telescopic lens

[robert1]

hey

well some of you may know i took the plundge and got a Sony A77V (needed some reward for working nights )
currently only have 'SAL1650 16-50mm F2.8 SSM zoom lens' "kit lens" and the cheapish '75-300mm 75300 A-mount digital camera lens'

now looking at a much higher quality telescopic lens, current one (75-300) doesnt have the best image quality, mainly in bright sun light you can see pruple around the edges in places.

but anyway it will mainly be used at F1 (deffiantly silverstone in 2013) and probably a few smaller events in brans and silverstone. been looking at the 'SAL-70400G' a 70 to 400mm lens http://www.sony.co.uk/product/ddl-sony-g-lenses/sal-70400g
and the 'Sigma 50-500mm' http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77927/show.html both in a simular price range.

just wondering if anyone has had any experiance with eather, knows what would be best or maybe something different all togeather that could be better for the job, i wouldnt want to pay much more then eather of these but wouldnt mind going cheaper if the quality was there (but im guessing not much cheaper)

P.S. wont nessicerrly buy from the sites i gave just the first that came up in search

 

[nobuffalo]

Perhaps consider a lens with a bit less zoom but a larger aperture? Not sure if you could find one in the same price range though.

 

[35mm]

Yes, "reach" doesn't mean "more quality"; on the contrary.
The lenses you mention probably won't have better image quality than your current one.
On the other hand (and just like casey said), a 70-200mm f/2.8 would get you better image quality (besides the obvious advantage of the larger aperture).

You should first make that decision. 👍

 

[wfooshee]

And faster doesn't mean better IQ directly, but faster does mean more $$$$, and if the lensmaker wants to sell them, they'd better make them worth the money.

But it will entail some money.....

I did try a 200-500 some months back, thinking I needed the reach to do my springtime birding. it was a piece of junk!!!!! Very soft focus at the long end, although not too bad when used at less than 50 feet. Horrible bokeh, though!. So I rebayed it. (Got it on eBay, unloaded it on eBay.)

 

[robert1]

i know the lengh wont nesacely improve image quality but there is a noticable difference between the kit lens and the longer lens i currently own. just the kit lens may have some problems when sat in a grandstand or banks around the track. last time i had a point n shoot and nearly always needed it fully extended to x10..in some cases more could of been better

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Guys, both the Sony 70-400 and the Sigma 50-500 (aka the Bigma) are vastly superior lenses to the kit 75-300. The Bigma is a really popular lens and performs well, but that's IF you get a good one, which isn't a sure thing. You might have to return the lens several times before you get one that doesn't have problems, which in my opinion isn't really worth it.

Personally, I'd go with the Sony 70-400. Just because it's 5.6 at 400mm doesn't mean it's bad. With the A77 you can afford to bump it up a few stops of ISO to gain some shutter speed if necessary, and it probably won't be an issue shooting daylight motorsports anyway. Focus speed and accuracy are by far the most important things when shooting motorsports, and the Sony should do pretty well. The Sony also is small enough to shoot panning shots at 200mm or so, in addition to the freeze-frame head-on shots that it'll be awesome for at 400mm.

Here's a photo I shot at 700mm f/5.6 (500 f/4 + 1.4x Teleconverter) on a Full-Frame camera last weekend, which is pretty close to what 400 f/5.6 will be like on your A77. (600mm f/5.6 equivalent.)


DSC_4996.jpg by maximstensel, on Flickr

As you can see, 5.6 should be no problem. 70-400 lenses are actually pretty awesome options, and I'd buy myself one if Nikon's wasn't an ancient slow piece of junk.

A 70-200 is way, way, waaaaaay too short, especially if you're in the stands. Even at Laguna Seca with a press pass, which is about as close as you can get to the action at any track in the world, I generally have a 1.4x teleconverter and a 1.5x crop body with my 70-200 and it's often not enough reach, which is why I drag a 400 or 500mm around. And remember, that's from inside the fence, from the spectator areas you need even more reach.

 

[robert1]

thanks Takumi Fujiwara.
I have seen the Sony in the flesh at the sony store in newyork, wasnt able to try it sadly
But it did look pretty good.

yeh, at silverstone in places you can be miles from the track, in others your pretty close ( im not too far from the track, got tickets for the final corner infront of the podium ) so hopefully get a good shot of the podium.

still learning the A77, only really used it once so far (for a week) in new york, so may do some cheaper events just to get pratice on it.

i didnt have many problems with reach with the 300mm in nyc but there wasnt many close ups i wanted or could of done really so im guessing it wont seem as long in a different envroment.

good pic btw, and i have herd that some sigma lens have problems but didnt know it was that bad. i will try and get the lens a fair time before silverstone as my 60mm lens died (aperture ring got stuck open) and i dont really want that one happening again when i need it.

 

[Azuremen]

Everything I read about Sigma lenses makes them quite hit or miss. I was considering the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 for my 5DmkII till I read it tends to be a bit wonky with front and back focusing on the distance, and tends to vary from lens to lens.

 

[robert1]

so with sigma...they can be good lens, but not best build quality?

 

[Azuremen]

so with sigma...they can be good lens, but not best build quality?

From what I've seen, they have solid quality and good materials in a lot of the cases. The issue is they tend to have more issues in tolerances so lenses seem to be hit or miss. When you have a good lens, it is good, but often people have to exchange them a few times to find the right copy, or test several at a store to see which are focusing correctly. Of course, this is much more pronounced on fast prime lenses, since the depth of field is so shallow that it is the difference between the eyes being in focus or the bridge of the nose.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Yeah, what Azuremen says is basically the case. It's kind of random if you'll get a good lens with Sigma or not. I've been thinking of buying their 85 1.4 for ages and keep holding back because I'm not sure if I want to deal with it or not.

I've used a good example of the 50-500 before and it was pretty decent, but I'll still take a first-party lens over a Sigma in almost any case, especially when the price difference is small. (I'm only considering the 85mm because the AF on the Nikon versions is too slow for my needs.)

Oh, by the way, if you're buying either of these lenses, you'll probably want a decent monopod. Even though they're relatively small and light, shooting at 400mm can be tough. Check out Calumet if you've got one that's not too far away, they have a line of carbon fiber 'pods that are strong, light, and reasonably priced. I use their big model but the smaller one would probably work well for these lenses.