|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Dec 22, 2022 8:15:36 GMT
I have two zooms going to 300mm - a Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f:4-5.6 Di USD and a Sony AF 75-300mm f:4.5-5.6. The Tamron is easily the better lens both optically (from several reviews and my own tests) and in specification, with a range extending down to the 24-70mm 'standard' zoom, slightly faster and also faster to focus with the lens' 'Ultra Silent Drive'. However, it is also nearly twice the weight, much larger, and, worst of all, the zoom ring is at the objective end of the barrel. If hand-holding, it makes it extremely difficult to zoom and hold the camera steady. With the Sony I can have the grip resting on my left hand and adjust the zoom with thumb and forefinger, keeping the whole rig steady. With the Tamron, if I take my left hand off the camera to adjust the zoom, the whole plot is waving around all over the place - try it yourself! As a result, when I plan a photo-trip, I invariably take the inferior, cheaper, Sony, simply because it's more useable in more situations, and consequently forsake the higher optical quality of the Tamron. I have been fretting about this for years now, and the result is I have a rather expensive Tamron that only comes out when it's going to be used at 300mm with a 1.7 teleconverter to photograph penguins - sorry, flamingoes. Does anyone else have similar photographic dilemmas? I would love to know I am not the only tortured soul out there!  |
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Dec 22, 2022 23:01:49 GMT
How important is the difference in the images from the two lenses? Or to ask this another way, do you get large prints done from your pictures?
If you don't want large prints, sell the Tamron and stop worrying, and if you do want large prints sell the Sony and live with the Tamron.
Or, since you only use the Tamron at 300 mm with a 1.7X teleconverter, why not sell or PX both and look for a 500 mm prime? Then use the Sony for all your other shots for which you really need the zoom. A 500 mm prime may also weigh less than the Tamron zoom plus teleconverter.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorsetmike on Dec 23, 2022 13:17:52 GMT
You could try the Minolta/Sony 500mm AF mirror, around £200 on Ebay
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Dec 23, 2022 13:51:50 GMT
Does anyone else have similar photographic dilemmas? Like using a 70-200/2.8 instead of a 100/2.8 macro for most of my doggie action pics? The flexibility of the zoom usually appeals more than the optical quality of the macro lens and the manual focus TS-E 90mm doesn't get a look in for that sort of stuff, regardless of how sharp it is or how good the drawing is. Or with the MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro I know there are higher quality options but I wouldn't expect them to be as useful in the woods. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Dec 23, 2022 14:04:25 GMT
Does anyone else have similar photographic dilemmas? Not really. I do have some duplication of lenses from when I was working abroad and got fed up with a lens being at home on the weekends I was away and vice versa. I’ll generally use 70-200 F4 over a 70-200 F2.8 for example and a 400 F5.6 over a 300 F4 + converter but they are all Canon ‘L’ lenses so the results are all of a muchness. There is no choosing of a less good lens in the interest of convenience and I’ll pick the lightest option unless I have special cause. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Dec 23, 2022 14:34:05 GMT
Does anyone else have similar photographic dilemmas? I would love to know I am not the only tortured soul out there! The Nikon AF-S 70-200 ED FL VR lens, the successor to the non FL version, has the zoom ring at the front with the focus ring closer to the body. Unlike its predecessor where they are the other way round. It took several months for me the get used to the new arrangement but I don’t find it a problem otherwise. I can however understand that having two similar lenses with different control layouts could cause some frustration. I have, over the years, disposed of excess lenses and tried never to have more than one covering a focal length range. Hence the situation you have is unlikely to occur. In your position I would probably use the Tamron lens but if weight is an issue I can appreciate the dilemma. I can therefore only agree with the idea of getting a 300 or 400 prime lens to use with the converter. |
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Dec 23, 2022 15:08:59 GMT
