[ncallender]

hey all, so i have been re-imagining my lens line up and i have got most of it figured it on the short end with the following:

15/21/40/50/70/100 macro

I also have a 18-50 for when i need a zoom. So, for travel i have a very small and light setup and for nature a pretty decent macro and good setuo. However, im trying to figure out how to round out the long end. Ideally, i want to keep things simple and light as i will travel with this gear (trips and camping) and wild life and nature is always an interest for me. Also, my kids are getting to the age where sports, performances, etc will all be along shortly.

So, how would you fill out the line up? Btw, I am really only interested in semi-pro/pro gear and i dont have much interest in full frame any time soon.

---

Last edited by ncallender; 08-09-2015 at 07:59 PM.

[Adam]

I'd add the DA* 60-250mm to your kit. It's a nice high-performance tele.

[UncleVanya]

Obvious choices pick one of these:
DA* 200 f/2.8
DA* 300 f/4
DA* 60-250 f/4

Add this:
HD DA 1.4x Teleconverter

Lightest is the 200. Adding the 1.4x allows you to slim what you carry a tiny bit and takes the 100 macro out to 140 f4 and the 200 to 280 f4.

60-250 is heavier, but it is very nice.

300 is stellar, but long, maybe longer than you want.

[wed7]

I have the 50-150 as my tele end, sometimes I wish it was longer but I need the f2.8, so yeah, for your purpose, the DA 60-250 is ideal but for travel, the HD 55-300 looks promising too due to its size and weight

[Billk]

I have the 200mm and 300mm primes (and am hoping the 300mm will work on FF with just a bit of vignetting).


The 200mm is good for more distant people photography - dance, sport etc. If I ever get my TC delivered, I will let you know how it performs together with the 200mm.


The 300mm is my most used lens by a long chalk. However, you do have to value IQ and ability to hand-hold over flexibility of reach. (I lost about 100 dolphin shots with it on my camera a couple of weeks ago, because I didn't want to change lenses. They were all too close.)


I haven't tried the 60-250mm but that is a sweet range and F4 is a good way of keeping the weight sensible. Plus you can see lots of great work with that lens on this site.


Edit: Just checked the weight of the 60-250: 1120 g (36.7 oz). That is a fabulously low weight for a zoom of its quality.

[Bagga_Txips]

Simple and light doesn't remind me of the 60-250 or the 300, sadly. I would recommend 55-300WR, but it's not semi-pro... How about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and leave the 70 prime at home during trips?

[pathdoc]

and am hoping the 300mm will work on FF with just a bit of vignetting

With any luck, the new beast will default to some sort of crop mode and you will be sweet. It would be nice to have some sort of Lens Turbo/Speedbooster for the KAF mount - get your stated focal length explicitly in full frame and GAIN a stop into the bargain - but with any luck the camera will take care of all that and it'll be like you never took it off your APS-C body (at least from the function viewpoint - I'd like to think that even the "crop" portion of such a sensor would handle the image better).

[UncleVanya]

With any luck, the new beast will default to some sort of crop mode and you will be sweet. It would be nice to have some sort of Lens Turbo/Speedbooster for the KAF mount - get your stated focal length explicitly in full frame and GAIN a stop into the bargain - but with any luck the camera will take care of all that and it'll be like you never took it off your APS-C body (at least from the function viewpoint - I'd like to think that even the "crop" portion of such a sensor would handle the image better).

Turbo speed boosters take a FF lens and use glass to shrink the image circle to APSC and restore the original angle of view. This can't be incorporated into a mount as it must push the lens out and insert glass into the path of the light. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here since the entire purpose of the device is mostly moot on a sensor that already allows the full field of view of the lens.

[pathdoc]

*kicks self in the head*

[jimr-pdx]

Unless the 55-300 meets your needs things are going to get heavy. It does for me!

My prime lineup is similar to yours but 50 macro instead of 40-50-70. A really excellent 200 prime might do for you; I just picked up an ancient Vivitar 180/3.5 but I'm sure the 55-300 will outperform it.

[narual]

"Simple and light" says the 55-300 to me. Or maybe one of the older 100-300 lenses.

The 60-250 is 2.25 pounds, and I don't think that counts the tripod foot. The 55-300 ranges from 15 to 16 ounces, depending on which version you get. You can find a copy (probably DAL) for not a lot more than $100.

I love my 60-250, but I would never describe it as light.

[Stone G.]

have the 200mm and 300mm primes (and am hoping the 300mm will work on FF with just a bit of vignetting).

The 200mm is good for more distant people photography - dance, sport etc. If I ever get my TC delivered, I will let you know how it performs together with the 200mm.

I got the DA 1.4x AF rear converter one month ago and I am happy to report that it matches my DA* 200/2.8 very well: AFis accurate and I do find much - if any - noticeable slow-down in AF-speed under normal lightening conditions. IQ-wise, I am VERY happy with my results so far.

And by the way:

hey all, so i have been re-imagining my lens line up and i have got most of it figured it on the short end with the following: 15/21/40/50/70/100 macro

This TC is also a great companion for the DA100/2.8 WR macro.

[UncleVanya]

F* 300 = 880g
DA* 200 = 825g
FA* 200 = 785g

HD TC 1.4x = 126g