I regretfully sold and replaced with a poor Nikon 35mm f1.8G, which I returned (also returned a second copy as despite what some say, it's only good right in the centre). Then after much research I went for the Sigma 18-35 Art lens, which I have to say is the best lens I've had, it's absolutely stunning, and according to every review is as sharp or sharper than any prime (apart from at the far reaches of course). So I am open to another zoom as it does keep the cost down and optics have improved, but I wouldn't have a superzoom as they have to compromise somewhere and it shows in the quality of the results. I'm in the market for something that'll give me around 300mm but I can't afford a 300mm prime, so I'm looking at one of the 70-300mm options or possibly even a newer 150-600mm, although all I really need is 300mm (thereabouts) so I may look at something second hand.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Don't know how much you are thinking of spending but Nikon's 200-500 is an excellent bit of kit for just over £1000 and coming down in price at the moment but you will need to act fast before the photo trades price hikes come in sometime in August I believe from what I have read.

 

Allan

 

Like Allan, I'm a BIG fan of Nikon 200-500. It's already been a life-saver covering events effectively. (Before this, Nikon 70-200 was the farthest reach I had.)

 

Lightbox of a few news photos captured with Nikon 200-500: http://www.alamy.com/lightbox/viewlightbox.aspx?LB=1697239

 

 

 

Nice images Ann.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wouldn't buy a superzoom, and for a while wouldn't buy any zoom. I have a Sigma 105mm Macro prime lens which is so much sharper than anything else I've had, other than my old "Nifty 50" Nikon f1.8D, which I regretfully sold and replaced with a poor Nikon 35mm f1.8G, which I returned (also returned a second copy as despite what some say, it's only good right in the centre). Then after much research I went for the Sigma 18-35 Art lens, which I have to say is the best lens I've had, it's absolutely stunning, and according to every review is as sharp or sharper than any prime (apart from at the far reaches of course). So I am open to another zoom as it does keep the cost down and optics have improved, but I wouldn't have a superzoom as they have to compromise somewhere and it shows in the quality of the results. I'm in the market for something that'll give me around 300mm but I can't afford a 300mm prime, so I'm looking at one of the 70-300mm options or possibly even a newer 150-600mm, although all I really need is 300mm (thereabouts) so I may look at something second hand.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Don't know how much you are thinking of spending but Nikon's 200-500 is an excellent bit of kit for just over £1000 and coming down in price at the moment but you will need to act fast before the photo trades price hikes come in sometime in August I believe from what I have read.

 

Allan

 

Like Allan, I'm a BIG fan of Nikon 200-500. It's already been a life-saver covering events effectively. (Before this, Nikon 70-200 was the farthest reach I had.)

 

Lightbox of a few news photos captured with Nikon 200-500: http://www.alamy.com/lightbox/viewlightbox.aspx?LB=1697239

 

 

Ann,

May i ask at what length those were those shot at please ?

Many thanks,

Adrian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.