Looking for a "compact" respectable alt tele-prime.
Ideally 300/4-4.5, or 400/4-5.6.
Off the top of my head, I know of:
1) Nikon 300/4.5, many versions- AI(S), ED, ED-IF. I like the concept of the more compact ED-IF. They seem to go for up around 400+ I don't like that.
2) Canon 300/4 (L). Great I'm sure, no clue on price or size.
3) Oly 300/4.5. I'm sure it's small in typical OM fashion, and the price isn't terrible. Is it worth a damn?
4) Minolta?
5) Pentax?
6) Third-party?
I have a Tamron Adaptall 500/8. It is pretty nice, but the focus throw is super long, and even for a mirror it is bulky. I think a small 300 would be a better "carry" tele for my bag. I'm now shooting a NEX-6 for now. I really like the thought of sticking with Nikkors, but am open to whatever.
I would skip the Minolta 300/4.5 if size is important to you. It's one of the bigger 300's. I wasn't impressed with the AIS 300/4.5 ED, although it is a great size. I've only used a single copy, so take this for what you will, but mine isn't good until f/8, where it is, admittedly, great. I generally like Nikon lenses, but not that one. I really like the FD 300/4L, and it's not excessively huge, but I think you'll find that prices run pretty close to comparable-condition Nikon EDs, and they aren't terribly easy to find from the retailers. The FD L was the best corrected of the 300's I tried. The color pallet is richer and warmer in tone than the standard FD lenses, but not quite up to the modern L's. That would probably be the 300 I'd use on the NEX if the guy who was going to sell it to me didn't change his mind after seeing me mount it on the NEX-7. So for now I'm using the Zeiss 300/4, which is probably bigger than you want and not particularly well corrected. I really like black and white conversions with that lens, but color shots can take some patience. Never used an Oly or Pentax 300.
The pickings get slimmer with 400s. I skipped the AI(S) just because of my bad experience with the 300. I have the Minolta 400/5.6 APO. It's a very good lens, but probably not the perfect lens for the NEX if you have any desire to handhold it, and not easy to find. It took me more than a few months to find a decent copy at a really good price and I'm planning to convert it to Alpha for the a99.
If size is the key, though, you might want to check out the Minolta 250/5.6 mirror lens. I've never used it. I didn't even know it existed until I found it while looking for info on the 400. It's apparently about the size of a short-tele and the few samples I found on the net look very good.
Can you specify what you mean with a "small 300" ?
Mentioning a 400 f/4 as a possibility and in the same post that a lens with diameter 84 mm and length 92 mm is "bulky" doesn't tell me what size you can accept.
For tele lenses, i find it hard to get around Canon EF for sony NEX. With the Metabones version II adapter you even get IS with lenses that have it. The EF 400 mm f/5.6 L is a bargain, and almost unrivalled for a 400mm f/5.6 lens. Both the 300 mm f/4 options with and without IS are size/weight efficient and excellent quality.
Metabones adapters support electronic aperture control of EF lenses.
Autofocus is supported with some lenses, but it is very slow and hunting. Severe defocus almost requires manual prefocus. AF is not supported with the 400 5.6.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
The Pentax 300/4 * "green star" is a nice compact good performing 300 with good focus movement. If you can find one that is...
Yes, it's very nice, and so is its twin SMC Pentax-M* 300/4, which I owned until recently. It's got to be the smallest 300mm f/4 ever made for an SLR. Plus, it's the only "M*" lens; bonus!
At 400mm, I recently picked up a SMC Pentax-M 400/5.6. It's also relatively small, and it works very well on my X-Pro 1, see
If you're possibly interested in "up to 300mm", then the Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300/4.5-5.6 is a real winner. Better IQ than the -M* 300/4, but a full stop slower. Also, the CZ has much better IQ than the Tamron SP 300/5.6, which is an old friend of mine, but now it's in the for-sale bin.
Unfortunately, you won't like the price for a CZ 100-300.
BTW, if you're ever looking for a 200mm lens for your NEX, then you can't beat the Olympus 200/4 OM. It usually sells for under $150 and it has better IQ than the CZ 100-300 at 200mm.
