The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony A long glass

I'm frequently reminded that at longer focal lengths, shutter speed is the primary limiter of sharpness on the Tamron. Even using a monopod with a gimbal, it really needs to be at least 1/1500th if I want anything approaching sharpness. And given how slow the lens is, that can be a challenge. If it weren't for IBIS, I think it would unusable without a tripod (at least for me).

Here's a shot at 1/1250 at 600mm that I consider acceptable.



Larger version here.
 

uhoh7

New member
Nice shots with that Canon lens, Doug

I just weakened and bought this beast:

Nikon 300mm F 2 8 Ed If AI s Manual Focus Lens | eBay

It's got some funky aspects, wrong nameplate for one LOL, but it seems fairly clean and for that lens, price is not too bad (includes shipping :) )

My poor A7.mod is sitting happily in the corner, no idea what is on the way ;)

Did some reading and they all claim it's as sharp at F/2.8 as about anything ever made.
 

dmward

Member
Mike,
I agree completely with the shutter speed requirement consideration for sharpness at longer focal lengths.
The shot of Jordan Spieth I linked to in an earlier post is a perfect example. The result, even cropped is sharp. There is another shot on the gallery link of him walking up the fairway with a disabled vet caddie. I printed that, also cropped, to 12x17 and its sharp. Don't remember exactly the focal length but it was out close to 600.

I've found that manual shutter and aperture and then Auto ISO works in these situations. Outside, properly exposed, even higher ISO images look fine. I think the Spieth headshot is close to ISO 800.
 

uhoh7

New member
Looks like fun :) My problem with Nikon lenses - and I admit it's MY problem - is that after 35 years using Leica-R my brain is hard-wired to turn focus and aperture rings the Leica/Canon direction.
good point :) it's confusing.

This thread has me going enough that I dusted off my 600/5.6 Kilfit Zoomar and went back to adapting it.

Took off the hood to fit it into this shot:


L1039252 by unoh7, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Sony 70-400mm vs Tamron 150-600mm bake-off

Preliminary indoor tests seem to indicate that the Sony is sharper to some degree at all focal lengths and apertures; especially at the edges.

When I have some decent daylight I'll shoot a better sequence, but here's some examples.

100% center crops, all @ ƒ8, on Sony A7Rii on LA-EA3 adapter, IBIS OFF.

The Tamron @ 300mm
Tamron @ 300 mm.jpg

The Sony @ 300mm
Sony @ 300mm.jpg

The Tamron @ 400mm
Tamron @ 400mm.jpg

The Sony @ 400mm
Sony @ 400mm.jpg

The test subject -
Sony @ 150 mm-5.jpg
 

dmward

Member
Mike,
Thanks for the tests.
In my view, the deficiency of a flat subject at relatively close focus distance is field curvature. What impact does the curve in the plane of focus have in causing the apparent softness of the flat plane target?

I don't know the answer, just that its something that has an influence.
 
In my view, the deficiency of a flat subject at relatively close focus distance is field curvature. What impact does the curve in the plane of focus have in causing the apparent softness of the flat plane target?
Very good question. If the sun ever comes out here, I hope to shoot something with three actual dimensions.

(Although this particular test sequence is pretty much immune to field curvature, since it's just a center crop, and I focused on the center.)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Graham,
So far I've been pleased with the 150-600 performance with the LEA3. I'm not attempting to do birds in flight or similar. I have used it to shoot cars on a race track moving at an angle across the frame and panning.

What specific performance benefits are limited to the LEA4?
The big big deal for me was the inability to set the lens to manual focus mode in camera and take advantage of rear button AF mode when needed. I generally set up all of my cameras and lenses so that I shoot manual focus with AF on demand. With the LEA3 this wasn't possible and I was forced to select AF/MF on the lens body and lost the ability in MF mode to force an AF on demand.

Second, whilst it's nice to have the 399 AF points, I actually found the central regional AF points managed by the LEA4 to be faster and more feature rich. For example, with the LEA4 I was able to use focus tracking which worked very well on moving animals. With the LEA3 I would find the AF would hunt more for some reason too. AF-A mode worked with the LEA4, and generally I was able to use the Tamron without frustration in low light, with moving animals and at full zoom. With the LEA3 it just seemed limiting and I was fighting it more than I cared for and after a couple of days I just swapped the adapter from the LEA3 to the LEA4. This significantly improved shooting accuracy, my willingness to trust the AF system including the awesome tracking feature, plus I could drive the Tamron like all of my native FE glass. the manual focus with AF override though sealed the deal for me with the Tamron and LEA4.
 

uhoh7

New member
I've decided to approach "the long question" another way. :)

After considerable research I think I've determined the lightest, fastest, sharpest, and cheapest way to produce 300 and 500mm images with an A7.

Reading many discussions by birders and other long lens users, the limits of the 70400 options come up fairly often. The next steps are the great primes. The latest AF versions of these are extremely expensive and heavy, though great optically.

