Which telephoto for Dynax 7?
- Thread starter TME
- Start date
- Status
frisky said:
Yes, I like the extra 100mm..... but I do want to take a look at how it looks at 400mm from the viewfinder, to see if it is really very much longer than 300mm... so for now, that is important.
The other thing that might sway me to the 100-300 is of course how to shoot using a 400mm on a tripod if there is no tripod collar....... I cannot afford an ARC-Swiss style tripod or ballhead........ in fact I use only a simple lightweight travel tripod with a single direction panhead...... it's still adequate at the moment at my max of 135mm... but not 400mm plus ~1.5kg (lens + flash + body)..
I'm still looking around...... going to Peninsular on Thur to take a look at 2nd hand lens at TCW..... just to get a feel.......
Andy, thanks for your time that Monday evening...... really appreciate your letting me try the 100-300APO and also for the tips regarding the difference between the 300 and 400 lens......... gives me a better idea of what to look out for and the practicality.........
andylee said:
Hi Andy! Thanks for the recommendations. Right now I have weighed my needs and decided that I'll probably be using such a lens quite rarely, so i'll shelve the idea for the time being...
BTW, the lens you are using, the 24-50 F4 is not in the minolta brochure... it's older generation lens like the 70-210 F4 right? Is there a list of good "old generation" lens?
HIee....
Juz my 5 cents opinion......the older AF lens is also a ggod consideration if you wanna go for the glass at the lower cost.
Body looks of the lens does not effect the photos.....
BTW: I find that my MINolta 100-300mm APO is crisper+brighter and sharper than the Sigma 70-300APO Macro Super.
My wife agrees with me too as she tried both the lens and commented that the Minolta handiling is better.
rgds....
Sulhan...
Juz my 5 cents opinion......the older AF lens is also a ggod consideration if you wanna go for the glass at the lower cost.
Body looks of the lens does not effect the photos.....
BTW: I find that my MINolta 100-300mm APO is crisper+brighter and sharper than the Sigma 70-300APO Macro Super.
My wife agrees with me too as she tried both the lens and commented that the Minolta handiling is better.
rgds....
Sulhan...
HI TME....
If you wanna have a MACRO up to 1:2 size handy while goung out....then the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super will do the job fine.
Its length is however about 1.5 cm longer in size compared to the 100-300mm.
I would recommend the Sigma...
If you stick to the fundamantal of photography with long lens(use tripod)....then you are on the way to capture great photos.....
rgds,
Sulhan
If you wanna have a MACRO up to 1:2 size handy while goung out....then the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super will do the job fine.
Its length is however about 1.5 cm longer in size compared to the 100-300mm.
I would recommend the Sigma...
If you stick to the fundamantal of photography with long lens(use tripod)....then you are on the way to capture great photos.....
rgds,
Sulhan
sulhan said:
What about weight and thread size? And if I compare the Sigma to the Tokina 80-400 ATX AF-I/II, which glass is better (forget the weight for the moment)......
My conclusions so far:
Minolta 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Pros: Light, great optics, 55mm thread
Cons: Expensive when new (relative), no macro, "only" 300mm
Minolta 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7
Pros: Long focal length, good optics
Cons: Expensive when new (relative), no macro, heavy!
Tokina ATX840 AF-II 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6
Pros: Long focal length, cheap when 2nd hand, (optics?)
Cons: Heavy(very!), larger thread size, needs tripod collar which the first version does not have (an issue since I prefer to use a travel tripod), no macro.
Sigma 70-300mm APO f/4-5.6 MACRO
Pros: Good optics, light, cheap. macro
Cons: Not long enough at "only" 300
I want to have my cake and eat it...... long focal length, decent glass and cheap....... kekeke.......
A
andylee
Guest
alvin said:
I actually have two 24-50 f4 lens.........one of them "Died in Action" in charlie sector on the beach of Ubin :cry: .....then like "saving private ryan" I went in search for it's twin brother.....Ha! luckylee i found it....this one better still,got orginal lens hood. :bsmilie:The old lens is in for me...... :thumbsup:
Hi guys! Finally decided to buy the Minolta 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 APO from TCW. Cost me $650. a bit on the high side I guess but the lens is in pretty good condition..... almost new..... the lens costs about $900 brand new (quote from Cathay/Alan).....
