Shaun_300 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 I mentioned last week that I finally got a new lens for my Sony a200 and I remember Mike (SuperMn106) asking about the zoom difference the 75-300mm will have over the 18-70mm lens. Tonight I did some shots with both lenses to show you guys how much difference it really is. Moon, 75-300mm lens @ 300mm Night sky 18-70mm Lens 18mm 35mm 70mm 75-300mm lens 75mm 135mm 300mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMn106 Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Thanks Shaun, I appreciate you showing me the difference. It looks like it does quite well. The only question that I have is, my camera is a 12x zoom, would the 300mm be equivalent to that or better? It looks like it would be better from your pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tominator Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yep, all the diference in the world eh Shaun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddyboman Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 big difference as we all can see!! One thing to know (as I'm sure you do) any movement really shows with that extra zoom. So a tripod or steady rest is a must. Mike... One of the cameras I have is a Kodak. This is my through in the truck or back pack and take with me to the woods camera. It has a 10x optical zoom on it, and say its equivalent to 380mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun_300 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yeah Todd, the movement really shows up with the extra zoom! I had it resting on the window sill when I was taking those pics. I'll have to get a tripod one of these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mach1 Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Really wanting to get my 75-300mm lens out for our Canon Rebel XS. Haven't had a chance to use it outside yet. Been stuck inside using the 18-55mm standard lens so far. The zoom difference is amazing and I too need to get a tripod for the long zooming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clrj3514 Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 nice pics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Pretty cool comparison Shaun. I have zoom lenses in 70-210 and 35-70 for my minolta dslr(wish I had held out for the sony line), still wanting to eventually get something for a bit more extended ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun_300 Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Pretty cool comparison Shaun. I have zoom lenses in 70-210 and 35-70 for my minolta dslr(wish I had held out for the sony line), still wanting to eventually get something for a bit more extended ranges. You could just get a 2x teleconverter William and use the lenses you already have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 A tripod really helps clarity of zoom images. You can get away with an awful lot with Canon's image stabilization though. The IS option really shines on zoom. Canon's IS is done mechanically versus electronically. Electronic image stabilization doesn't seem to be nearly as forgiving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruttinbuc Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Thanks Shaun, I appreciate you showing me the difference. It looks like it does quite well. The only question that I have is, my camera is a 12x zoom, would the 300mm be equivalent to that or better? It looks like it would be better from your pictures. The range of the zoom on a 12x optical zoom depends on the diameter of the lens. The lens on my Canon is 36mm x 12x making it 432mm at full zoom. But in no way will it capture the quality of picture. The more mega-pixels the better the quality. These samples at 6.0mp show the difference in zoom lengths and reminds me to get the duster out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billkay Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 If you are able to set the shutter speed and aperture yourself, the rule of thumb is to set the shutter speed to the inverse of the length of the lens, to avoid shake while handholding the camera. For instance, if you have a 200mm lens, set the shutter speed to 1/200th of a second, (or the closest possible setting). A 500mm lens would need a 1/500th sec shutter speed. Conversly, if you have a wide angle lens, say a 14mm, you can handhold it a 1/15th of a sec. As far as 2x converters go, I don't particularly care for them. They eat a ton of light, you'll lose 2 stops of light with a 2x, and the sharpness of a photo is degraded. I noticed the comparison of focal lengths. For something really eye opening, try this. Find a willing person to shoot pix of outside with lots of room. Make a horizontal photo of them with your widest angle lens, ie 15mm, 28mm, etc. Put the top of their head touching the top of the frame, and their chin touching the bottom of the frame. Take more shots of the person, again with their head touching the top and their chin on the bottom, as you use longer and longer lens, 100mm, 200mm, 300mm, etc. Always keep their head the same in the shot. Look at the difference in the backgrounds in each of the photos. I'd love to see the results posted here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Yep Bill, anyone thinking about going the Teleconverter route don't get some 2x or larger model. In my experience they are a disaster. Save your money. Just a 1.5x teleconverter is a HUGE improvement. I think the benefit of a teleconverter stops about 1.75x. I've got a 1.5x and is was definitely worth it. There are a lot of aftermarket converters out there preying on unsuspecting folks who think a 2x or 3x must be better than a 1.5x. Beware. Stick with what teleconverter your camera manufacturer makes and you'll be much happier. As Bill stated teleconverters are indeed "Light eaters". That's because the light must pass through two extra lenses before it ever gets to your camera lense. Light transmission through lenses is expensive to improve. For the most part you'll get what you pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.