Wow...that Pentax is pretty tiny. Looks almost identical to my FD 200/2.8 IF. Any shots (with 100% crops) of subjects in bright light, wide open? (Looking for sharpness and PF control).
I can't find anything on the SMCP-M* 300/4 in my test examples database. I know I've done some comparisons with it. I'll look in my notebooks and let you know if anything comes up. From memory, it's an excellent lens in comparison with its contemporaries, but not as good as an EF 70-200/2.8L IS + 1.4x III (few are).
Don't go crazy... I'm still interested in seeing how it performs, but after seeing what this lens goes for on eBay, I won't be buying one, even if it were the golden lens. Seems they're going for $900-$1200 right now, so if I buy an alt 300mm prime, it'll likely be the FD 300/4L.
Jman13 wrote:
Don't go crazy... I'm still interested in seeing how it performs, but after seeing what this lens goes for on eBay, I won't be buying one, even if it were the golden lens. Seems they're going for $900-$1200 right now, so if I buy an alt 300mm prime, it'll likely be the FD 300/4L.
The Buy It Now prices for this lens are usually quite high, but the auction prices aren't so bad; the current Lens$db database shows about $400 to $700 for [E] to [M-] condition.
Back in my serious Pentax days I owned three "green star" telephotos, the 200/2.8 A *ED, the 300/4 *, and the mighty 400/2.8 A* ED IF. I had the 300 first and then plunked down the cash to get the two ED lenses. I was shooting a lot of pro golf and tennis at the time. The two ED lenses are stunning, even wide open. The 300, while not on par with the two ED lenses, was very nice, especially when you consider how well made and compact it was. Nice focus movement as well.
The other Pentax lenses I had were the 20/2.8 A, 28/2.8 A, 50/2 A and the totally amazing 85/1.4 A* which looking back now is my own personal poster child for "the lens that got away..."
These lenses, along with three Pentax LX bodies(with motor drives) was a fabulous kit. I switched to Pentax around 1987 after my Nikon stuff was stolen and really enjoyed using it. I dumped it all to go with the EOS AF system as I was shooting a lot of sports in dark situations after moving to the west coast in the mid 90s.
I had the SMC Pentax-A* ED 200/2.8, and it was a very nice lens. Noticeably better than the SMC Pentax 200/2.5, and Tamron SP 180/2.5 LD IF.
I'd love to have a SMC Pentax-A* ED 400/2.8 IF. One of them sold on eBay last month for $5000.
I had a single LX system (finders, winder, remote battery pack, screens, etc.). It was great, and a pleasure to use. I also used Pentax K2, ME, SuperProgram, MZ-5N, and MZ-7 cameras, but the LX was king! About the only part of the LX system that I didn't own was the bulk film back. Good thing I switched to digital!
jj birder wrote:
freaklikeme: This is a lens that interests me so could you explain these bits further?
"...the Zeiss 300/4, which is ... not particularly well corrected ... color shots can take some patience."
A lot of axial CA that's mostly gone by f/8. Here's an uncorrected and corrected shot with a lot of contrast on the tiger's fur at f5.6.
There's also transverse CA in the corners that never goes away, but it's only a problem if you want your 300 to be a landscape lens. Just don't put anything important in the extreme corners. I don't have any samples of this since I don't use the lens that way.
Last shot is a black and white conversion, which is why I keep the lens. For color, I prefer the Leica 250/4, which has the same axial CA issue as the Zeiss wide open, but it's mostly gone at f5.6. I also prefer the OOC colors on that lens.
This shot of Yannick Noah, taken at the US Open in the 1990s was shot on glorious Kodachrome 64 with my 13 pound Pentax 400/2.8 A* ED IF. Fabulous lens but you need a good manual focussing camera to get the best results. Not really what the OP is looking for I know but this very rare optic gets seldom mentioned anyway these days...
FYI, Pentax also made a smaller companion to this 400, namely the Pentax 300/2.8 A* ED IF. I am sure this lens would not be easy to find and I bet they go for top dollar in good condition. Not exactly a "compact" lens though...