Used it last night at HCJ's Mid-Autumn Festival celebrations... the range is amazing...... really cool! But what was not so cool was that I forgot to bring a tripod along...... and with shutter speeds of 1/60-1/125 (100mm-400mm) between f/4.5-6.7....... I wonder how my shots are going to look like..... I hope the shake isn't going to be too bad.....sighz....... bad move but then again........
The focussing is pretty fast for such a large lens and the front element is pretty heavy as well....... hunting is always present in that kind of lighting...... in fact the lens hunted even when I put it down on my lap and wasn't even shooting........ could see the IR assist on the flash blinking like siaoz....... otherwise when the focus was almost there, the focussing was pretty fast..... but when it is way off, have to be a bit patient lar........
And the lens is a lot lighter than the Tokina which I also had a hands on.......
Used it last night at HCJ's Mid-Autumn Festival celebrations... the range is amazing...... really cool! But what was not so cool was that I forgot to bring a tripod along...... and with shutter speeds of 1/60-1/125 (100mm-400mm) between f/4.5-6.7....... I wonder how my shots are going to look like..... I hope the shake isn't going to be too bad.....sighz....... bad move but then again........
The focussing is pretty fast for such a large lens and the front element is pretty heavy as well....... hunting is always present in that kind of lighting...... in fact the lens hunted even when I put it down on my lap and wasn't even shooting........ could see the IR assist on the flash blinking like siaoz....... otherwise when the focus was almost there, the focussing was pretty fast..... but when it is way off, have to be a bit patient lar........
And the lens is a lot lighter than the Tokina which I also had a hands on.......
Top Gun said:
I dun understand your question leh... basically I had a budget and if I can find an original Minolta lens that satisfies my specifications and budget, then certainly I would go for it..... and of course if I could get something (3rd party) not too far off the original lens benchmark and way below my budget, then I'll go for that instead........
The Tokina was attractive cos of the wider 80mm end... and the fact that it was much cheaper...... but weighing other factors (like speed of focussing, APO glass, etc) I felt that it was more worth to pay for Minolta...... at any rate, if it had been the ATX-II on sale then, I might have opted for the Tokina as it would also have APO glass....
Hi TME....
The 80-400mm lens that is going for 2nd hand has APO glass. Well....anyway...enjoy your new lens....
As per what you mention of the camra hunting while on your lap....i think you might have the eyestart on and if you are holding the camera by the grip and have the eyestart on....then you may still see that the camera is trying to focus if something (your tummy,arm..etc) gets in the way of the eyestart sensor....
rgds,
me
The 80-400mm lens that is going for 2nd hand has APO glass. Well....anyway...enjoy your new lens....
As per what you mention of the camra hunting while on your lap....i think you might have the eyestart on and if you are holding the camera by the grip and have the eyestart on....then you may still see that the camera is trying to focus if something (your tummy,arm..etc) gets in the way of the eyestart sensor....
rgds,
me
sulhan said:
Is that so? It's not written on the lens body...... if it's APO then it should be written somewhere as far as I am aware of leh!! The Sigma lens all have APO inscribed somewhere so do the Tamrons.........
At any rate, the focussing speed was really quite bad compared to the Minolta (subjective here). I tried focussing between far and near objects........ the Tokina could not give me a clean focus each time even after hunting like siaoz....... the Minolta on the other hand was able to....... and besides the weight was quite something lar......... and the build quality wasn't quite so modern.......
(this is a personal preference).... at any rate, no regrets...... I love the Minolta from the time I saw it...... the Tokina just didn't cut it...... especially without a lens lock...... the zoom was practically sliding all over the place........... can't stand that... yupe u are right....... I checked my camera again and found the eye-start thing was switched on even tho' I dun like to use it........
That explains all that horrible hunting...... but when I tested at TCW, it was off..... must be I switched on at the event later that night........... duhz! - Status
Similar threads