How important is the difference in the images from the two lenses? Or to ask this another way, do you get large prints done from your pictures? If you don't want large prints, sell the Tamron and stop worrying, and if you do want large prints sell the Sony and live with the Tamron. Or, since you only use the Tamron at 300 mm with a 1.7X teleconverter, why not sell or PX both and look for a 500 mm prime? Then use the Sony for all your other shots for which you really need the zoom. A 500 mm prime may also weigh less than the Tamron zoom plus teleconverter. I print a lot, and all at A3+, but doing a quick check very little has been printed from either of these two lenses - mainly just birds, animals and watersports, so probably dump the Tamron. I have done some dog shows and gymkhanas, but those are with an new/old stock Minolta 'beercan' 70-210mm f1:4 - an astonishingly sharp lens - and with the zoom ring in the right place. |
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Dec 23, 2022 15:19:53 GMT
You could try the Minolta/Sony 500mm AF mirror, around £200 on Ebay I have the Tamron Adaptall-2 500mm catadioptric, and since I am only using the Tamron zoom at 300mm x 1.7, and always at infinity, maybe dumping the Tamron makes even more sense. I think I shall dig out the catadioptric this weekend and have a play. I will also scout around for the Sony AF version, but when I last looked they were over £500. |
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Dec 23, 2022 15:40:22 GMT
I can however understand that having two similar lenses with different control layouts could cause some frustration. ^^This^^ One of the reasons I have not upgraded my ancient Sonys is that I don't have to think to operate them - it just comes naturally. I know where everything is and what it does. It is a long time ago that I had to look at the camera, rather than through it! I am of a different mindset - I always want a backup for each piece of kit, so it looks like I am going to shove the Tamron 70-300mm in a cupboard, and just keep it as a spare. I shouldn't think Sony/Minolta A mount lenses would fetch much second hand, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Dec 23, 2022 16:17:20 GMT
I can however understand that having two similar lenses with different control layouts could cause some frustration. ^^This^^ One of the reasons I have not upgraded my ancient Sonys is that I don't have to think to operate them - it just comes naturally. I know where everything is and what it does. It is a long time ago that I had to look at the camera, rather than through it! I am of a different mindset - I always want a backup for each piece of kit, so it looks like I am going to shove the Tamron 70-300mm in a cupboard, and just keep it as a spare. I shouldn't think Sony/Minolta A mount lenses would fetch much second hand, anyway. With the price of Nikon fast zoom lenses being what they are, back-ups are, unfortunately, a luxury. I do have two examples of the 24-70 f2.8 but one needs a repair. It can wait, or be replaced, good used examples cost less than a repair. |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Dec 24, 2022 11:23:28 GMT
For my pro work, redundancy is absolutely essential. If a lens fails at a conference, I have to be able to still get shots. I prefer to do this by having primes and zooms to cover the same focal lengths, because that gives me different options. And I'll always pack a lens or two I don't really intend to use, just in case.
More generally, I've got 3 L series Canon tele lenses that overlap - the 70-200 f2.8 L II, the 70-300 L, and the 100-400 L II. The 70-300 is fairly compact, and is part of my full frame travel and landscape kit, the 70-200 gets used for sport and pro work only - so heavy for the focal length - and the 100-400 is my main sports/wildlife lens, also used for some landscape work when I know I might want it and leave other kit behind.
I've also got my APS-C travel kit which basically duplicates everything, but much smaller. And within that, I've got fast primes and zooms, the zooms being the more compact option.
Finally, I've been building a collection of the non-L Canon RF lenses - fairly cheap, fairly good but a lot smaller and lighter than my L series lenses, much more fun for landscape shooting with significant walking involved, and what I'm expecting to use in retirement. There aren't many actual duplicates amongst the zoom lenses as such, but the whole ethos of the kit I own is that I can choose the appropriate compromise of quality and portability whenever I need to.
The only zoom duplicates I have are 24-105 - I've three, my old and battered EF L version which is strictly an emergency reserve these days, too knackered to be worth selling, the RF L version, which is great, and the RF STM version which isn't as good, but is very much lighter. A bit extravagant there, to say the least; I don't need both. But it was a bargain, and it made lockdown walks more enjoyable. And as well as my L series 100-400, I have a cheap RF mount one. It's got a limited maximum aperture, but it's so compact and light it gets carried when the L one simply wouldn't. I blame Damian Demolder for that one, he gave it a great review.
