chiron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #10 · For Travel: Sony E 70-350 f4.5-6.3 -or- FE 100-400 f4.5-5.6 + 1.4TC? | |
tschopp wrote:
Maybe I can help your thinking on the four variables. Instead of reach, resolution, and aperture, think about IQ(FL): Image quality as a function of focal length. So when you compare two lenses the goal is to know what lens has better IQ and over what range, where does the transition occur? Then you can look at size weight and apply a yes / no to the lens. Like you the 200-600 is a hard no for me.
If you are light limited, then on my graphs the lower lens will have better IQ. If you are shooting full mid day sun, then you need to still think about resolution as you will have enough light to get shutter speed above minimums at base ISO.
For my tele I have two options the 135GM and the 70-350G. Out to 300+mm it is no question I will grab the 135GM and crop, the results are dramatically better as implied by the graph. I find I don't really shoot much in the 350-525mm range and if I do it is often not full daylight and in those cases I find the images wanting. In full sun the resolution of the 70-350 shines and is not overcome by the lack of aperture. One thing that surprised me was how much I like cropping in 60MP. I have switched to mostly primes and crop as needed. I view my images on a 4k monitor, so cropping down to that is fine for me. How you will view determines how much you can crop.
You were asking about A7Rv vs A1, So I'm guessing you don't currently have a high MP camera?
In the graph of the 70-200/4 G II vs 70-350G, the 70-200 will clearly outperform as it has an aperture and resolution advantage all the way out to 420. Around maybe 480 the performance will cross and the 70-350 will have a resolution and aperture advantage, but not much. In the 135-330 range the 135GM has a huge aperture advantage that translates into shutter speed and ISO advantage that overwhelms any resolution advantage the 70-350 has past 200mm.
As far as size/weight physics there is no free lunch, the IQ you get often follows the size/weight you pay for. It is about the right tradeoff for you. You mention not understanding the implication of aperture when cropped. Just like you multiple aperture by crop for equivalent DOF, the same thing happens to noise in the photo. Yes on a pixel basis it doesn't matter, but you don't have a equivalent number of pixels after you crop. This is why the graph uses equivalent aperture. It also helps to explain why the 600/4 lens in the rx10 iv does not produce the same results as the 600/4 GM....Show more →
Very interesting analysis and chart, very useful for thinking things through and information-rich, as was your earlier post. I'm still thinking though your analysis and thoughts as they apply to my situation, which I want to clarify a bit because it affects which of your suggestions are most important for me. I am also very interested to see the @MikeEvangelist comparison of shots with the 70-350 and 70-200/4 G II, if he does get the chance to do them.
I am generally not a tele shooter. I sold my 100-400 several years ago and have never missed it. But in February I am going on this cruise around the Southern Cone of South America with stops in the Falkland Islands, Patagonia, and three days cruising the Antarctic Peninsula.
The tele option is most important for cruising the Antarctic Peninsula, during which I will be shooting Antarctica from the deck of the cruise ship. It is in that context that I want to make sure I have 1) enough reach, and 2) enough quality. A secondary but still important tele application is in the Falklands, where I will have the opportunity to photograph penguins and other wildlife, and in Patagonia, where a lighter tele option might be useful for hiking. So, I am trying to cover all of these situations, with Antarctic Peninsula from the cruise ship being the most lens-critical.
My visual values emphasize visual quality, but not necessarily pure resolution -- rendering, in the broad sense of that term (not blur) is much more important to me than sheer resolution. I think the closest analogy is to representational painting -- no one cares about the resolution of most paintings, it is the grace and color of the forms that matter. So, the lenses with the best rendering are a strong consideration, though one that is not easy to quantify or even to agree on!
I will have two high-resolution cameras with me, probably an A1 and an A7CR. I am willing to acquire whatever lenses make sense to buy, not least because I am likely to sell off any tele options when I get back since I don't shoot tele much in my usual photography, certainly not beyond the 135 GM or Batis 135 and the adapted Canon 200mm f2.8L II, all of which I now own.
I recently bought very good used copies of the 70-200/2.8 GM II and a 1.4X TC specifically for this trip. But I then began to think that even with the TC that the combination would not have enough reach for photographing from the ship. However, your points about just taking that and cropping as needed, because of how well this lens will do in comparison to the alternatives, is a very good thought and that may be the direction I go in. This lens does render very nicely, but so do some of the other possibilities.
Anticipating what gear I would need and most want to have is made more difficult by the fact that I have not been to any of these places before. I am trying to gather information from various sites, but what I have found so far is pretty vague and general as to photography.
Thanks for your help (and to others as well) in thinking all this through!
Edited on Sep 08, 2024 at 10:26 AM · View previous versions
|
