NEX Images Thread
/forum/topic/969329/545

1       2       3              545      
546
       547              704       705       end

freaklikeme
Registered: Apr 08, 2005
Total Posts: 5853
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:
xbarcelo wrote:
100% crops:

2 and 4 are actually very close to 100% crops


that first crop looks very nice, the other 3 pictures all look like they are slightly misfocused.

Mescalamba wrote:
You cant replace Leica with anything else..


my original plan was to downgrade my 350mm telyt to the 250mm telyt plus 1.4x teleconverter. i haven't been able to find any reasonably priced ones though (people seem to be asking the same amount i would get for selling my 350). then i got to thinking the 250/4 and various 300/4s aren't that much smaller, how much difference would it really make.

carstenw wrote:
sebboh wrote:
thanks carsten, that's disappointing to hear. perhaps i should rent it to see if it can work for me. at this point i'm more concerned with size than iq. i'm generally pretty happy with my 350mm but i never use it due to space and time constraints.


The 70/300 DO isn't a bad lens, it just isn't all that impressive, especially for the money. Why not pick up one of the many excellent 70-200/4 lenses, and a TC1.4x?


because those 70-200/4 lenses + 1.4x TC are nearly as big, slower, and probably worse performing with the exception of CA than my current lens. the idea is to cut size so i carry the lens more. any of the 70-200mm lenses are twice the length of the 70-300 DO before you even add the TC, plus they are also more expensive.
70-300mm DO: 9.91cm
70-200mm f/4 canikon: ~17.5cm
70-300mm DG OS sigma: 12.65cm
70-300mm G sony: 13.54
70-300mm IS USM canikon: 14.22cm
55-300mm DA pentax: 11.18cm
300/4 L IS canon: 22.10cm
350/4.8 leica: 27.5mm


I agree with Carsten's assessment on the DO. When I was looking for a zoom in this range for my dad, I compared it with the 70-300 IS, which is longer but, IIRC, it was either the same weight or lighter than the DO. I preferred everything about the 70-300 IS, particularly the performance at 300mm and the price, which was less than half of the DO.

You could consider the Pentax 300/4. I've never shot with it, but Jim B has one and it's tiny. Not quite as short as the DO, but I bet it weighs less.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10718
Country: United States

freaklikeme wrote:
sebboh wrote:
70-300mm DO: 9.91cm
70-200mm f/4 canikon: ~17.5cm
70-300mm DG OS sigma: 12.65cm
70-300mm G sony: 13.54
70-300mm IS USM canikon: 14.22cm
55-300mm DA pentax: 11.18cm
300/4 L IS canon: 22.10cm
350/4.8 leica: 27.5mm


I agree with Carsten's assessment on the DO. When I was looking for a zoom in this range for my dad, I compared it with the 70-300 IS, which is longer but, IIRC, it was either the same weight or lighter than the DO. I preferred everything about the 70-300 IS, particularly the performance at 300mm and the price, which was less than half of the DO.

You could consider the Pentax 300/4. I've never shot with it, but Jim B has one and it's tiny. Not quite as short as the DO, but I bet it weighs less.


70-300 IS L or non L? i've been looking at the pentax, seems they made a number of different versions, and i've been having trouble finding samples from the smc A, which is the small one i believe. for me weight isn't a concern, it's just space that i'm short on. i wish somebody would make collapsible prime telephotos, they really are ridiculously long and full of empty space when you get to 300mm and above. i'm not really interested in the shorter parts of the focal range on these zooms, so they do feel like a bit of a waste of optical correction to some degree.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15972
Country: Germany

Is that this one? Doesn't look all that small or light?







sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10718
Country: United States

carstenw wrote:
Is that this one? Doesn't look all that small or light?







that's it. if i remember correctly it's the smallest 300/4-4.5 lens by nearly an inch, but i can't find it's actual length right now. i'm sure it's still noticeably bigger than the smaller 70-300mm zooms though. the extra stop would be nice, but i have no idea what exactly it's size is or how it performs.

edit: the pentax is 13.2cm long. that's right there with the normal 70-300mm zooms! that front part does look kinda awkward for storage though. 84mm diameter 77mm filter thread.


freaklikeme
Registered: Apr 08, 2005
Total Posts: 5853
Country: United States

carstenw wrote:
Is that this one? Doesn't look all that small or light?







For a 300/4? It looks shorter when mounted... http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=46565

Certainly smaller than the Minolta 300/4.5 or the Contax 300/4. The AIS ED 300/4.5 could probably give it a run for it's money, but it's a slower lens.


freaklikeme
Registered: Apr 08, 2005
Total Posts: 5853
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
sebboh wrote:
70-300mm DO: 9.91cm
70-200mm f/4 canikon: ~17.5cm
70-300mm DG OS sigma: 12.65cm
70-300mm G sony: 13.54
70-300mm IS USM canikon: 14.22cm
55-300mm DA pentax: 11.18cm
300/4 L IS canon: 22.10cm
350/4.8 leica: 27.5mm


I agree with Carsten's assessment on the DO. When I was looking for a zoom in this range for my dad, I compared it with the 70-300 IS, which is longer but, IIRC, it was either the same weight or lighter than the DO. I preferred everything about the 70-300 IS, particularly the performance at 300mm and the price, which was less than half of the DO.

You could consider the Pentax 300/4. I've never shot with it, but Jim B has one and it's tiny. Not quite as short as the DO, but I bet it weighs less.


