Thanks to PlasticMotif, I'm switching rapidly over to the Nex7 as my primary camera. Previous to my changeover I was lugging around a Nikon D300, 17-50 2.8 and the monstrous 80-200 2.8. I'm considering going all into the Nex system as I've fallen in love with the portability and performance of the system.
The only thing holding me back is the ability to shoot with long lenses. I don't do it very often and when I do it's usually take some shots, look at them a few times and forget them. They aren't my primary lenses. But it is fun to shoot the Blue Angels at the airshow or grab a few at the local race track. I'm considering just getting the 55-210 as a 'fun lens' and going with that. I could also go with the 18-200 but that is a lot of money for a lens I would rarely use. Does anyone use the Nex as a primary body with longer lenses?
The LA-EA2 / A-mount 70-300mm G will be my ideal long telephoto setup since this combo delivers much better subject tracking ability than the NEX-5N / 55-210mm my brother has.
Currently, I'm using a nex-5N / Canon 70-300mm setup:
A.Y. Those are great shots. But I don't think spending a lot on an AF adapter is in my plans. I'm probably going to go with either a native lens or go MF.
Sebboh, I've got a 200F4 pentax that I've had good luck with on my old pentax bodies. I'm thinking that I may just go the MF route for the rare times I need it.
The more I use the Nex the more I consider selling my D300 and kit.
VaughnA wrote:
Sebboh, I've got a 200F4 pentax that I've had good luck with on my old pentax bodies. I'm thinking that I may just go the MF route for the rare times I need it.
The more I use the Nex the more I consider selling my D300 and kit.
sounds like a good plan to me if you've been happy with the performance of the pentax on aps-c. it should handle pretty nicely on a NEX-7 though the CA might show up more on the high density sensor. focus peaking works great on telephotos at short to medium distances, it's less useful near infinity.
I like MF better than AF for long shots. AF is always getting confused by FG or BG objects and when it does hit and I compare that to my MF abilities using the live-view systems we all have now, there's (almost) always a little bit of error in the AF one. So like, why do I have this really expensive lens again? AF is great for wide shots at parties and stuff tho - using the camera more like a point & shoot thing.
I'd say its very much possible!
I went though a phase last summer with my 7 when I started shooting random people in crowds. With the FD 300mm f2.8 florite I found I could really nail focus even moving. With the FD 200 macro f4, focus wasn't as nice because the focus ring is rather quick near infinity. With the Contax 180mm f2.8, focusing was nearly as easy as the 300mm.
I'd definitely recommend trying the pentax first but keep an eye out for CA, it can make focusing difficult even if its possible to correct in post.
My last outing with the 300 was a ladies soccer match and I found that when shooting at f5.6 I could train my eye not to even need the MF assist. I was getting shoes and the ball in focus (thats what I wanted) even after review on the computer.
Sadly I made the mistake of buying a myrex tilt-shift adapter and sold off the 300mm so I could buy an A99 but its definitely not because the lens was unusable.
sebboh wrote:
i shoot digital exclusively with the NEX now. sadly i haven't had much chance to go out with my long lens since i got the nex-7, but here are a few with it (leica R 350/4.8)
...
Interesting development
Seems to be a natural evolution.
The toughest thing for me with the long lenses (while hand holding) is trying to manually focus. There's so much jitter on the screen I almost have to trust the peaking. I haven't used any long+fast lenses and doubt many would do that with the NEX anyway, but I think that might be a major challenge unless using a tripod. The longest lens I currently own is a 90mm, which is plenty manageable
Jacob D wrote:
The toughest thing for me with the long lenses (while hand holding) is trying to manually focus. There's so much jitter on the screen I almost have to trust the peaking. I haven't used any long+fast lenses and doubt many would do that with the NEX anyway, but I think that might be a major challenge unless using a tripod. The longest lens I currently own is a 90mm, which is plenty manageable
i don't find that using focus assist is really necessary with big telephotos, i only use it when i'm shooting something near infinity. i've also found focus magnification to be a little jittery at 350mm, at 200mm it's fine for me though.
I think that with integrated EVFs (NEX-6/7) its much easier to MF than if you try handhold 5N or so. Tho when its shaped like lets say GH3, its super-easy. If Sony stopped trying to make everything "ultra-small" and made body similar to GH3 (or lets say E-1.. that) then it would be great even for long lens.
Otherwise, tripod mounted lens are probably easiest way for MF..
Mescalamba wrote:
I think that with integrated EVFs (NEX-6/7) its much easier to MF than if you try handhold 5N or so. Tho when its shaped like lets say GH3, its super-easy. If Sony stopped trying to make everything "ultra-small" and made body similar to GH3 (or lets say E-1.. that) then it would be great even for long lens.
Otherwise, tripod mounted lens are probably easiest way for MF..
i actually much prefer the 7's grip for any kind of lens to the gh's but i haven't tried the 3. i also apparently have weird shaped hands, the pro nikons don't provide a comfortable grip for my long fingers.
I haven't sprung for the 18-200 for my Nex 7 yet, but I have a 18-270 for my Nikon D5100 and use that for about 90% of my shots, don't know why one would shoot 90% without one?
sorney1
sorney1 wrote:
I haven't sprung for the 18-200 for my Nex 7 yet, but I have a 18-270 for my Nikon D5100 and use that for about 90% of my shots, don't know why one would shoot 90% without one?
sorney1
90% without what? a super-zoom? i shoot without one 100% of the time. actually i shoot without a zoom 100% of the time. as to why: they are too big, slow, and i'm not a fan of their performance. it all depends on how you shoot and what you want.
Mescalamba wrote:
I think that with integrated EVFs (NEX-6/7) its much easier to MF than if you try handhold 5N or so. Tho when its shaped like lets say GH3, its super-easy. If Sony stopped trying to make everything "ultra-small" and made body similar to GH3 (or lets say E-1.. that) then it would be great even for long lens.
Otherwise, tripod mounted lens are probably easiest way for MF..
That's a good point... mine is a 5N and 200mm was really shaking around on the LCD. Braced against the face it's gotta be a better experience.
SoulNibbler wrote:
Sadly I made the mistake of buying a myrex tilt-shift adapter and sold off the 300mm so I could buy an A99 but its definitely not because the lens was unusable.
I had some rough going at first with my NEX-5N being able to steady the camera with any lens that had weight. Some of the problem was unique to me because of my eyesight up close. Most of my handheld shots were blurry. I solved all my problems by adding a hood with diopter and a handle I fashioned myself. The hood acts as a viewfinder and adds a third point for stabilization (my head). The handle was necessary for me because I just wasn't comfortable with the small size of the camera grip. However, these add-ons defeat any benefit of the small camera size. One of my most used lenses is a MF 200/3 prime. I'm able to use it with no problems.
Wow, never heard the 80-200 described as monstrous. I can't think of many long lenses that are going yo be small enough for you. Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4, maybe?
AF is great for wide shots at parties and stuff tho - using the camera more like a point & shoot thing. 
