1st post - Telephoto advice

[rocknrose]

Greetings, this is my 1st post so hopefully this is the correct category. My current camera body is a Sony a77. Here's my dilemma: I need a telephoto to capture wildlife. Sure, if the subject is moving I'd probably need some fast glass, but I've read some real good reviews on the Sony 70-300g. At f/4.5-5.6 the lens offers, is that my best buy or what? Thanks in advance.

 

[Designer]

Not a regular Sony user, but IMO it will depend on the actual conditions at the time. IOW; if you have good light and not really fast action, you probably will get acceptable results with the moderate apertures of that lens. BTW: with a faster lens, and shooting wide open or nearly so will limit the DOF quite a bit, so just try to shoot in good light and moderate apertures. Also, don't forget to raise the ISO as required.

 

[robbins.photo]

Greetings, this is my 1st post so hopefully this is the correct category. My current camera body is a Sony a77. Here's my dilemma: I need a telephoto to capture wildlife. Sure, if the subject is moving I'd probably need some fast glass, but I've read some real good reviews on the Sony 70-300g. At f/4.5-5.6 the lens offers, is that my best buy or what? Thanks in advance.

Ok, well a quick point of clarification here, to most people when they refer to "fast" glass what they mean is glass with a wider aperture. A wider aperture lets in more light and as a result can be used in situations where the light levels aren't that great. A good F/4.5-5.6 will work fine in good lighting conditions, such as daylight/outdoors. So if that's going to be where your doing a good portion of your shooting, then most likely something with that aperture will work just fine.

If your going to need something for shooting indoors where you won't have very good lighting, then something faster is usually a good idea. The downside is faster glass is heavier and more expensive. When I first started out I started with a Nikkor 70-300 mm VR - it was also an F/4.5-5.6. Worked fine outdoors in good light, nice fast autofocus, got the job done nicely. It was roughly 5 inches long and weighed all of about a pound and a half.

The 70-200 mm Sigma I have with the F/2.8 aperture by comparison is almost 8 inches long and weighs in at a little over twice as much, just a little over 3 pounds, and that's with 100 mm less in focal length. But there are some advantages to the faster glass. I can shoot in much lower light without having to raise my ISO, and I can actually make use of teleconverters to increase the focal length, which really doesn't work very well or in most cases at all on a much slower lens like the 4.5-5.6.

So like all things camera, it's a tradeoff.

 

[Derrel]

A 70-300mm is "not that long". If the wildlife is large, like say...elk or bison which are herd animals in some national parks, and the animals allow people to get within 40 yards of them, then yeah, a 70-300 zoom is okay. If by wildlife you mean ducks and geese at 80 yards on a duck pond...a 70-300 is more of an "overview" lens, and will not allow you to select individual birds unless you can get CLOSE.

The problem is that long lenses that are really "good" for wildlife are expensive. The "best value" in a normal, everyday tele-zoom is indeed usually the camera maker's own 70-300mm lens. Next is the camera maker's 70-400 or 80-400 lens. As I understand it, the Sony-branded lens in that category is very good.

The hot, new thing is the brand-new Tamron 150mm-600mm f/5~f/6.3 zoom with built-in image stabilizer in Canon and Nikon mounts. This lens is right around $1,000, and it offers a lot of reach for the $1,000 price. Not sure when it will be released in SONY Alpha mount; the released Canon first, and then it took 30 to 60 days before the Nikon F mount version was released; I suspect SONY mount will be next.

ALL of the above lenses, from the 70-300 to the 150-600mm are pretty much designed for use in GOOD weather, meaning bright light levels.

 

[kenerickson]

I have shot with my A57 for about a year and in the last week picked up a A77 body and vertical grip package. My "long" lens is a fair Tokina 75-300 4.5-5.6. I enjoy shooting area wildlife and find I need more lens. Even with the digital 2x teleconvertor I need more reach. Here is an example just taken , in good light, 75 or so yards away. Shot handheld out of my jeep, so, the picture could have been improved with tripod etc. I think 500 or 600 mm in a quality lens would fit my particular style of wildlife shots much better.

 

[rocknrose]

Derrel, what about 400mm or even 500? The G lens Sony offers are quite expensive, and I'm just looking for the best bang for the buck. I'm noob, but I don't want to regret later on a bad decision based on just wanting to save a few (or quite a few) bucks. Today I read some good comparison reviews & recommendations as to "what you should have got for the money". One such was the Tamron 200-500ST vs. the Sony 70-300 G. The tamron received great overall reviews.

 

[dxqcanada]

The Sony 70-300mm G is a great lens for IQ ... though not sure if most will say it is better than my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 (which is a good lens wide open).
I would really suggest that you get some more money and go with the 70-400mm G (not G2).
I just got it and it is awesome ... and all I have been doing is taking images from my balcony ... I have no issues with cropping the image as the IQ is really good.
I have gone through many telephoto zoom lenses for A-mount ... slowly creeping up in cost, and I will say that this is the best one so far.

 

[PWhite214]

The Sony 70-400mm G used price is around $1300 up. I don't own one, but it is definitely on my list of possibilities.

I have considered renting the G for a week to see if it is that much better than my Sigma 150-500mm. The Sigma is priced at $899 with free shipping from Adorama.

The Sony 70-300mm G used price is about 1/2 the 70-400G.

The old Minolta Maxxum 100-300 APO used is from $175 to $300. I use the 100-300 APO some, but not as often as the Sigma. It was an in-between from the 70-210 "Beercan" and the eventual Sigma.

Then then there is the Tamron comming, 100-600 mm. Might make a difference. I am kinda thinking about but want to see more Amateur Photographer reviews.

Bottom line, I would advise not less than a 400mm zoom.

Phil

 

[dxqcanada]

Rent the 70400G ... it's worth the price of admission.
It's slightly better IQ than my Sigma 100-300mm f/4, with a little extra reach.

... BTW, anyone want to buy my Sigma ?