I enjoy MF and so autofocus is not mandatory for me. Enter the last great MF Nikon telephotos, prized by both press and wildlife shooters in the almost recent past.

It so happens the lightest 300/2.8 and the lightest 500/4, are exactly these, and in the case of the AIS ED 500/4 P, the lens is only a hair behind the best in world today, and that in the corners wide open. It supposedly will take a 1.4x TC with no visible loss in quality, which adds a great 700 to your choices with a 80$ Kenko 1.4x.

I already have the 300/2.8 and the 500/4 is in the post.

I've really taken to the 300, which can be shot handheld with a fast enough shutter:


Mountain Beach by unoh7, on Flickr

It's 2500 grams and the 500 is 3000 grams, mere feathers compared to other lenses that fast at those sizes.

A 300/2.8 will run $800 or so if you look around, and the 500/4 brings $1600 or so.

By comparison the latest Nikon 500/4 E, which is actually almost as light, is a mere 10K USD.
and the new Sony 500/4 G is only 12k :)
 
Last edited:

Luvwine

New member
I wanted to get a bit longer than the Sony 70-200/4 as well. I also think that while the Sony zoom lens is surprisingly sharp in the center, its quality does diminish somewhat in zones b and c. After doing a bunch of reading, and since I don't do a lot of shooting that requires autofocus, I just picked up a Leica R 180/2.8 apo that can use a 1.4x or 2x extender (it should arrive this week--tough to find the late model of that lens!). I also recently bought the R 280/4 apo (my credit card bill has been ugly lately) which I am enjoying a lot tho it is not light (4 pounds). It may be that some great autofocus long glass is coming for FE mount, but I am not confident that it is coming all that soon. I am not going to buy a fast 135 tho as I think that Sony will have to have a native solution at 135 that is fast and high quality eventually.
 

ryc

Member
Well,

Not A glass. But I picked up a 300mm f4 Nikon AFS today and it focuses on the A7II with focus peak like a champ! Really easy and quick to focus without even using magnification.

 

uhoh7

New member
I wanted to get a bit longer than the Sony 70-200/4 as well. I also think that while the Sony zoom lens is surprisingly sharp in the center, its quality does diminish somewhat in zones b and c. After doing a bunch of reading, and since I don't do a lot of shooting that requires autofocus, I just picked up a Leica R 180/2.8 apo that can use a 1.4x or 2x extender (it should arrive this week--tough to find the late model of that lens!). I also recently bought the R 280/4 apo (my credit card bill has been ugly lately) which I am enjoying a lot tho it is not light (4 pounds). It may be that some great autofocus long glass is coming for FE mount, but I am not confident that it is coming all that soon. I am not going to buy a fast 135 tho as I think that Sony will have to have a native solution at 135 that is fast and high quality eventually.
Some nice glass you bought :)

I'm pretty sure the new alpha 500/4 is the most expensive Sony prime at 12K, and that FL and speed is a major bragging right for these companies, and a requirement for a true pro system.

These are an outright steal:


Heavy Hitter by unoh7, on Flickr

One of the last and greatest Manual Focus Nikkors, made up to 2005 :)

You can flick it about with your pinky on a gimble, and it can be handheld also (3000 grams).


DSC03169 by unoh7, on Flickr

Very similar character to the 300/2.8 AIS EDIF, but smoother yet. Outstanding bokeh, which as you know is not a given with the long choices.

I'm seriously smitten:


DSC03122 by unoh7, on Flickr


Baaaa by unoh7, on Flickr

It was 1600 with a fancy Nikon metal case and various tidbits. Arrived yesterday. :)

It famously good with teleconverters so I got a kenko 1.4x. too. For these shots I just rested it on my half open window.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Looks like fun :) My problem with Nikon lenses - and I admit it's MY problem - is that after 35 years using Leica-R my brain is hard-wired to turn focus and aperture rings the Leica/Canon direction.
Hi Doug, may I ask why you seem to prefer these days a Canon lens over the APO 280/4? TIA.
 

doug

Well-known member
Hi Doug, may I ask why you seem to prefer these days a Canon lens over the APO 280/4? TIA.
Mass. A recent hand injury and an old shoulder injury make heavy equipment difficult to use. The a7II + Canon FD 300mm f/4 is half the weight of the R8/DMR + 280 APO. There's also aliasing and moire, the 280 APO is so much sharper that I see a lot more moire when using it, even on a camera with an AA filter. Not as big a problem with the Canon lens.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Mass. A recent hand injury and an old shoulder injury make heavy equipment difficult to use. The a7II + Canon FD 300mm f/4 is half the weight of the R8/DMR + 280 APO. There's also aliasing and moire, the 280 APO is so much sharper that I see a lot more moire when using it, even on a camera with an AA filter. Not as big a problem with the Canon lens.

Thanks Doug. I am sorry you have those injuries and hope you recover soon and completely. No matter which tools you use though your bird images are stunners!
 
Top