|
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Dec 24, 2022 11:56:48 GMT
For my pro work, redundancy is absolutely essential. If a lens fails at a conference, I have to be able to still get shots. I prefer to do this by having primes and zooms to cover the same focal lengths, because that gives me different options. And I'll always pack a lens or two I don't really intend to use, just in case. More generally, I've got 3 L series Canon tele lenses that overlap - the 70-200 f2.8 L II, the 70-300 L, and the 100-400 L II. The 70-300 is fairly compact, and is part of my full frame travel and landscape kit, the 70-200 gets used for sport and pro work only - so heavy for the focal length - and the 100-400 is my main sports/wildlife lens, also used for some landscape work when I know I might want it and leave other kit behind. I've also got my APS-C travel kit which basically duplicates everything, but much smaller. And within that, I've got fast primes and zooms, the zooms being the more compact option. Finally, I've been building a collection of the non-L Canon RF lenses - fairly cheap, fairly good but a lot smaller and lighter than my L series lenses, much more fun for landscape shooting with significant walking involved, and what I'm expecting to use in retirement. There aren't many actual duplicates amongst the zoom lenses as such, but the whole ethos of the kit I own is that I can choose the appropriate compromise of quality and portability whenever I need to. The only zoom duplicates I have are 24-105 - I've three, my old and battered EF L version which is strictly an emergency reserve these days, too knackered to be worth selling, the RF L version, which is great, and the RF STM version which isn't as good, but is very much lighter. A bit extravagant there, to say the least; I don't need both. But it was a bargain, and it made lockdown walks more enjoyable. And as well as my L series 100-400, I have a cheap RF mount one. It's got a limited maximum aperture, but it's so compact and light it gets carried when the L one simply wouldn't. I blame Damian Demolder for that one, he gave it a great review. Your great advantage is that for your pro work you have a pretty good idea of what you are going to photograph, so can select the appropriate kit. For us mere mortals  we often decide to wander off somewhere to take some pictures with little idea of what me may encounter, and for that we need a full kit bag. It's easier for holidays, as we know pretty much what will catch our eye. For instance, on an Italy trip a few years ago I just took a 24-70mm f:2.8 and a 15-30 f:3.5/4.5 ( and of course a small 50mm f:1.4 which goes everywhere with me). |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Dec 24, 2022 12:05:08 GMT
Your great advantage is that for your pro work you have a pretty good idea of what you are going to photograph, so can select the appropriate kit. For us mere mortals we often decide to wander off somewhere to take some pictures with little idea of what me may encounter, and for that we need a full kit bag. It's easier for holidays, as we know pretty much what will catch our eye. For instance, on an Italy trip a few years ago I just took a 24-70mm f:2.8 and a 15-30 f:3.5/4.5 ( and of course a small 50mm f:1.4 which goes everywhere with me). Absolutely true, of course. Also generally true if I'm shooting landscapes for myself, at least if I know the area, or am shooting sport or wildlife. If I know the subject, then it's easy. For travel, I'm in the same boat, and I tend to panic if I've not got what I want available - one reason why I use the EOS M system for small size and weight, so I can carry a full kit - I'm not generally happy with just one lens for an extended period. It's a form of OCD, I suspect... |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Dec 24, 2022 18:50:57 GMT
I have no problem with the idea of redundancy but very rarely is an image so important that I can justify buying a second example of the 70-200 f2.8. I do however have prime lenses at 85, 105, 180 and 300 so all is not lost. I would like to have a degree of redundancy and a 200-500 is on my list. I think a 24-120 might also be useful at some stage. Additionally, I think my Nikon 1J5 could be retired if there was something comparable to replace it, a Z50 may be?
|
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Dec 26, 2022 15:25:16 GMT
Today I decided to remind myself of what it was that got me so frustrated with the Tamron 70-300mm, so went out to photograph the various water fowl on a local nature reserve. This would absolutely necessitate the use of the zoom. It was worse than I remembered!
The focus ring is hard up against the zoom ring, with no gap between. Manual focus is by way of of the USD servo motor and is set by the focus ring. It is very sensitive. If you should happen to touch it while groping for the zoom ring, with it being so far down the barrel, then you have just disengaged autofocus and nudged the focus point elsewhere. You then have to half-press the shutter button again to refocus, and have another go at setting the zoom.
It will be retired to the status of a backup forthwith.
|
|
we often decide to wander off somewhere to take some pictures with little idea of what me may encounter, and for that we need a full kit bag. It's easier for holidays, as we know pretty much what will catch our eye. For instance, on an Italy trip a few years ago I just took a 24-70mm f:2.8 and a 15-30 f:3.5/4.5 ( and of course a small 50mm f:1.4 which goes everywhere with me).