Prime vs Telephoto

The Image Team

The Image Team

Suspended / Banned
Messages
285
Name
Nicholas
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I picked up a Sigma 300mm f2.8 OS HSM from MPB.com last week which arrived on Wednesday. Lovely lens, reasonable weight and great low light performance compared to what I have been using. But halfway through the Hankook 24H Silverstone this weekend the AF Motor decided retirement was better than working at 5 in the morning and quit on me. MPB are being their usual helpful selves and are going to collect it tomorrow to see what they can do but their first thought was a refund not a repair. This is good for me as I would rather have a lens which hadn't been opened up and its optics molested.

I got the lens for two reasons, one was start shots, especially at Silverstone where anything short of the Kek telescope leaves you miles away from the cars. I figured a 300 f2.8 would make a good start shot lens for Oulton Park, Donington Park and Brands while a 600mm f5.6 would be infinitely preferable to an 800 f11.2 (100-400 with a TC) at Silverstone and Snetterton. Plus it gives me a bit more flexability at tracks I have not yet ventured to. The other reason is low light shooting. As I said above, I did a 24 hour race this weekend with two night races planned for later in the year and a number of rallies which go into darkness.

MPB have a mint condition Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX DG APO HSM in stock for quite a chunk less than I paid for the prime. It doesn't have OS, but then neither does the prime. Would you take the repaired 300mm or say send me £350 and the telephoto? The lens would slot into a package which also has a 70-200 f2.8 L USM and a 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
 
Why did you chose the 300 f2.8 over the 120-300 f2.8 when you bought it ... everything I've read about the zoom rates it very highly :)
 
Telephoto does not mean what you think it means...
 
I thought a slower SS was the order of the day for wheels so would not IS -OS be handy to have .

Rob.
 
I didn't even notice the 120-300mm, I had target fixation on a prime lens. If I had looked harder I may have picked up the 120-300 but I was set on what I wanted so went looking for that. Silly me it looks like because I could have found a lens that would have done the job just as well for less money.
 
GyRob said:
I thought a slower SS was the order of the day for wheels so would not IS -OS be handy to have .

Rob.
Click to expand...
IS is handy for slow speed panning shots but I only got my first IS lens about six months ago so am used to doing it without. It's not something I will put on any requirements list for a lens, but if a lens I am looking at has it its a bonus. The 24-105 for example has IS, but I never turn it on, its only single mode so fights you when you are panning and I get better results without it. The 100-400 has two mode IS which is better for panning, I use that all weekend and got a higher success rate so it was a bonus.
 
Alastair said:
Telephoto does not mean what you think it means...
Click to expand...
You are right, I'm mis using terms. Perhaps, not knowing the exactly right term, I should call the 120-300 a variable focal length lens? Or maybe even ask the Google.
 
The Image Team said:
You are right, I'm mis using terms. Perhaps, not knowing the exactly right term, I should call the 120-300 a variable focal length lens? Or maybe even ask the Google.
Click to expand...
A zoom lens is fine. Telephoto simply means the lens can be made shorter than its physical focal length. So you could have a 300mm prime that's only 200mm long.
 
The Image Team said:
Hi all,

I picked up a Sigma 300mm f2.8 OS HSM from MPB.com last week which arrived on Wednesday. Lovely lens, reasonable weight and great low light performance compared to what I have been using. But halfway through the Hankook 24H Silverstone this weekend the AF Motor decided retirement was better than working at 5 in the morning and quit on me. MPB are being their usual helpful selves and are going to collect it tomorrow to see what they can do but their first thought was a refund not a repair. This is good for me as I would rather have a lens which hadn't been opened up and its optics molested.

I got the lens for two reasons, one was start shots, especially at Silverstone where anything short of the Kek telescope leaves you miles away from the cars. I figured a 300 f2.8 would make a good start shot lens for Oulton Park, Donington Park and Brands while a 600mm f5.6 would be infinitely preferable to an 800 f11.2 (100-400 with a TC) at Silverstone and Snetterton. Plus it gives me a bit more flexability at tracks I have not yet ventured to. The other reason is low light shooting. As I said above, I did a 24 hour race this weekend with two night races planned for later in the year and a number of rallies which go into darkness.

MPB have a mint condition Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX DG APO HSM in stock for quite a chunk less than I paid for the prime. It doesn't have OS, but then neither does the prime. Would you take the repaired 300mm or say send me £350 and the telephoto? The lens would slot into a package which also has a 70-200 f2.8 L USM and a 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
Click to expand...

You need to be accurate with descriptions. 120-300mm is a variable focal length zoom lens, 300mm is a fixed focal length prime lens, both lenses are technically telephotos.

