PDA

View Full Version : Which lens?


cinders
29th September 2010, 11:16 PM
I'm thinking of hiring either a 70-300 or 50-200 lens for a day or two of mainly wildlife photography. Bearing in mind the likelyhood of it not being bright and sunny here in Wales, which would you recommend for my E620, bearing in mind I haven't used either before?
(I'd like to save up to buy one or the other in the future, and this is a kind of trial).

Discuss......

Answers please!

Nick Temple-Fry
30th September 2010, 12:10 AM
Well the obvious answer is - hire both, plus the ec1.4 if Ian has one in his hire stock.

That way you've covered all the options and will be able to compare.

Difficult choice otherwise, as the 50-200 can be a bit short without the 1.4, but it's a very good lens.

Mayhaps an idea of what you aim to shoot and in what sort of circumstances might help.

Nick

Melaka
30th September 2010, 06:28 AM
Difficult to beat the 50-200+EC14.

shenstone
30th September 2010, 08:50 AM
I agree - try both.

There are times when I will use the 70-300 + ec14 because that reach will be needed to get the pictures - it may be rare, but as I bought that 1st I'll keep them both

I love the 50-200 to bits and used it for my horsey shoot in Wales http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11134 (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11134). I would have struggled to do it with the 70-300 the diffeence in brightness and AF speed is noteable

Regards
Andy

theMusicMan
30th September 2010, 09:30 AM
Well I am a staunch advocate of the 70-300mm and use this all the time. There's no doubt the 50-200mm is a smashing piece of glass, but for me, the 70-300mm does all I ask of it - with images as sharp as I have ever got from the 50-200mm when I tried that for a few weeks.

snaarman
30th September 2010, 09:52 AM
Well I am a staunch advocate of the 70-300mm and use this all the time. There's no doubt the 50-200mm is a smashing piece of glass, but for me, the 70-300mm does all I ask of it - with images as sharp as I have ever got from the 50-200mm when I tried that for a few weeks.

Interesting observations there about the sharpness. I am learning the strengths and weaknesses of the 70-300 and I agree that it can be very sharp, particulary in the 70-150 region and at F8 or so. If I push the limits (e.g. 300 wide open) its not so sharp, so I can imagine the better quality 20-500 has its place.

However, I really can't imagine carrying around anything heavier or physically longer than this 70-300, which is no lightweight. So for me, despite its undoubted quality, the 50-200 is not on my list.

Pete

cinders
30th September 2010, 11:52 AM
Much as I'd love to hire both and the EC14 as well, I'd never manage to carry everything, and can't afford it really !

It's interesting though, that people are falling both sides of the fence. Obviously the 50-200 is going to be better quality, but has less reach on it's own, and is heavier...

The question seems to be how much less sharp the 70-300 is at full stretch, and obviously the aperture size is an issue too!

Keep the comments coming!
*chr

theMusicMan
30th September 2010, 12:12 PM
Hi Cindy

Honestly, I am not doubting excellence of the 50-200, but for me the 70-300mm works perfectly. Check this out... almost 300mm.

http://www.reflectingme.com/img/s2/v1/p310296213-4.jpg

... and this... focal length 338mm (70-300mm + EC1.4) @ f7.6

http://www.reflectingme.com/img/s2/v1/p84264165-4.jpg

Nobody can say the 70-300mm is not sharp.

:)

benvendetta
30th September 2010, 12:18 PM
Hi Cindy

Honestly, I am not doubting excellence of the 50-200, but for me the 70-300mm works perfectly. Check this out... almost 300mm.

http://www.reflectingme.com/img/s2/v1/p310296213-4.jpg

... and this... focal length 338mm (70-300mm + EC1.4) @ f7.6

http://www.reflectingme.com/img/s2/v1/p84264165-4.jpg

Nobody can say the 70-300mm is not sharp.

:)

Blimey John, that is sharp!
I was going to say that there would appear to be little point in buying the 70-300 if it is only decent in its mid range but you have blown that statement out of the water!

theMusicMan
30th September 2010, 12:23 PM
Thanks Dave.

Wrotniac contacted me a while ago to ask if he could use my Puffin images on his site as part of a review of how the 70-300mm performs on its own and when coupled with the EC1.4

Not sure if he's updated it yet, but I have to say I am seriously impressed with the performance of my 70-300mm. OK, it hunts once in a while when the light is particularly dark, but that's to be expected.

Without a shadow of a doubt, it has absolutely stopped me getting or coveting the 50-200mm.

StephenL
30th September 2010, 12:24 PM
I never got that quality out of my 70-300, but then, I never got that light either! Beautiful shots!

theMusicMan
30th September 2010, 12:28 PM
I never got that quality out of my 70-300, but then, I never got that light either! Beautiful shots!
Thanks Stephen. Not to say that the 50-200mm isn't an excellent lens, it really is. Super bokeh @f2.8 too!

But, when I can get this type of shot with my 70-300mm I really don't have any need for an alternate.

I also use the 70-300mm for the shots taken at Heathers rugby games. Does well enough for me there too.

benvendetta
30th September 2010, 12:49 PM
Thanks Dave.

Wrotniac contacted me a while ago to ask if he could use my Puffin images on his site as part of a review of how the 70-300mm performs on its own and when coupled with the EC1.4

Not sure if he's updated it yet, but I have to say I am seriously impressed with the performance of my 70-300mm. OK, it hunts once in a while when the light is particularly dark, but that's to be expected.

Without a shadow of a doubt, it has absolutely stopped me getting or coveting the 50-200mm.

At the prices that they have sold for on this site recently the 70-300 has to be one heck of a bargain, especially if those examples are as good as yours obviously is.

snaarman
30th September 2010, 01:58 PM
I agree the 70-300 needs light, and maybe its an ISO400 lens rather than ISO200. I am developing my own rules of engagement for it, involving f8 for 70 to 200mm if situations allow, and f8 or f11 for 300mm. This means you need to concentrate hard on your handheld shutter speed at the long end..

However if I obey the rules I can get this sort of shot, even at 300mm :-)

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/613/62300484A.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/27349)

Pete

StephenL
30th September 2010, 03:07 PM
Yes, you've got to appreciate that this is a long focal length lens, make no mistake!

cinders
30th September 2010, 07:57 PM
I'm certainly impressed with the 70-300 puffin images (Thanks!)
And I suspect that finances will ultimately dictate me getting that one. However, one has to admit that on a typically dull Welsh autumn day, the other may be more successful - even if it is heavier, with shorter focal length etc.

Thanks for all the opinions anyway!