300mm suggestion for wildlife?

[dnas]

An older Tokina AT-X 100-300mm F4.

I'm not sure it would fit into your budget though.

[Toeteraar]

Tamron CT 5.6/300 can be found at nice prices. Less legendary than the Tamrons mentioned above but a nice compact 300mm that gives good images.


Tair 3PhS(in this case with a small extension ring). Freaking sharp but less compact than the Tamron CT


Meyer Orestegor 4/300. A ton of glass and heavy metal, but all about quality.

[battleaxe]

[Attila]

Great pictures I love them!

NO TC to me, most of them degrade IQ for sure.

[battleaxe]

It looks like so far most of the suggestions here are either hard to find or out of budget(unless I could locate one in not the best shape). Any other suggestions?

[fermy]

IMHO Tair-3 Photosnaiper is a no-brainer for your purpose as it's usable handheld, great glass, not very expensive.

[Aanything]

[kansalliskala]

[NewStuff]

[martyn_bannister]

+1 Tair-3 - PHs PHOTOSNIPER version will be less expensive.

Hoya 100-300mm zoom anyone?

[battleaxe]

I guess I will keep an eye on the Tair-3, but that may seem to be hard to find one within my budget. The Penetcon/Meyer also looks to be another one to keep an eye out for.

Is the Hoya any good, it looks interesting and I am warming up again to the idea of a zoom lens? What about the Olympus 50-250mm or 85-250mm?

Thank you.

[hifisapi]

[Lenny On Ice]

[battleaxe]

I take you mean 250 as in MM, right? How is the general quality of those 250mm Olympus lenses? I could be perfectly fine with the 250mm range, but I found 300mm to be more common I decided to ask about that.

Edit: nvm just took a look at some of the pics taken with the Hoya, and it lacks a bit of sharpness. Not really for me.
Really the more I think about the more I think I would like a zoom, as it would allow me to more easily frame the bird more easily in the shot. Thanks.

[memento]

My experience is that especially on MFT cameras, most old zooms are worse optically than prime lenses. And even a lot of prime lenses have quality issues when used on MFT cameras, e.g. if they don't have apochromatic glass. So I wonder if there is a solution for you to find a zoom lens that a) reaches 250+ mm, b) is as sharp as you'd like it to be, c) is available for below 100 quid. Thomas

[battleaxe]

Well I really enjoyed the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm, as it was sharp and easy to focus with good contrast. I thought it wouldn't too hard to find something like that lens, but in the 250mm+ range. I don't think they make a Series 1 in the 300mm range do they(and not one of the newer ones that isn't suppose to be as good)?

Right now I am watching a Tamron 300mm f5.6 on eBay, but I can't tell if it's a CT variant or not. Not to mention I tested out a non SP Tamron 70-210mm F4 and I didn't like how it focused and contrast wasn't what I was use to. The image here from the CT looks really nice, with good contrast, but not sure if I will like the focusing.

I have seen the word luxurious being thrown around in the 4/3 and m4/3 forums for the Oly zooms in the 250mm range. Is that really the case?

[battleaxe]

Should I just go with another Series 1 since I enjoyed the last one I had, or would the Tamron SP 60-300mm be just as nice, and easy to focus with?

[RAART]

I have both lenses you mention... Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm 3.5 Macro and Tamron 300mm 5.6

I do not see any difference in focusing or prefer one over other.

The Tamron is slightly more difficult to focus when hand-held but this is only due to longer focal range of 300mm and nothing else. Mounted on tripod it is the same no difference and very easy to focus due to big focusing ring which in both cases has very similar turn (around 3/4).

Tamron is lighter then Vivitar.

Tamron has integrated tripod mount.

for Vivitar you have to order adapter with tripod mount on order to use it.

Vivitar is able to focus closer then Tamron and has Macro capability.

Tamron is easier to adapt in case you use Nikon or Pentax, but not sure about Canon. It just need to be changed Adapt-A-Matic or Adaptall-2 depending on the lens (older or newer) to camera you use. In case of using on M4/3 that does not matter.

Now, you decide for yourself...

[memento]

[battleaxe]

[memento]

I think, of these two, the 85-250 would be more interesting for you. The older 50-250 seems to be much more rare, so it today has a higher collector value, and also the optics on the newer 85-250 have a better reputation. At least that's what I have read, but most of it was referring to film cameras – anyway I guess that a lens that performs better on film cameras would also be rather better on the more demanding digital sensors. I've seen some 85-250s pop up at ebay recently and am also playing with the idea to get one for my E-M5, but somehow I dislike that you always have to reset the actual focal length to make the body stabilisation work correctly. Thomas

[battleaxe]

I guess I really don't have to worry about that since I have a Panasonic m4/3 camera. I think may want to try out the 85-250mm, unless other have something to else to say. Thanks

[RAART]

In this case (Panasonic m4/3) I will say stay lower focal length while Panasonic's do not have in-body image stabilization like Olympus and you have to use always a tripod not even a monopod unless you really have steady hand or you are marksman/sharpshooter/sniper.

[RAART]

[battleaxe]