Does it make sense to buy a 180mm prime lens for my garden?

[JBW]

Trying to find an affordable quality zoom lens for my backyard with the sweet spot at the long end is a challenge.

Would it make sense to go with something like;


Tamron Telephoto SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD IF Macro Autofocus Lens for Sony Alpha & Minolta Maxxum Series

Brian

[Manfred M]

With your mobility issues, I would not recommend a long fixed focal length lens for you. For macro work, you can work within your limitations because of the relatively small movement required. To shoot a longer fixed focal length lens requires a lot of moving around (back and forth). I suspect you would find this difficult to do.

[JBW]

With your mobility issues, I would not recommend a long fixed focal length lens for you. For macro work, you can work within your limitations because of the relatively small movement required. To shoot a longer fixed focal length lens requires a lot of moving around (back and forth). I suspect you would find this difficult to do.

Could you suggest a Sony A Mount zoom with the sweet spot at the big end?

[Manfred M]

Unfortunately, I do not know the Sony lens range at all.

Lens sweet spots tend to be in the middle of the focal range, with some degree of softness at the short end and the long end. The problem is that these lenses tend to be slower at the long end, so stopping down and still being able to maintain a decent shutter speed can be an issue. The compromises that the lens designer has to make tend to be less of an issue if the zoom ratio is limited. Pro lenses are often limited to 3x or less for this reason, but 4x or 5x should be fine for your purposes.

Often lens defects (softness) show up in larger prints, but as you seem to only display on the web and your images are downsampled, this should be less of an issue for you.

[Stagecoach]

Brian, what subjects do you have available that you want to shoot in your back yard that the 90mm focal length is no good for?

My first thoughts are that a fixed 180mm is not going to be too useful unless specifically for macro bugs that you can't get too close to.

I spend hours sat in one place with my long lens fixed at 400mm without moving around, from sports to critters.

Other options are 70-300mm (Tamron and reasonable) or 70-400mm (Sony and a fortune)

Tamron 70-300 examples https://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron...h/31926299313/

[Black Pearl]

This lens gets consistently good reviews and I always got very good feedback from the the photographers I sold them to:

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/...y70300f4556gff

[JBW]

Brian, what subjects do you have available that you want to shoot in your back yard that the 90mm focal length is no good for?

My first thoughts are that a fixed 180mm is not going to be too useful unless specifically for macro bugs that you can't get too close to.

I spend hours sat in one place with my long lens fixed at 400mm without moving around, from sports to critters.

Other options are 70-300mm (Tamron and reasonable) or 70-400mm (Sony and a fortune)

Tamron 70-300 examples https://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron...h/31926299313/

Owls, hawks, kingfishers, sparrows, bats, lizards, turtles, pitta, snakes and sunbirds. For these the 90 just doesn't have the range. 2 to 6 meters is about as close as I can get.

[JBW]

This lens gets consistently good reviews and I always got very good feedback from the the photographers I sold them to:

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/...y70300f4556gff

The problem is that the sweet spot is at 70 and I'll be spending most of my time at the other end.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Brian,

Have you tried this exercise?
Take a shot with your 90mm, placing a subject in one corner
Then crop it to quarter size (obviously the quarter with the subject in)
Now assess whether that's filling the frame enough (ignore image quality)

This will give you an idea if 180mm is going to be long enough - I suspect not - a Kingfisher (if yours are similar size to UK ones), even at 2 - 3m, is going to be pretty small in the frame.

After that, you're down to the age old compromise between limited cash, focal length, max. aperture, lens weight (on monopod/single legged tripod?) and limitations of lens availability for the Sony/Minolta mount that will Autofocus, or using another format via an adaptor.

Not sure if Sony have a tele-convertor?
That might help with focal length, albeit at the risk of forcing manual focusing (depending aperture of prime lens and your camera body's AF capabilities).

HTH, Dave

[Black Pearl]

The problem is that the sweet spot is at 70 and I'll be spending most of my time at the other end.

It might be but if you read the review it is still excellent at other focal lengths, certainly in the centre where it matters most for a longer focal length lens.

[Stagecoach]

The problem is that the sweet spot is at 70 and I'll be spending most of my time at the other end.

Brian, from the test report I have just read on the Sony mentioned by Robin it states it's excellent at 70 but still good at 300 but with a bit of corner edge drop off. You are not going to get a zoom which is 'best' at the long end.

I shoot my 80-400 at max 400mm 90% of the time and the only time the images are not sharp enough for web viewing it's due to me, not the lens.

The more you spend the better things will be but I'll suggest you need a minimum of 300mm max FL for those subjects and working distance but ideally 400mm if budget allows

[JBW]

Brian, from the test report I have just read on the Sony mentioned by Robin it states it's excellent at 70 but still good at 300 but with a bit of corner edge drop off. You are not going to get a zoom which is 'best' at the long end.

I shoot my 80-400 at max 400mm 90% of the time and the only time the images are not sharp enough for web viewing it's due to me, not the lens.

The more you spend the better things will be but I'll suggest you need a minimum of 300mm max FL for those subjects and working distance but ideally 400mm if budget allows

How about this? I'd get the moon too.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._5_6_3_di.html

[DanK]

I strongly recommend that you do the sort of exercise that Dave suggested to get a concrete idea of what different focal lengths will give you.

For some time, my longest focal length that I used with an APS-C camera was 280mm (a 70-200 f/4 with a 1.4x converter). Where I used it, it was often not long enough for birds (other than the ones I can get close to, like surface-feeding ducks). But in your setting, they may be closer. Dave's exercise will give you the information you need. However, I am skeptical that a 180mm lens will be enough.