70-300 IS L or non L? i've been looking at the pentax, seems they made a number of different versions, and i've been having trouble finding samples from the smc A, which is the small one i believe. for me weight isn't a concern, it's just space that i'm short on. i wish somebody would make collapsible prime telephotos, they really are ridiculously long and full of empty space when you get to 300mm and above. i'm not really interested in the shorter parts of the focal range on these zooms, so they do feel like a bit of a waste of optical correction to some degree.


Non-L. The L was a few years away from coming into being when I was looking. You can find some limited samples for the Pentax here... http://plg.komkon.org/

I'm right there with you on the collapsible tele primes.



freaklikeme
Registered: Apr 08, 2005
Total Posts: 5853
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:
carstenw wrote:
Is that this one? Doesn't look all that small or light?







that's it. if i remember correctly it's the smallest 300/4-4.5 lens by nearly an inch, but i can't find it's actual length right now. i'm sure it's still noticeably bigger than the smaller 70-300mm zooms though. the extra stop would be nice, but i have no idea what exactly it's size is or how it performs.

edit: the pentax is 13.2cm long. that's right there with the normal 70-300mm zooms! that front part does look kinda awkward for storage though. 84mm diameter 77mm filter thread.

But isn't that comparing min. length of the zooms? Except for the 70-200s, none of these are internal zooms, so at 300, they'll all be longer. I know that doesn't make things better for you, but I think it's a point in favor of why the Pentax is considered small.

How about the Minolta 100-300 APO? It's cheap, light, decently sharp, and you'd only need the LAEA1 to change aperture, and those can be picked up really cheap now.


sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10718
Country: United States

freaklikeme wrote:
How about the Minolta 100-300 APO? It's cheap, light, decently sharp, and you'd only need the LAEA1 to change aperture, and those can be picked up really cheap now.


is it really any good?



mawz
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Total Posts: 8321
Country: Canada

sebboh wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
How about the Minolta 100-300 APO? It's cheap, light, decently sharp, and you'd only need the LAEA1 to change aperture, and those can be picked up really cheap now.


is it really any good?


The APO's good, but no match for the 70-300G, it's more comparable to the original 75-300 'Big Beercan' (Minolta has two 75-300 designs, one's huge and pretty good, the other is the same crappy rebadged unit that shows up everywhere). If I was going for a less common A mount lens I'd look for the 100-400 APO, which is 70-300 sized, surprisingly good and offers an extra 100mm of reach. It's slow at the long end though, f6.3 IIRC.

Also worth noting there's a second Minolta 100-300 that's non-APO and a real dog.



Jim Schemel
Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Total Posts: 4818
Country: United States

Since this is an image thread I will add one
Jim

7/ Jupiter 9.
Oak Leaf by jmschemel, on Flickr



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10718
Country: United States

yeah, this page made it too far without images.

rokkor 58/1.2 at f/2:



rokkor 28/2 at f/2.8:




freaklikeme
Registered: Apr 08, 2005
Total Posts: 5853
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
How about the Minolta 100-300 APO? It's cheap, light, decently sharp, and you'd only need the LAEA1 to change aperture, and those can be picked up really cheap now.


is it really any good?


I agree with what Adam said about the G, but I think, at 300, the APO can keep up with either the big beer can or the 100-400.

And just so I don't get kicked out of the thread, the Minolta 17/4 wide open on the 7.



ebookman
Registered: Jul 15, 2012
Total Posts: 710
Country: United States

Today I carried a single lens on the Nex 5N. It is a new to me Canon Macro FD 50mm F3.5. While I did experiment with macro shots I was quite interested in favorable comments I had read about using the lens as a landscape and portrait lens. It was a nice day on the desert as the desert is coming into bloom. I also included a pic of my granddaughter who rode with me today.



JimParsons
Registered: Jul 06, 2003
Total Posts: 217
Country: United States

Jim Schemel wrote:
Since this is an image thread I will add one
Jim


Incredible image Jim, nicely done!



Jim Schemel
Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Total Posts: 4818
Country: United States

JimParsons wrote:
Jim Schemel wrote:
Since this is an image thread I will add one
Jim


Incredible image Jim, nicely done!


Thanks Jim.I was struggling for something interesting to shoot that morning, found some good light on the leaf.
Jim



ulrikft2
Registered: Oct 21, 2009
Total Posts: 2104
Country: Norway

Contax-g zeiss 45/2 + nex-7:







alwang
Registered: Sep 02, 2011
Total Posts: 1049
Country: United States

CV 15:


ruffled meadow by alwang, on Flickr


in silo by alwang, on Flickr



ebookman
Registered: Jul 15, 2012
Total Posts: 710
Country: United States

Still experimenting with Nex 5N and Canon Macro FD 50mm F3.5. Here are two hand held macro shots at F16 with (-1) exposure compensation.



Jim Schemel
Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Total Posts: 4818
Country: United States

ulrikft2 - nice portrait of your wife, nice natural expression.

ebookman - nice color with the FD glass

-Jim

Here are a few stray cat shots, all with Jupiter 9 / Nex 7

























Jacob D
Registered: Mar 30, 2009
Total Posts: 1757
Country: United States

Jim, nice cat portraits. Love the classic cat tongue.


I was out running today at Henry Coe State Park. After the run I snapped these with my 5N + CV 21/1.8.



















































(set to f5.6 and pointed at the sky... sorta worked)






1       2       3              545      
546
       547              704       705       end