FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The Travel Zoom condundrum

Page  <12
Author
ratboy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 May 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: North East
Status: Online
Posts: 1741
Post Options Post Options   Quote ratboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 17:56
The Dt18-135 and Dt55-300 coupled with the Dt35/1.8 normally works as a travel combo for me. I also own the 70-300G but save myself a few hundred grams and a bit of space with the 55-300.
 



Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 7966
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 19:04
I thought the 100-300APO and the 55-300 are comparable? I consider my 100-300APO "good enough", it got me some keepers, that means a good copy of the 55-300 also is good enough.

My 18-135 is clearly of less quality then my 100-300APO.

The 16-300 isn't that hot, it might be a great all-in-one, but compared to the Canon 55-250IS it is clearly less good. Unfortunately I don't have a comparison with the Sony 55-300.
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 4921
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 21:12
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

...

My s/h copy of the 100-300mm APO is sharper at full aperture than my copy (bought new) of the 55-300mm dt, and it's also a lot shorter and lighter. If I want length I go to that as a first choice now. And it's FF, so I can use it on my film cameras too.


I had hoped the 100-300mm APO I tried would be perfect, but I don't think it was a good copy. It was worse than say, my beercan. Which is why I'm reluctant to buy another.

...The 55-200mm is extremely sharp - indeed, it can show better resolution than most older 300mm lenses, but the AF system on my A58 is not up to achieving that resolution very often. I'd go further and say that quite a few decent lenses will look a lot worse than they really are because of AF performance.


I quite liked my 55-200 for sharpness. That's why I was prepared to look at the 55-300. The dilemma with any of the 200mm options, is the reach is sometimes inadequate. At times I'll have serendipitous wildlife encounters, or even birds, and 200mm is just too short.


The 55-300mm is sharp, I agree, and sharper than most other 300mm zooms I have. But I don't think it's any better than the 100-300mm APO. But it does go down to 55mm if that's important to you ...


Thanks, my concern though with the 100-300 is it'll be a lottery finding a good copy, especially as few are available for sale in NZ.
Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 4921
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 21:25
Originally posted by nandbytes nandbytes wrote:

Originally posted by wetapunga wetapunga wrote:


Mostly because in the past, the super-zooms were never on par with a couple of good shorter zooms. Hence my '2 zoom rule'.


Well the zeiss 16-80 is rather sharp and I don't imagine the superzoom matching it wide open but by the time you stop down to f/8-ish (think you mentioned mostly landscapes??) I think the superzoom will give your zeiss a run for its money.


Indeed, I've got a good copy of the CZ16-80 and over the years I've got some wonderful pics with it. It also covers about 75% of the (general) shooting I'll do when traveling. But many shots are also taken wide open on the CZ. Having good options is useful for travel photography as you pretty much, have to work with what you've got. It's the versatility of the CZ16-80 I like. Good shots from wide-open, through to a useful range. Most other short telephotos stop at 50mm or 55mm.

On the long end even if you don't put much weight on DXO, the 55-300mm is a consumer telezoom. Optics have also come very far since the original superzooms were made. I think at about f/8 this will be equal.


True, but if I know I'll need a good telephoto then I tend to bite the bullet and take one of my G lenses. E.g. The 70-200/2.8 G got a good workout in Xishuangbanna. The 300mm G with 1.4x Tc got a good workout in Kenya.

The idea is to have something good enough to cover the chances I get elsewhere.

Its worth a try I think. Why not rent/borrow one and see how it works. If you are not happy with the results you can always go back to your 2 zooms approach (which is very logical but just thinking differently...)


Thanks- alas, we are badly served by Sony lens rentals in NZ. I think they tend to be E-mount.
a7R, a77ii | Minolta 17-35mm G, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2, 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 O, 50mm f2.8 M, 70-210 f4, 85mm f1.4 G, 100mm f2.8 M, 300mm f4 G | Sony CZ16-80mm f3.5-4.5, 70-200mm f2.8 G, 135mm f2.8 STF
Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 4921
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 21:37
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Originally posted by wetapunga wetapunga wrote:

Mostly because in the past, the super-zooms were never on par with a couple of good shorter zooms. Hence my '2 zoom rule'.
+1.