Re the Tamron 150-600: for a considerable time, I planned to buy either this or the competing Sigma contemporary. In the end, I went for the shorter canon 100-400 because it focuses closer. Time will tell whether that was a good decision of a foolish one. Either way, I have been struck by how much harder it is to use the 100-400 than my other lenses because of its weight. In round numbers, it's 1.5 kg. The Tamron is closer to 2 kg. To use that at 600 mm, you will need very solid support.

[Dave Humphries]

Of course Brian, the one advantage of the lens you link to in the first post is that it is a Macro lens, so if you've had issues with bugs being scared at the working distance with your 90mm, this should improve your chances of obtaining 1:1 at a greater working distance (i.e. distance from end of lens to subject, to be clear)

However, that won't help for most of the list of subjects you mention in post #7, nor the distance range of 2 - 6m.

[Manfred M]

Brian - we own the Sigma 150-500 and when used on my wife's APS-C crop frame camera (750mm FF equivalent) it was not that easy to use, even with a very heavy tripod and heavy duty ball head. A fraction of a degree one way or the other made a huge difference is getting the framing exactly right. My tripod is rated at 66lb / 30kg and my ball head is rated at 50lb / 23kg. I hang about 20-25lb of weight on it (plus the camera and lens) when I want a very steady shot.

Again, with your fine motor skills issues, are you sure you will be able to handle a monster lens like that? I don't 100% remember the details of your tripod, but I'm fairly certain that it won't be adequate for a heavy and long lens like the Tamron you are looking at.

[Cogito]

As Dave has pointed out - is 180mm long enough? And did you mean fixed focal length or zoom? For a fixed focal length lens I'd recommend looking for a Minolta 200mm or 300mm. For a zoom, try the Sony AF 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM.
And Sony do make a 1.4 teleconverter for alpha-mount cameras.

[NorthernFocus]

Hey, Brian. Manfred made a good point about the benefits of a zoom lens given your mobility restrictions. Plus when shooting animals even if you can change position it often scares away the critter or simply can't be done quickly enough.

Regarding the 70-300 Sony lens that Robin recommended, I've used PhotoZone reviews a good bit and find them to be very well done and very reliable. As a technical person I look at the methodology that testing labs use and IMO PhotoZone is one of the better labs for testing zoom lenses. DxO is very good for primes but their reports must be carefully studied to understand results for zoom lenses.

The lens in question is designed for full frame. The link that Robin provided is actually test results on a full frame camera. For test results with APS-C sensor here is the link . Recall that with the APS-C sensor you don't utilize the edges of the transmitted image which is the softest part of the lens. PhotoZone rates the lens significantly higher on the APS-C body and calls it "best in class" for 70-300mm lenses. It's not the least expensive.

Another possibility is to look for a used Tamron 200-500mm. The lens has been out of production for a few years but in its day was regarded as very good value(i.e. performance vs. cost). It is not image stabilized.

[rpcrowe]

Brian, at the risk of repeating what has been stated above. Please let me contribute some ideas:

1. For the subjects in post #7 (Owls, hawks, kingfishers, sparrows, bats, lizards, turtles, pitta, snakes and sunbirds.) you do not need a macro lens. Instead, you would very likely be better off with a 70-300mm Tamron (about $450 USA price) or a Sony 70-300mm (more expensive). The 300mm is still a bit short but, it is about the best you could do in that price range.

2. Now for creepie crawlies (of which you are abundantly supplied) the bare Sony zoom mentioned above will give you an approximately 1:3 ratio meaning that you can fill a crop frame with a subject that is 72mm x 48mm. The Tamron will allow you to fill the frame with an image of about 96mm x 60mm. Adding an extender or two will allow you to get closer and fill the frame with smaller subject. I don't know how well these lenses might work with a teleconverter...

3. I have used my 90mm f/2.8 Tamron with a 1.4x TC which gives it a focal length of 126mm. However, with my Canon mount Tamron macro, I have to add a short extension tube between the rear of the lens and the front of the 1.4x TC. This is a little bit sticky because adding the extension tube doesn't allow continuous focus from macro to infinity. In fact, I cannot focus at infinity at all. However, this might not be the case with the 90mm Tamron Macro and your Sony 1.4x TC....

I don't have any examples of the 90mm plus the 1.4x TC. But I do remember that the quality was really pretty decent....

[JBW]

Thanks to one and all. Seems to me that the consensus is that the 180 is to small and the 150/600 is way to big. Manfred's description of how he had to rig the tripod was an eye opener. It is apparently back to the drawing board.

One option that I am looking into is a small telescope. Some good glass comes with a minimum focusing distance of 15 to 25 meters.
Brian

[Dave Humphries]

~ However, with my Canon mount Tamron macro, I have to add a short extension tube between the rear of the lens and the front of the 1.4x TC. This is a little bit sticky because adding the extension tube doesn't allow continuous focus from macro to infinity. In fact, I cannot focus at infinity at all. However, this might not be the case with the 90mm Tamron Macro and your Sony 1.4x TC....~

I'm sure it still will be the case - adding any extension tube between lens and body will prevent it from focussing to infinity.

If you think about it, the lens was designed to focus infinity at a certain distance from the rear element and if you increase that by even the smallest tube (typ. 12mm), that will no longer be possible. I don't see how a TC will change that, but I've not tried it.