Budget Tele Zoom lens for Sony A200

williamblah · 20 Jan 2010

When I say budget I do mean budget!

Which would be the better bet - this?
Falcon 500mm Mirror ED Telephoto Lens f/6.3

Or this?
Opton 500mm Telescopic Lens

I am currently more tempted towards the Falcon, as being a mirror lens it is far more compact and so will be much much easier to carry around, especially seeing as I walk everywhere.

All help appreciated!

heidfirst · 20 Jan 2010

can we say neither?
what do you need it for?

sbowler579 · 20 Jan 2010

Tamron 70-300mm gets my vote, use this a lot.

williamblah · 20 Jan 2010

heidfirst said:
can we say neither?
what do you need it for?

Will they really be thaaaat bad? Only use it to play around with, it's not like I need amazing quality shots or anything. It's the comparison shot on the ebay listing that really gets me going!

heidfirst · 20 Jan 2010

go for something like the Tamron 70-300 LD Di then, perhaps the 55-200mm if pocketability is important.
Or go s/h.

Both the lenses that you linked are manual focus & exposure on an A200.

onomatopoeia · 20 Jan 2010

If you don't mind manual focus you could try getting an M42 lens and an adapter. Many people like them, I can't manual focus for toffee so I've never tried it.

The lenses you linked are telephoto but don't appear to zoom.

bobiscuit · 21 Jan 2010

Another vote for the Tamron.

Not the best image quality by any means, but a lot better than those two options!

And, most importantly, a million times easier to shoot with and carry - so you'll actually use it!

hungrymark · 21 Jan 2010

You can get a Sigma 70-300mm for similar money to those two options. The APO version would be maybe £40 more but even the non-APO is reasonable quality and has a larger aperture than either of those two.

bobiscuit · 21 Jan 2010

The Sigma does seem to give better image quality.

But they do not go well with Sony DSLR's - the plastic focus gears get stripped. Mine lasted 2 weeks!

heidfirst · 21 Jan 2010

hungrymark said:
You can get a Sigma 70-300mm for similar money to those two options. The APO version would be maybe £40 more but even the non-APO is reasonable quality and has a larger aperture than either of those two.

the non-APO isn't great (probably worse than the Tamron) & as mentioned the both Sigmas have a history of breaking teeth on the AF ring gear when used with Alphas (all the way from A100s). The Sigmas don't have a wider aperture than the Tamron 70-300 (compared to the 55-200 it does) & 1 thing about the Tamron 70-300 is that it steps down max. aperture with focal length slower than most equivalents so it may actually be faster through most of it's range than the Sigma (it is compared to the Sony "kit" 75-300mm).

If you are going to spend close to £200 (Sigma APO money) on a >300mm zoom & don't mind going s/h then the Minolta 100-300 APO is a good choice on this mount.

bobiscuit · 21 Jan 2010

heidfirst said:
If you are going to spend close to £200 (Sigma APO money) on a >300mm zoom & don't mind going s/h then the Minolta 100-300 APO is a good choice on this mount.

Having owned both the Sigma (non APO) and Tamron, I would say the Sigma has faster autofocus and hunts a lot less, and image quality is better at all apertures with a lot less blue fringing.

If it wasn't for the gear stripping problem, I'd be after a Sigma APO. As it is, I am sticking with the Tamron but keep looking at Minolta 100-300mm APO lenses on eBay :bonk: