SONY LENS

C

CLARKO

Suspended / Banned
Messages
46
Name
john clarkson
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
As recently posted iam now the proud owner of my first dslr, sony a300.

Iam very happy with it as a camera and on the park with the kit lens its been great.

However iam dissapointed in one aspect, i purchased a twin lens bundle and got the sony 55-200 f4 5.6 thrown in for a resonable price.

The problem is iam taking bird shots in the garden from 50 to 100 feet away. The 200 doesnt seem to have the range i had hoped.

I could have had the tamron 70-300 for less money, but opted for the sony down to quality, and what i now believe was rubbish advice in the shop as they said there was little difference in the range between the two.

Iam after advice on the following options: swap it for the tamron 70 300 with a balance in cash. keep the 55-200 and get a deal out of them for a 70-300.
or look for a used long range lens perhaps minolta.

As a newbie i dont really know what the 55-200 is really for as its shots are only slightly different to the 18-70 lens

cheers

john
 
CLARKO said:
Hi
As recently posted iam now the proud owner of my first dslr, sony a300.

Iam very happy with it as a camera and on the park with the kit lens its been great.

However iam dissapointed in one aspect, i purchased a twin lens bundle and got the sony 55-200 f4 5.6 thrown in for a resonable price.

The problem is iam taking bird shots in the garden from 50 to 100 feet away. The 200 doesnt seem to have the range i had hoped.

I could have had the tamron 70-300 for less money, but opted for the sony down to quality, and what i now believe was rubbish advice in the shop as they said there was little difference in the range between the two.

Iam after advice on the following options: swap it for the tamron 70 300 with a balance in cash. keep the 55-200 and get a deal out of them for a 70-300.
or look for a used long range lens perhaps minolta.

As a newbie i dont really know what the 55-200 is really for as its shots are only slightly different to the 18-70 lens

cheers

john
Click to expand...

I'm in a similar pickle as regards what size lens to get, before I bought the A300 I was set to buy the Sony 75-300mm lens but theres so many 55-200 lenses which are cheaper that I'm now swinging that way.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I'm in a similar pickle as regards what size lens to get, before I bought the A300 I was set to buy the Sony 75-300mm lens but theres so many 55-200 lenses which are cheaper that I'm now swinging that way.
Click to expand...
OK, they are cheaper but are they what you need for the shots that you want to take? in CLARKO's case they aren't.
btw the Tamron is generally reckoned to be better (certainly better vfm) than the Sony kit level 75-300mm.
 
I certainly need more zoom, the kit lens is sadly lacking for zoom, I'm planning to pickup the Tamron 55-200 as its very cheap at the moment and then maybe look out for some Minolta lenses on Ebay, the Sony 75-300 felt very cheap in the shop compared to the Tamron.
 
The Sony 75-300 was designed to be bundled as a kit lens with the cameras. So they kept the price low and by doing so the build quality feels low. It still produces some good images for the price though.
 
Thanks all

Chris i ve had a look at the sony lens, do you know the difference between the 70-300 f/4.5 5.6 ssm g and the 75-300 f/4.5 5.6 as looking at its nearly 400 quid more i cant justify that at the moment.

Jessops have agreed to swap it out for the tammy 75-300 package, I am aware of the quality issues but i cant even see the birds iam trying to photograph at the minute.

Thanks heidfirst i had read this from you on my entry level thread. your right of course in an ideal world we would all have the best lens made for every situation, but few of us can afford that. So you get the lens you most need first and i need a 300 at least, even if it is a budget one for now.

I am watching the classified threads though if lucky enough to see a sony fit lens at the right price ill get that and keep the 55 200 till l learn what its for.

thanks again

john
 
Thanks all

Chris i ve had a look at the sony lens, do you know the difference between the 70-300 f/4.5 5.6 ssm g and the 75-300 f/4.5 5.6 as looking at its nearly 400 quid more i cant justify that at the moment.

Jessops have agreed to swap it out for the tammy 75-300 package, I am aware of the quality issues but i cant even see the birds iam trying to photograph at the minute.

Thanks heidfirst i had read this from you on my entry level thread. your right of course in an ideal world we would all have the best lens made for every situation, but few of us can afford that. So you get the lens you most need first and i need a 300 at least, even if it is a budget one for now.

I am watching the classified threads though if lucky enough to see a sony fit lens at the right price ill get that and keep the 55 200 till l learn what its for.

thanks again

john
 
100 feet is a long way away to get decent bird shots,even at 50 feet your pushing your luck to be honest.the 70-300 is a better bet for the reach,but try to get your chosen subject to within 20 feet or so,and you should see a difference.the 70-300 SSM G is a very highly rated piece of kit,and unfortunately any decent kit comes at a price..:(
 
John you have PM

Alan
 
Hi stan
I bet the sony lens is for 500 quid. there is a standard 70-300 for 150 ish.

Mastertrinity everyone does seem to have a 200mm lens in there kit, so iam wondering whether to keep it and buy a 300mm as well, ive just missed a minolta one in the classifieds.

My bird table is 20-30 feet away, but trying to get them in the cherry tree which is further out.

cheers

john
 
CLARKO said:
Hi stan
I bet the sony lens is for 500 quid. there is a standard 70-300 for 150 ish.

Mastertrinity everyone does seem to have a 200mm lens in there kit, so iam wondering whether to keep it and buy a 300mm as well, ive just missed a minolta one in the classifieds.

My bird table is 20-30 feet away, but trying to get them in the cherry tree which is further out.

cheers

john
Click to expand...

the 70-300 SSM G lens is around the £500 mark,but it's top quality optics your paying for.yes,the standard one is a lot cheaper,and i had one myself until i got the 70-200 G lens,then sold it to a member on here...

try enticing them to your bird table with "freebies",or set up a hide closer to your cherry tree...:thumbs:
 
The tamron 70-300 is a poor lens even considering its price! It's suffers from horrendous chromatic abberation and softness if you zoom anything past 200mm. I've had personal experience with this lens and wouldn't recommend buying one. Ok, the Sony has range issues but the Tamron has lens issues!!!
 
the one downside i would find is that you would spend like £150 for an extra 100mm. you should search for a lens that gives you an extra 200mm (if one exists under the cheap price range) as you get a decent focal length for the price
 
If you can put up with modest purple fringing (which can be removed in PP with the right tools) then the Tamron is, in my opinion, the preferable of those two lenses.

Would the shop let you take the Sony back and grab a Tammy for an hour or so? I think you'd find you'd be happier with it.

Cheers,
James
 
A new one in the mix ive seen a sigma 70-300, what are they like.

Does any one know what APO stands for, they are extra but iam learning in this photography game some extra letters and another 50 quid propably is important when it comes to lens:lol:

cheers

john
 
CLARKO said:
do you know the difference between the 70-300 f/4.5 5.6 ssm g and the 75-300 f/4.5 5.6 as looking at its nearly 400 quid more i cant justify that at the moment.
Click to expand...
totally different animals - the G is probably best in class but you are paying for it.

Jessops have agreed to swap it out for the tammy 75-300 package, I am aware of the quality issues but i cant even see the birds iam trying to photograph at the minute.

Thanks heidfirst i had read this from you on my entry level thread. your right of course in an ideal world we would all have the best lens made for every situation, but few of us can afford that. So you get the lens you most need first and i need a 300 at least, even if it is a budget one for now.

I am watching the classified threads though if lucky enough to see a sony fit lens at the right price ill get that and keep the 55 200 till l learn what its for.
Click to expand...
slightly confused as you say that Jessops have agreed to swap the 55-200mm for the tammy 75-300 so why would you keep the 55-200 & keep your eyes open for a 300mm?:shrug:
You may find http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/06/06/tamron-70-300mm-f4-56-tele-macro-ld-di/ interesting .
Once I reach the required no. of posts to list on the FS forum I'll probably have some MAF fit leses going up (have to pay for the 70-400mm G SSM :bonk:)

Don't get the Sigma APO (apo is short for apochromatic which is better colour correction) - whilst it's optically better than the Tamron it has common problems with AF gear failure on Sonys.
 
to take pictures of what & with what budget ? ;)
different people with different requirements will get different answers.
 
oops sorry, Motorsport, Rallying Mostly.. i have a A350 with kit lens 18-70 at the mo and did get some reli good shots on my last day out.. but would like another lens.. something with a bit of a zoon prehaps... whats best and were from i guess that woud be brill...

Thanks
Dave
 
Ok, here's some images with the Tamron 70-300mm. This is the second lens and i'm told that this is normal by people that have also owned this lens and from the masses of reviews out there.

Chromatic abberation is evident everywhere!








Now compare it to my sony kit lens 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 and there is little or no chromatic abberation at full zoom.







Apologies for the quality of the pictures, you can blame the crappy Cornish weather for that. Highest ISO used is 800.
 
dave17 said:
oops sorry, Motorsport, Rallying Mostly.. i have a A350 with kit lens 18-70 at the mo and did get some reli good shots on my last day out.. but would like another lens.. something with a bit of a zoon prehaps... whats best and were from i guess that woud be brill...
Click to expand...
I would probably go with the Sony 75-300mm G SSM or possibly the Sigma 100-300mm F4 if you can afford them (possibly s/h).
Another 1 to look at would be a s/h Minolta 100-300mm APO.
This was Minolta's next step up in the quality ladder but it's also very compact & light so great for travelling.
 