I allow myself one compact prime too, though. I can always squeeze it in somewhere


Indeed, I often (but not always) throw in a prime. Sometimes the versatility of a couple of zooms doesn't stretch quite far enough. Hence a compact prime can give you a chance at other scenes.
a7R, a77ii | Minolta 17-35mm G, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2, 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 O, 50mm f2.8 M, 70-210 f4, 85mm f1.4 G, 100mm f2.8 M, 300mm f4 G | Sony CZ16-80mm f3.5-4.5, 70-200mm f2.8 G, 135mm f2.8 STF
Back to Top
skm.sa100 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 January 2009
Country: United States
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Posts: 2727
Post Options Post Options   Quote skm.sa100 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 22:45
If you're not interested in a superzoom, my other suggestion would be the 55-300, assuming you're on APS-C.
It's a pretty decent lens; light and cheap and right on the money for what you pay for it.
 



Back to Top
ratboy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 May 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: North East
Status: Online
Posts: 1741
Post Options Post Options   Quote ratboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 22:58
Originally posted by skm.sa100 skm.sa100 wrote:

If you're not interested in a superzoom, my other suggestion would be the 55-300, assuming you're on APS-C.
It's a pretty decent lens; light and cheap and right on the money for what you pay for it.

I'm a fan of the 55-300 - it's comparable to the 70-300G, the only issue I have is the extending/rotating front element and the slow focus. But I can put up with that for a smaller, lighter option than the 70-300G.
Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 4921
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 23:14
Originally posted by skm.sa100 skm.sa100 wrote:

If you're not interested in a superzoom, my other suggestion would be the 55-300, assuming you're on APS-C.
It's a pretty decent lens; light and cheap and right on the money for what you pay for it.


Yes, the SAL 55-300 is one I'm ruminating over. It's very well priced (about half the price of the Tamron 16-300 here). I like that it takes 62mm filters, as that's the same as the CZ16-80.
a7R, a77ii | Minolta 17-35mm G, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2, 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 O, 50mm f2.8 M, 70-210 f4, 85mm f1.4 G, 100mm f2.8 M, 300mm f4 G | Sony CZ16-80mm f3.5-4.5, 70-200mm f2.8 G, 135mm f2.8 STF
Back to Top
wetapunga View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2007
Country: New Zealand
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Posts: 4921
Post Options Post Options   Quote wetapunga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 23:15
Originally posted by ratboy ratboy wrote:

Originally posted by skm.sa100 skm.sa100 wrote:

If you're not interested in a superzoom, my other suggestion would be the 55-300, assuming you're on APS-C.
It's a pretty decent lens; light and cheap and right on the money for what you pay for it.

I'm a fan of the 55-300 - it's comparable to the 70-300G, the only issue I have is the extending/rotating front element and the slow focus. But I can put up with that for a smaller, lighter option than the 70-300G.


I still have a soft spot for the 70-300mm G. But I suspect the 55-300 is the better travel option. Especially if the difference in IQ is negligible.
Back to Top
ratboy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 May 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: North East
Status: Online
Posts: 1741
Post Options Post Options   Quote ratboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 23:36
Originally posted by wetapunga wetapunga wrote:


I still have a soft spot for the 70-300mm G. But I suspect the 55-300 is the better travel option. Especially if the difference in IQ is negligible.

I would say the 70-300G is marginally sharper than the 55-300 wide open particularly towards the long end, but to be honest I'm not the kind of person to do extensive "brick wall" tests and I don't worry about absolute sharpness like I used to !

Where the 70-300G wins is less focus hunting and I much prefer the focus limiter switch to the in camera focus limiter. It's quieter with no extending/rotating front end.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Find us on Google+

Feel free to contact us if needed.