I'm using a multi-coated copy (not easy to find) of the OM 200/5, which is pretty sharp from wide open. I'm not sure how much difference the MC makes to contrast, but I would assume it has some impact.
At f/6.3 (between the actual f/5 click and the f/8 click stop) it seems the sharpest. It does have CA, so extra TLC is required in post. But it is so small and light, I actually have it with me most times when needed.
I can recommend the Tamron 70-300 VC (765 grams). My wife just came back from a trip to Patagonia where she used this lens to photograph seals and penguins with excellent results.
I have to note that 95% of the time she was at 300mm... on APS-C... and still couldn't fill the frame with the subjects most of the time unless the boat was coming super close to the seals, for example. So 180~200mm on FF may be nowhere near sufficient for wildlife (though that depends on definitions, and on location too).
alundeb wrote:
I guess most people will dismiss it because it is APS-C, but it actually makes sense to consider this lens. 200mm on Full Frame is too short for wildlife, and you are going to crop anyway. The APS-C zoom lens goes to 250 mm and is lighter, longer and better than the classic FF primes when cropped.
If weight saving is extremely important I would sacrifice some focal length and go for the native Sony E 55-210. It would save the adapter and some extra grams for the lens as well.
Agree, Canon 55-250STM is a potential option when one needs to crop anyway, but depends very much on the priorities and the mount adapter capabilities. The f/4-5.6 55-250 IS STM is just 375 gram, very small, very cheap even new and optically very good for the price. There will be some compromise in corner sharpness but not more than in other zooms costing several times more. The lens has IS and AF but I don't know how well that works adapted to Sony.
The main downside IMHO is hopeless MF control, which makes it impossible to do fast and accurate MF. If MF is important (when you can't use or trust MF) I would definitely prefer the Canon 2.8/200L. I have both lenses and depending on the kind of subject I use one or the other; the 2.8/200 has excellent corner sharpness and excellent MF control. While relatively light/small for its spec it is double the weight of the 55-250 zoom ;(
Agree with Snopchenko that in most areas 200/250mm will not get you very far for wildlife photography, but the size and weight increases quickly for 300 or 400mm reach.
The Nikon 200/4 AI/AIs gets a lot of attention, but is really not a very good lens. I have a Voigtlander 180 APO that is fantastic, as you'd expect. The Nikon 180/2.8 ED is very good, but it is very large and heavy. The Nikon 200/4 Micro AF is extremely sharp and analytic, but is also a monster.
After monthes I found this topic. I have looked for lightweight-super-tele lenses for long time and found something as suggesting:
Sony 200-600. No problem except money.
Canon 400/5.6 & Nikon 500/5.6, A little money based on their IQ and weight.
Tamron 200-500/5-6.3.
Pros: 1.2kg, <$400, sharp before 300mm and acceptable at 500/8.
Cons: No IS, slow.
Tamron 200-400/5.6
Pros: 1.2kg, <$200, sharp before 300 and constant F5.6. Lovely color.
Cons: Really too too old design.
Sigma 400/5.6 AF Macro APO HSM.
Pros: cheap, sharp, macro, apo.
Cons: Surface urgly. AF not work on EOS digital camera, but heard about that MC-11 can support the AF.
Tokina 80-400
Pros: cheap, sharp, light
Cons: terrible CA and glaring.
Pentax Mirror 400-600(PK), Starblitz Mirror 500-800(T2)
Pro: lightest and longest, can be used as an astronomical telescope with only an ocular.
Cons: MF, Mirror(but the two lenses are the sharpest in mirrors).
BUT, at last, I use Nikon 1 J5 + Nikon FT1 + Nikon DX 70-300.
231g+150g+415g, $100+$100+$200, equivalent 200-800mm, fastest AF with 20FTP (AF per shot)....
PS, I have canon ef-s 55-250 in my bag with tamron 16-300 VC. Both work well, but not so long enough for "super-tele" scene. If using a APS-H camera, the tamron 18-400VC is good cause it covers 1.3x crop very well.
alundeb wrote:
I guess most people will dismiss it because it is APS-C, but it actually makes sense to consider this lens. 200mm on Full Frame is too short for wildlife, and you are going to crop anyway. The APS-C zoom lens goes to 250 mm and is lighter, longer and better than the classic FF primes when cropped.
If weight saving is extremely important I would sacrifice some focal length and go for the native Sony E 55-210. It would save the adapter and some extra grams for the lens as well.