You say you have a Sigma 300/2.8 OS, and OS is Sigma's image stabilisation system. I'm not sure they've ever made an OS version of that but may be wrong. And Sigma has produced three versions of the 120-300/2.8 over the years. The original non-OS version is not highly regarded, but the replacement was completely redesigned and very good, with OS. Then there is the current OS Sports version that is a slightly improved again (and more expensive).

Many people get these things mixed up and don't make it clear exactly which lens they're referring to.
 
@HoppyUK You are right. Where I said OS in the original post I actually meant DG. I'm an idiot, and knackrered after a 24 hour race. Sorry.
 
HoppyUK said:
The original non-OS version is not highly regarded, but the replacement was completely redesigned and very good, with OS. Then there is the current OS Sports version that is a slightly improved again (and more expensive).
Click to expand...

Looks like the one available is the original then so maybe not such a good idea :)
 
The Image Team said:
You are right, I'm mis using terms. Perhaps, not knowing the exactly right term, I should call the 120-300 a variable focal length lens? Or maybe even ask the Google.
Click to expand...
It's a zoom. A telephoto is any lens with a longer focal length than standard :) Most prime lenses will also be telephoto lenses.
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
Apart from all those that aren't you mean :)

Like any of those less than 50mm ish

Dave
Click to expand...
I did say *most* ;) But not really, I'd say 24mm and above (24mm FF is approximately the FOV of the human eye). There are far more primes over that!
 
odd jim said:
I did say *most* ;) But not really, I'd say 24mm and above (24mm FF is approximately the FOV of the human eye). There are far more primes over that!
Click to expand...

:thinking:

A 'prime' lens has a fixed focal length, can be any focal length.

A 'telephoto' is a type optical design that reduces the physical length of a normal 'long focus' lens. In practise, all longer lenses use telephoto constriction these days. Most wide-angles use an optical design known as 'inverted telephoto' that increases the back-focus distance to the sensor, necessary to clear the mirror of a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras don't need this so in theory they can be simpler/better/sharper/cheaper/whatever but in practise it makes no difference and there are other advantages to having a longer back-focus distance (reduces off-axis pixel vignetting and issues with the sensor's filter stack).

The human eye has a field of view around 180 degrees, though arguments for less than that, in effect, are valid. Not heard of anything relating to 24mm though.
 
HoppyUK said:
:thinking:

A 'prime' lens has a fixed focal length, can be any focal length.

A 'telephoto' is a type optical design that reduces the physical length of a normal 'long focus' lens. In practise, all longer lenses use telephoto constriction these days. Most wide-angles use an optical design known as 'inverted telephoto' that increases the back-focus distance to the sensor, necessary to clear the mirror of a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras don't need this so in theory they can be simpler/better/sharper/cheaper/whatever but in practise it makes no difference and there are other advantages to having a longer back-focus distance (reduces off-axis pixel vignetting and issues with the sensor's filter stack).

The human eye has a field of view around 180 degrees, though arguments for less than that, in effect, are valid. Not heard of anything relating to 24mm though.
Click to expand...
"Tele" refers to anything that is 'far away', or over a long distance, hense the term 'telephoto', so really anything with that magnifies or draws the subject closer from a distance can be referred to as telephoto. Despite what you might read, it's not a technical term referencing its construction.

Actually, generally human binocular vision only covers 114 degrees not 180, however I've commonly read that a shot taken at 24mm on FF would be similar the field of view taken in, though the eyes see can see wider the FOV is reduced due to the way the eyes focus. Apparently.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
"Tele" refers to anything that is 'far away', or over a long distance, hense the term 'telephoto', so really anything with that magnifies or draws the subject closer from a distance can be referred to as telephoto.
Click to expand...

In practise, yes pretty much, though in optics telephoto has a more particular meaning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

Actually, generally human binocular vision only covers 114 degrees not 180, however I've commonly read that a shot taken at 24mm on FF would be similar the field of view taken in, though the eyes see can see wider the FOV is reduced due to the way the eyes focus. Apparently.
Click to expand...

114 degrees is one eye, and using both eyes, we have some visual awareness beyond 180 degrees. Then the limit for clearer vision with good awareness and colour, is around the 40-60 degrees range - which relates to a lens on FF of 35-50-ish mm, and that's the focal length range typically quoted as giving natural-looking perspective, eg Cartier-Bresson's amazing street photos, but it's not always true. Critically clear vision, say for reading this text, is only about 2-3 degrees.
 
Oh dear, what has my little slip started.
 
Tele lenses:
taglioAlta_001109.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top