This is Joe Gunja again, and I really appreciate everyone's help. It has been stellar and so helpful. I am looking on EBAY for 200mm+ lenses, and have a few questions. Here is an example of the lens identification:
Tamron 200-400mm F/5.6 or F/4 Macro or Zoom ... and either IS or Vr
I understand the brand part and the mm range. However, what does the "F" mean-- is that the maximum F-Stop (Aperture) for the particular lens?
Are macro lenses only for close-ups, or can they also be used for telephoto zoom. AND, are zooms what they imply. I intend to do a lot of nature zoom and far range shots, so which one do I need (Macro or Zoom).
I believe IS and VR are for "Vibration Reduction" and "Image Stabilization."
I also see the range of the price of lenses varies, but I am not sure what exactly to look for for a zoom lens. I see some in the $200 range, with others in $700-$2500 range. What is the difference?
I also am confused about the F-Stop function on cameras. The digital one I have goes from 2.8 to 8.0, and now that will be buying a DSLR, I need to understand this more. As I have learned being an upper level manager and leader in my job, sometimes the best thing to admit is when you are "ignorant" or unknowledgeable about something. Well, here I am.
If you can either provide some guidance or a resource to learn more, it would be most appreciated. Thank you!
Posted by Basil Greber on June 14, 2006 at 6:39 AM
Packing all questions into one thread would make replying easier.
1) You're correct, this means the largest aperture available for that lens. Smaller number = better (f/2.8 better than f/4), better meaning that you can shoot with less light and still get fast shutter speeds, or that you can isolate your subject from the background well (important for wildlife, for example).
2) Zooms can be macros and macros can be zooms. Zoom simply means that the focal lenght is variable. Macro means that you can achieve large reproduction ratios (1/1 or 1/2, meaning that you can get so close to the subject that one inch in real life will be one inch on your sensor for 1/1). There are lots of do-it-all macro-tele-zooms that achieve reproduction ratios of 1/4 or 1/2 but can also be used to shoot subjects far away - they are not "real" macro lenses such as Nikon's 105/2.8 Macro, which are specialized for close-up photography, though.
3) Correct.
4) Usually the more expensive, the better, unfortunately. More expensive lenses are better built, have sharper optics, focus faster, have larger aperture values etc. There are few good lenses that are also cheap, and some lenses stink utterly (I bought a Phoenix 100-400 once on eBay - was usable more or less till 300 and above this all you got was some kind of blur on the image). You'll often find lens reviews on the internet, just have a look there.
Basil
Posted by Alan Olander on June 14, 2006 at 9:32 AM
There are a number of good books that answer many of your basic questions. One that comes to mind is John Shaw's, "Nature Photography Field Guide". It's a bit dated in that it doesn't cover digital topics, but there is a lot of information about lenses, exposure, macro, etc. that applies to both film and digital.
The easy answer on prices of zooms is you get waht you pay for. I would not consider the Tamron 200-400. The concensus seems to be that the Sigma 50-500 or the Tamron 200-500 are better quality. The Tamron can be had for about $800 and that is about the minimum you will pay for "pro" quality in a super-zoom.
I agree that a good general nature photography book might be a big help to you.
Posted by Kent Staubus on June 14, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Avoid the Tamron 200-400mm. Now that you're looking around a bit at lenses, you seem to be discovering that really those are where you put your money--not the camera. IS and VR are electronic anti-shake mechanisms, similar to the Sony Steady-shot. They do work, but add to the price. About the only lenses with that which you will likely find affordable are the Nikon 80-400mm VR, Canon 100-400mm IS, and Canon 300mm f4 IS (you'll need a 1.4x for wildlife with that one.) Avoid cheap lenses, especially zooms. You will be throwing money down the toilet. For what you want, plan on spending at least $500 and more like $750, and that's for a used lens. You will also need a very good tripod.
A real macro lens is one that can produce a life sized image, and they are generally used to photo insects, flowers, and so on. When a zoom lens is advertised as "macro", that almost always simply means it can focus a little closer. For example, instead of needing at least 14 feet of distance to the subject, it might only need 10 feet.
Another lens you might consider is the Sigma 400mm f5.6--the NON zoom. There are several versions of this lens out there, but the one you want is the one that takes 77mm filters, not the 72mm. They seem to run about $500 on eBay. I still think the Sigma 50-500mm used from eBay is the way for you to go, considering what you want. Go cheap on the camera, put the money on the lenses and tripod.
