Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO | Really random telephoto lens musings
I've been enjoying photographing birds lately, which has awakened in me a new interest in telephoto lenses that emphasize length over speed (shooting concerts, my focus was always the other way around). But I'm nowhere near serious enough to be even considering something like the Bigma, both for price and size/weight reasons. So I've been experimenting with some more pedestrian options, including your basic 50-200 and 70-300 consumer zooms, the M200/4, a Kenko 1.5 TC, and a Sigma 600/8 mirror lens that someone was nice enough to let me borrow. Here are some really random observations that have been floating around in my head lately as a result of this:
- For birds, whatever your longest lens is, it won't be long enough a lot of the time. Sure, the 600 gets me some closer shots than the 50-200. But there are still a frustratingly large number of situations where even the 600 is just hopelessly short.
- While of course the 50-200 leaves you high and dry in this respect even more often, I've been pleasantly surprised at the number of good pictures that can still be taken at 200mm.
- The difference between 200mm and 300mm is not particularly impressive at all in this regard.
- The DA50-200 focuses a *ton* faster and more reliably than the Tamron-made Quantaray 70-300. Capturing birds in flight is not particularly difficult with the 50-200, but very challenging with the 70-300, at least in AF mode. MF is a better option with the 70-300, and indeed, even with the 50-200, it's probably somewhat of a wash, but the M200/4 (MF only of course) probably beats the 50-200 AF or MF.
- I don't care what photozone.de says, the DA50-200 is a wonderfully sharp lens. It's noticeably sharper at 200mm and f/6.7 than either the M200/4 or the 70-300, and for the most part, cropping it to resemble 300mm does about as well as the 70-300mm.
- The 50-200 is also smaller and lighter enough than the 70-300 to make a very noticeable difference in how I feel about them.
- AF lenses without quick shift are a major drag. I love being able to switch from AF to MF from shot to shot by just putting my thumb on the OK button (K200D). If I decided I needed 300mm, the DA55-300 would look that much better than the 70-300 for this reason alone (presumably better IQ and the 55-70 range would be bonuses, of course).
- The 50-200 makes a suprisingly usable walkaround lens outdoors if your *main* intent is looking for wildlife but you expect to want to shoot some landscape too. Sure, there's no wide angle, and I might pop on the DA18-55 or M28/2.8 for some shots, but there's a lot of good landscape shots to be had in the 50-100 range - most of them right at 50, of course.
- I've yet to get results from the Kenko 1.5 TC with *any* lens that better what one could get by simply cropping. Between that and the fact that it complicates focusing, I can see myself knocking out the glass someday to make myself an extension tube.
- The Sigma 600/8 takes really nice pictures for a mirror lens. Sure, contrast is low, but that can be easily fixed in PP, especially if you shoot RAW. And of course, being a mirror lens, it's not going to win any awards for its creamy bokeh. But if they had a "best chunky style" category, the Sigma could be a contender.
- One advantage of mirror lenses is their relatively low weight for their focal length. But the Sigma is among the heaviest of the mirror lenses, weighing in at over two pounds. I don't enjoy having it on the camera as much as I otherwise would for that reason alone. The lightest mirror lenses such as the Samyang (aka Phoenix, aka Opteka, aka Vivitar, it seems) come in at a fraction of that weight. Between that and the price (around $100!), they remain somewhat intriguing to me even though they everyone says they are much softer. The Tamron sounds like a good compromise - IQ comparable to the Sigma, but weighing in somewhere between the Phoenix and Sigma. But like the Sigma, considerably hard to find and more expensive than the Phoenix.
- One other random thing I've realized: the extent to which I dislike carrying the camera with Sigma attached has pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of any thoughts I might have entertained of getting the DA*50-135 for concert photography. It's uncomfortably close to the Sigma in weight. My lightweight primes make me so happy!
- On the concert front, while the M100/2.8 remains my single favorite lens for concert photography, I have to admit the DA70 I just bought last month has its advantages too. And since 100mm isn't *that* much longer than 70mm, I find myself pairing the 70 with the M135/3.5 more than I do with the 100 when I want to keep things simple and just use two lenses. On the other hand, the 135 is only f/3.5, and too long just often enough, that I'm beginning to think the M120/2.8 (which I don't have) would probably make the ultimate partner for the 70. Of course, I don't *need* another lens in that range...
My point? I don't think I have one. I suppose one bottom line here is that I'm developing a renewed respect for the DA50-200.
|