[Closed] SLR geeks - 200 or 300mm zoom lens?

Whats the speed of both lenses?

Both F4-5.6. I'm considering the Tamron 55-200 against the Tamron or Sigma (poss APO) 75-300mm lenses.

See what the reviews say about focusing speed.

Everything being equal, the 75-300mm will give you more reach.

If you have a cropped sensor then I would suggest for 200mm, since that focal length will be multiplied by 1.6 (canon) or 1.5 (nikon), but not sure about the Sony.

75-300 is not a very good lens, and quite slow on the long side, also very soft around the edges. At 300mm (or 480mmm with 1.6 crop) you will really need a tripod and stop down the lens a lot to get some of the quality back, which might be a pain as shutter speeds will not be fast enough, or you will end up with excessive ISO.

Good luck!

Tricky to say, but a lot of typical wildlife/sports stuff starts at around 300mm, and often over 500mm. A lot depends on the quality you're looking for and of course how you would use it- think of the type of images you want to make and at what range you're likely to be using the camera. Based just on that I'd probably go for the longer of the two listed.

[edit- although that kind of goes against JxL, I just feel there's not that much point in having higher quality images if you can't make the images/compositions you'd like to in the first place. And either way I was assuming you wouldn't be using it handheld]

When in the same situation I went for the Sigma 55-200.

It got much better reviews than the 75-300, and somewhere on the net there was a back to back test of the Sigma and Tamron 55-200s, the Sigma had sharper images and a metal mount so won the test. I got mine for £55 off Ebay.

For most things I can always crop for a tighter image.

Here is the review I saw, though it is for a Canon camera I'd imagine the lenses are similar?

[url= http://www.njc-photography.co.uk/review1.html ]Sigma/Tamron lenses[/url]

Oh yeah Sigma has a better manual focus ring too, no macro though.

Its the better reviews and price difference that are tempting me.

I find for wildlife shots I need to have really good light, shots at dusk arent much good, but thats the price to pay for a budget lens.

For wildlife I would have thought that 300 is the minimum you can consider. Also - just getting the shot is often more important than pixel-peeping at the corner resolution etc, so I would go for the longer lens even if you sacrifice some image quality.

My 2 cents.

Hmm.. I've got a 70-300 for my Nikon, but it's pretty soft at anything over 200mm and it's slow (f/5.6 at 300) and has no VR so it's very hard to get a clean handheld shot in low light even if I bump up the ISO.

Unfortunately the solution to these issues (better lenses, faster apertures, VR) would make it very expensive.

I have the 70-300 VR Nikon and took these with it:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Handheld in evening light. I am not saying they are great (they aren't!!) but a MUCH more expensive lens would not have made a huge amount of difference.

Is that a nikon lens? Tempted by the Tamron 75-300mm now as can be had for around £120

DrJ: Nice! What aperture, speed and ISO please?

I'm thinking about upgrading to the VR version. Was that handheld or from a tripod? With VR on or off?

Just ordered the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD Macro Lens. Think the extra zoom will come in useful.

The Sigma 75-300 is supposed to be pretty good, go with that - or if you can afford it the new 150-500 OS (about £800 I think) 😉

Oh aye, and a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens - the crop factor is just that - it don't change the physics. So if you can hand hold a 300mm lens on a full frame camera you can on a crop too... I used to use my 400 hand held without any issues (until I dropped it!).

You are benefitting from loosing the soft edges so should be working only on the sharpest bit of glass, so these cheaper lenses should perform better than on a full frame camera.

Shooting wildlife means a 300mm minimum, I would be tempted to go for something longer if I could though.

Was handheld, f/5.6, 1/30s ISO 800, VR definitely on.

More [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremyrh/sets/72157600747580879/ ]here[/url] from the same trip 🙂

Having said what I said above ...

this is what someone else achieved, with better skill and better glass, on the same evening:

[img] [/img]

I would say that for what you want, 300mm would be the minimum if you want to get in tight to the action (as it were). I have got the Nikkor 70-300 VR and use it for wildlife & motorsport mainly.

I find that even at 300mm there are times when I want to get closer, although that's probably always the way no matter how much zoom you have.

Isn't VR (well, Sonys equivalent) built into the body of their SLRs?

Yes Sonys have it built into the camera body. Looking forward to seeing what results I get from my new lens, doubt ill be able to get anything as good as those above though.

Was handheld, f/5.6, 1/30s ISO 800, VR definitely on.

You clearly have steadier hands than me to shoot 300mm at 1/30s (even with VR).
Maybe I should lay off the crack for a bit...

Go for a Minolta 70-210 beercan.Have a look @ [url= http://www.dyxum.com/index.asp ] Dyxum.com [/url]

"Was handheld, f/5.6, 1/30s ISO 800, VR definitely on."

WOW, very impressive!!! For 200mm on a full frame camera it is recommended around 1/250th for sharp images. (non IS lenses of course)

I didn't realize you want to specialize in wildlife, in that case a longer lens but poorer quality might be a better option, just thought its for general stuff, in which case 200mm would have been plenty!

When I had a 1.6 cropped canon 400d, my 70-200mm F4 L didn't get much use at all, however now with full frame is more usable for the stuff I do.

I would love to post some 100% crops, but all are on external hardrive...

I was advised that 1 over focal length is a good guide for speed when handholding.
So at 300mm the guide speed would be 1/300s.

Nikon reckon their VR II lets you shoot four stops slower.
So, in theory at least, 1/30s is do-able.