Kent in SD
Posted by Basil Greber on June 14, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Good suggestion on the Sigma 400 f/5.6, Kent. I think the APO Macro version (looks distinctly different of the rest) of this lens is the best of the series, and I've seen very good reviews on it, the APO is so-so, and the non-APO really performs poorly.
Basil
Posted by Jerry Greer on June 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM
Don't forget the Sigma APO 80-400 EX OS! I've tested this lens with against the EF100-400 IS and image quality is as good or better. The only difference is the size, it's bigger, and the AF is a bit slower. Oh, and it's less expensive by about $400. As for the Nikon 80-400, it doesn't compare in build or in $$$$ to the Sigma.
My understanding about macro lenses (I just bought the Canon 100mm macro) is that you can use them as a telephoto lens but generally the autofocus does not work as fast as the autofocus on an actual telephoto lens.
Even the earlier Sigma APO 400 f/5.6 is a pretty decent lens. I used one on my F4S in Africa a few years back with good to excellent results, even wide open. You do need to observe good tele lens practice, like with any other long lens.
Discussion
9 repliesTamron 200-400mm F/5.6 or F/4 Macro or Zoom ... and either IS or Vr
I understand the brand part and the mm range. However, what does the "F" mean-- is that the maximum F-Stop (Aperture) for the particular lens?
Are macro lenses only for close-ups, or can they also be used for telephoto zoom. AND, are zooms what they imply. I intend to do a lot of nature zoom and far range shots, so which one do I need (Macro or Zoom).
I believe IS and VR are for "Vibration Reduction" and "Image Stabilization."
I also see the range of the price of lenses varies, but I am not sure what exactly to look for for a zoom lens. I see some in the $200 range, with others in $700-$2500 range. What is the difference?
I also am confused about the F-Stop function on cameras. The digital one I have goes from 2.8 to 8.0, and now that will be buying a DSLR, I need to understand this more. As I have learned being an upper level manager and leader in my job, sometimes the best thing to admit is when you are "ignorant" or unknowledgeable about something. Well, here I am.
If you can either provide some guidance or a resource to learn more, it would be most appreciated. Thank you!
1) You're correct, this means the largest aperture available for that lens. Smaller number = better (f/2.8 better than f/4), better meaning that you can shoot with less light and still get fast shutter speeds, or that you can isolate your subject from the background well (important for wildlife, for example).
2) Zooms can be macros and macros can be zooms. Zoom simply means that the focal lenght is variable. Macro means that you can achieve large reproduction ratios (1/1 or 1/2, meaning that you can get so close to the subject that one inch in real life will be one inch on your sensor for 1/1). There are lots of do-it-all macro-tele-zooms that achieve reproduction ratios of 1/4 or 1/2 but can also be used to shoot subjects far away - they are not "real" macro lenses such as Nikon's 105/2.8 Macro, which are specialized for close-up photography, though.
3) Correct.
4) Usually the more expensive, the better, unfortunately. More expensive lenses are better built, have sharper optics, focus faster, have larger aperture values etc. There are few good lenses that are also cheap, and some lenses stink utterly (I bought a Phoenix 100-400 once on eBay - was usable more or less till 300 and above this all you got was some kind of blur on the image). You'll often find lens reviews on the internet, just have a look there.
Basil
The easy answer on prices of zooms is you get waht you pay for. I would not consider the Tamron 200-400. The concensus seems to be that the Sigma 50-500 or the Tamron 200-500 are better quality. The Tamron can be had for about $800 and that is about the minimum you will pay for "pro" quality in a super-zoom.
I agree that a good general nature photography book might be a big help to you.
A real macro lens is one that can produce a life sized image, and they are generally used to photo insects, flowers, and so on. When a zoom lens is advertised as "macro", that almost always simply means it can focus a little closer. For example, instead of needing at least 14 feet of distance to the subject, it might only need 10 feet.
Another lens you might consider is the Sigma 400mm f5.6--the NON zoom. There are several versions of this lens out there, but the one you want is the one that takes 77mm filters, not the 72mm. They seem to run about $500 on eBay. I still think the Sigma 50-500mm used from eBay is the way for you to go, considering what you want. Go cheap on the camera, put the money on the lenses and tripod.
Kent in SD
Basil
Sigma 50-500
Sigma 80-400
Tamron 200-500
300mm with converters
Sigma 400mm (if you can find it)
Nikon 70-300 ED (if you are out of money)