Sony 70-300 'G' SSM : Did I made the right choice?

[Dodge]

I've been umming and ahhing for awhile over the Sony Sal 500f80 reflex lens as a decent quality but affordable option for some extra reach, but meanwhile have been tracking a used 'as new' Sony 70-300 'G' SSM listed on ebay starting at £300, being sold due to upgrading to the 70-400g.

In the end, after reading a lot of positive reviews, I just couldn't resist it and got the 'G' with a last second bid of £420, still a bargain price I think. Now I just have the agony of a two day wait for it to arrive.

Anyone already using this lens? I realise I've sacrificed quite a significant amount of reach, but I'm hoping the image quality of the 'G' glass will make up for that. Its my first lens of this quality, and am kind of wondering if the difference between it and the SAL55200 kit zoom I have and the 500f80 Reflex I was planning on buying, will be noteworthy.

Also are there any considerations to take into account with regards to filters for this lens as I noticed that my 55mm Zeiss polarizer that I use on my 50mm prime, when used on my SAL55200, throws the focusing out.

[DonSchap]

First off, you made a solid decision going with the SONY 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM lens. It is simply the best in its class ... and priced accordingly.

The 55-200mm f/4-5.6 is effectively a long "kit lens." Its performance is nothing to write home about ... and you have a far better lens in the 70-300, so take comfort in that decision.

As far as the SONY AF 500mm f/8 Reflex lens goes ... forget it. It it way too expensive for a fixed focal length with a fixed aperture, and I don't care if it is autofocus. Do not spend your hard earned money this way. If you need real reach, you would be, in my humble opinion, much better off in purchasing a TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f5-6.3 Di LD super telephoto lens (BTW: It is the lens I am using in my avatar image). This lens will give you superior flexibility as a zoom, instead of a fixed focal length. The lens only weighs 42 ounces, but does a knock out job in delivering sharp, well focused images. You will not easily find something that delivers the goods for a better price.

As far as filters go ... you need to up the price you must be paying for yours. A good CP-filter for a ø55mm-filter lens will be around $80. It will deliver a good distortion-free focus. My recommendation is either a high-end B+W or Heliopan. Do not be afraid to get good filters. Cheap ones screw up your shots on quality zoom lenses. The finer the instrument, the more easily messed up the focus with a cheap filter. Cheap lenses don't seem to mind what you put on them. I know that may sound weird, but it is the truth. Been there, done that. Take my word for it.

You should have seen what I had to go through to put find a decent, working "clear" filter on the front of my SONY CZ 135mm f/1.8 telephoto. Quality filters cannot be overstated. They really make all the difference in how your high-end lenses perform. You paid good money for that glass ... do not corrupt it by placing some "cheapo" filter on the front of it. Call it "the cost of using good optics."

[Dodge]

Thank you Don,

I asked my questions here as I thought, 'I know just the chap to answer this'. Good sensible, sound advice as always.

I'll definately pass on the Sony 500mm f8 in future and meanwhile start saving again for something else with a 500mm reach as you suggest. I'm so glad I was tempted by the 'G' lens now instead, thank you.

This is the filter I use on my 55mm lenses Sony VF55CPAM 55mm Circular Polarising Filters For: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo I remember my late father always raving about Zeiss glass which to be honest was why I chose it. Quite pricey too, maybe I was doing something wrong (never used it on that lens again to check). Very happy with it on my 55mm prime though and I daresay that once my new lens arrives, the kit lens may not be seeing the light of day again. I'll be sure to get quality filters for my new lens though, as you say.

Many thanks again Don for taking the time to answer.

[OsmosisStudios]

Im sorry, but from what reviews I could find the Tamron 200-500 isnt worth the money. Wicked terrible CA at all lengths, poor sharpness unless stopped down to f/11 and even then only marginally comparable to other lenses at similar lengths.

I'd opt for the Sigma 150-500 instead.

[DonSchap]

Please note that the SONY 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM uses a ø62mm filter, not ø55mm, so there will be a new filter purchase in your future, I suspect.

Good luck with that lens and post something cool ... and clear.