Sarin said:
Ok, here's some images with the Tamron 70-300mm. This is the second lens and i'm told that this is normal by people that have also owned this lens and from the masses of reviews out there.

Chromatic abberation is evident everywhere!
Click to expand...
but they are all at f4 or f4.5 - stop it down a bit & most of it will go away & you can also pp for it.
 
Hi again

Heidfirst, i think iam getting confused:

slightly confused as you say that Jessops have agreed to swap the 55-200mm for the tammy 75-300 so why would you keep the 55-200 & keep your eyes open for a 300mm?

Mastertrinity says the 55-200 is a good lens and looking at the gallery many people get good shots with them. So i thought i might be better hanging on to it.

You seem to have the experience and ability on photoshop to get around the issues with tammy glass.

Are you saying there is no point having a 200 if you have a 300?

Mastertrinity seems to think i would be better of with a 400 for my bird shots.

And stan confirms this by saying i need to get them nearer like 20 feet, but even then i cant get the shots i want

cheers

john

P.S Heidfirst you have a pm
 
CLARKO said:
Hi again

Heidfirst, i think iam getting confused:

slightly confused as you say that Jessops have agreed to swap the 55-200mm for the tammy 75-300 so why would you keep the 55-200 & keep your eyes open for a 300mm?

Mastertrinity says the 55-200 is a good lens and looking at the gallery many people get good shots with them. So i thought i might be better hanging on to it.

You seem to have the experience and ability on photoshop to get around the issues with tammy glass.

Are you saying there is no point having a 200 if you have a 300?

Mastertrinity seems to think i would be better of with a 400 for my bird shots.

And stan confirms this by saying i need to get them nearer like 20 feet, but even then i cant get the shots i want

cheers

john

P.S Heidfirst you have a pm
Click to expand...

i agree that you don't really need the 55-200 if your going to get a 70-300,as with your 18-70 kit lens..you will have the 55-200 range covered,so pointless keeping it really...ie your kit and 70-300 will cover a range of 18-300 ;)

i personally would opt for the 70-300 as it's a range you seem to need,and you can always upgrade to G glass as funds permit.the 70-400 G lens may be my next purchase,as it will give me the range for anything i'm likely to want to shoot...but at just over a grand,i need to start saving:lol:
 
sometimes its not down to the range coverage its down to the f-stop etc. if i bought a 70-300mm why would i need a 55-200mm? well say for example the 70-300mm has an f stop of 5 at 70mm but the 55-200mm would have an f stop of 4.5 at 70mm which means you could take pictures (birds for example) in the dark and more light will get through the lens. thats how it works. correct me if i am wrong.
 
mastertrinity said:
sometimes its not down to the range coverage its down to the f-stop etc. if i bought a 70-300mm why would i need a 55-200mm? well say for example the 70-300mm has an f stop of 5 at 70mm but the 55-200mm would have an f stop of 4.5 at 70mm which means you could take pictures (birds for example) in the dark and more light will get through the lens. thats how it works. correct me if i am wrong.
Click to expand...

The difference between them is 0.5, not really worth keeping the 55-200 for that tiny bit of extra light for that 15mm. And I can't see much use shooting birds betwwen 55 & 70mm. ;)
 
mastertrinity said:
sometimes its not down to the range coverage its down to the f-stop etc. if i bought a 70-300mm why would i need a 55-200mm? well say for example the 70-300mm has an f stop of 5 at 70mm but the 55-200mm would have an f stop of 4.5 at 70mm which means you could take pictures (birds for example) in the dark and more light will get through the lens. thats how it works. correct me if i am wrong.
Click to expand...

yes,the wider the aperture,the faster the lens..but both the sony 55-200 and tamron 70-300 are F/4-5.6 apertures,so there isn't the issue you have posted above.big gains are to be had when you start looking at lens with constant apertures throughout the focal range as in the 70-200 F/2.8 G lens...really quick AF,and great shutter speeds at lower ISO's,not to mention superb image quality :thumbs:
 
heidfirst said:
but they are all at f4 or f4.5 - stop it down a bit & most of it will go away & you can also pp for it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but unfortunately the subject that i was taking photographs with had to have a fast shutter speed as well, thats the reason for them all being f/4-4.5. I don't own this lens by the way, one of my mates does but he usually gets the job of running the line! Even PS would have trouble getting rid of some of that CA.
 
Thanks all, I think i should take the jessops deal and swap out for the tammy.

At least that way i can get pictures of the birds even if the quality is slightly poor.

I think my next stop will be for adobe to correct the images if flawed.

cheers

john

P.S Stan I love the heron in your gallery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top