BTW: This is one of the "utterly horrible" CA-filled shots I got from my TAMRON 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD Super Telephoto lens, while plugged into the SONY A700 DSLR.

and this one, from my Canon EOS 20D, when another one on it.

and, of course, a high-speed shutter weapons door deployment

and a distant run up for take off ...

Don't you just hate image like this ??

[OsmosisStudios]

I do, actually: in the in-flight shots the AF hasnt quite nailed it (another common complaint: slow and hunting AF) and the plane on the strip is soft.

As for CA: I can see it in the bottom image around the landing gear on the right and the flying F-22 deployment series is too small to tell. The second shot youve shown does have some CA as well.

Of course, I'll just go ahead and save you the time: I'm only reporting what reviews have said, not personal experience. That being said, knowing you, Don, the Tamron is a gold-encrusted jewel from the gods.

[Dodge]

Steady chaps, don't want you falling out, not when I'm this excited.........LENS ARRIVES TOMORROW !!

Love the pics Don, when I lived in Lincolnshire and worked in the Ambulance service, we used to be on standby for the RAF Waddington airshow. Prime location at the end of the runway one year, also Runway side duty when the RAF Red Arrows were practicing their low level manouvers at RAF Scampton and the Battle of Britain memorial flight, Lancaster, Spit and Hurricane flew from nearby RAF Coningsby too.

Alas I wasn't into photography then though, bloody typical.

[DonSchap]

A while back,.I realized a lot of my work was not going to the printed page, but on the wild and woolly web. Oh sure, some images did get to 24x36 inch presentation, but not enough to say ... hey, I need to consider the absolute BEST glass out there.

The need for side-chapping, expensive glass is not quite there, when you web out. 72 dpi web images are very forgiving and with that in mind, I recommend you just get some "pretty good" third party selections and blast away. Settling for the bottom offerings is not what I mean, either. Do not think that. That would be in error.

Realizing the power of high-end glass requires a target audience that can appreciate it.

- If it is only YOU that is target audience and you are kind of tight about how your images appear, EDGE-TO-EDGE, whip out that bank book and do not look back. YOU are the perfectionist/hobbyist ... it is your passion.

- If it is a commercial venture, the commercial venture will eventually pay for the glass. As such, top drawer pieces are EXPECTED. They are paying for it.

- But if you just are pleasing the "webbers" and the local yokels, then producing the standard fair with "better" third party stuff will probably fit the bill and not seriously impact your way of life. Well, maybe a little ... .

For argument's sake, let's suppose that YOUR photography truly rates more attention ... it will come. You will know this. Attention of this nature rarely stays hidden for long. There are people out there that have sharp little eyes and they will contact you if you are good, despite the web's 72 dpi presentation of your work. Your actual composition, color management and creativity with light usually separates you from "the masses."

Again, it is all about your audience. If they rate professional-level glass, then that is the price you will pay for top drawer work and to get the job. There is no use burning up wads of cash, unless your audience demands it. Take heart in knowing that there actually is a solid "middle ground" to stand on. I have found mine, for the moment, and it is bracketed by my glass decisions.

My eventual move to high-end glass is about a year away ... because the audience awaits. Progressing through school simple builds your art so that you can play in the symphony ... and eventually solo. You do need a good instrument to truly master your art, that is the truth ... but having a great instrument ... well, that can get you thunderous applause ... or at the very least, look really good. LOL

Just some insight, as I move through the educational system.

Remember: Anyone can criticize it ... but, it still takes an "artist" to create it. Make it so.

[OsmosisStudios]

A lot of talk but not much being said.

You're saying that second-rate glass works for your uses. Why, then, recommend it to someone without asking what their needs are? That's like me telling you that you NEED a Lamborghini without asking you any questions. It's dumb.

[DonSchap]

It does not take much of a "brain-child" to recommend the most expensive tool in the box ... as you are effectively saying "forget experience with anything else" ... who needs it, right? Why even bother reviewing anything less? A true waste of time, according to your method. How silly of us to presume something else may serve the cause. I suppose if you are selling glass, it stands to reason to try and unload the most profit making unit you have on the shelf.

Well, I am here to tell you I have the experience ... I have taken the time ... and when I recommend something ... I am saying I would use it ... and probably have. If you want to use something else ... get on with it and quit making a big deal about it. Just pony up your art and stand by it.

I have done so. Enjoy!