sebboh wrote:
finally got a camera with a viewfinder to shoot my 350/4.8 on - sony a55. took the mirror out and it seems to be quite nice for cheapy birding with manual focus. anyway some quick shots from my first day with it. all wide open:
very interesting, sebboh!
Could it be that there is a slight blur due to the birds movements in 4 and 6? Might help to up your exposure time to 1/!000 sec minimum.
Otherwise the image quality is very good, I think. I have to look into this.
telyt: your pictures are clearly beating sebbohs, this is top notch sharpness! WOW!
I just saw an offer of a 280/4.0 Apo-Telyt for 3700 €. That dampens my enthousiasm slightly is that about the right price for this lens in good shape?
sebboh: do you know the prices on the 350/4,8? Aren't the R lenses adaptable to several SLR systems, including even Nikon? (I am looking for a long lens to shoot on D7000 - crop for extra reach - instead of my workhorse D700) Is there any advantage to use the a55? Is the evf better then a crop optical view finder.
Taking the mirror out is an interesting idea, this is just there for AF? This isn't clear to me how that works.
what do you both know about your lenses abilities with extenders?
cyra wrote:
very interesting, sebboh!
Could it be that there is a slight blur due to the birds movements in 4 and 6? Might help to up your exposure time to 1/!000 sec minimum.
Otherwise the image quality is very good, I think. I have to look into this.
#4 does suffer from motion blur, #5 and #6 are both slightly oof - they are both fast moving shy birds and i was not quick enough. my first day with the new camera, and i was mainly interested in testing it's IBIS with the few minutes i had (seems great at 1/200, but slower is less consistant).
cyra wrote:
telyt: your pictures are clearly beating sebbohs, this is top notch sharpness! WOW!
I just saw an offer of a 280/4.0 Apo-Telyt for 3700 €. That dampens my enthousiasm slightly is that about the right price for this lens in good shape?
sebboh: do you know the prices on the 350/4,8? Aren't the R lenses adaptable to several SLR systems, including even Nikon? (I am looking for a long lens to shoot on D7000 - crop for extra reach - instead of my workhorse D700) Is there any advantage to use the a55? Is the evf better then a crop optical view finder.
Taking the mirror out is an interesting idea, this is just there for AF? This isn't clear to me how that works.
what do you both know about your lenses abilities with extenders?
no idea about extenders. the 350mm runs around $1000 (i got mine for half the price due to a small nick on one of the elements). it is nowhere near as perfect as the 280mm apo, but quite sharp. telyt's shots are bound to be better than mine as he is a much better and more experienced bird photographer.
cyra wrote:
Is there any advantage to use the a55? Is the evf better then a crop optical view finder.
Taking the mirror out is an interesting idea, this is just there for AF? This isn't clear to me how that works.
The EVF of the A55 is much better than an OVF for manual focusing, because of the magnified live view of course.
Yes, the mirror is just there to direct a portion of the light to the AF sensors.
AhamB wrote:
The EVF of the A55 is much better than an OVF for manual focusing, because of the magnified live view of course.
Yes, the mirror is just there to direct a portion of the light to the AF sensors.
yup, much better for precise manual focusing for relatively still objects. even without zooming in it is easier to see focus than an ovf on a cropper due to showing actual dof and aliasing of infocus regions. it is not great for rapid panning though because you get a weird color tearing effect. i'm not terribly happy with the location of the viewfinder zoom button either (bottom right side of the camera back).
sebboh, didn't mean to critizise, I know how hard it is with moving birds. I was rather wondering about whether the softness was caused by weakness of the lens or behind the camera. IBIS is the in camera stabilizer?
thanks for the info on the a55 and the lens from both of you. I would have never thought that evf is better then ovf already.
"focusing for relatively still objects" - so birds in flight would be a tough call?
I'd really be interested to see more images from that combination and once you are used to it hear your asessment of it's usability for different purposes. Unfortunately birds are rarely "reltively still" and I am not even sure I really want an MF lens for bird-photography.
But I want a sharp lens, and neither Nikon 80-400 nor Sigma 400 Apo Macro are giving me pleasing results. Nikon 300/4 AF-S and Sigma 50-500 are on my list, the rest is to expensive and also to heavy. I wonder wether the 350/4.8 - a55 combination would measure up to or even surpass the AF lenses? I'd put up with MF, if the output is better.
cyra wrote:
I just saw an offer of a 280/4.0 Apo-Telyt for 3700 €. That dampens my enthousiasm slightly is that about the right price for this lens in good shape?
A little high, but not by much.
cyra wrote:
what do you both know about your lenses abilities with extenders?
The 280mm f/4 APO with the Leica 1.4x APO extender is outstanding. With the Leica 2x APO extender it loses a bit of its edge but in my experience still better than the 350mm f/4.8 except for bokeh and flare resistance.
Without modification the 350mm f/4.8 can't use the Leica 1.4x APO extender because the extender's front element protrudes into the back of the lens and the 350's rear-most light baffle would interfere with it. I was able to fabricate a replacement baffle so the 1.4 APO extender would fit, was not impressed with the image quality of the combination though. IDK about other-brand extenders on a modified lens.
cyra wrote:
sebboh, didn't mean to critizise, I know how hard it is with moving birds. I was rather wondering about whether the softness was caused by weakness of the lens or behind the camera. IBIS is the in camera stabilizer?
thanks for the info on the a55 and the lens from both of you. I would have never thought that evf is better then ovf already.
"focusing for relatively still objects" - so birds in flight would be a tough call?
I'd really be interested to see more images from that combination and once you are used to it hear your asessment of it's usability for different purposes. Unfortunately birds are rarely "reltively still" and I am not even sure I really want an MF lens for bird-photography.
But I want a sharp lens, and neither Nikon 80-400 nor Sigma 400 Apo Macro are giving me pleasing results. Nikon 300/4 AF-S and Sigma 50-500 are on my list, the rest is to expensive and also to heavy. I wonder wether the 350/4.8 - a55 combination would measure up to or even surpass the AF lenses? I'd put up with MF, if the output is better. ...Show more →
no offense taken. yes, IBIS is "in body image stabilization". i find using MF for birding much more enjoyable than autofocus, but i know that makes me weird. autofocus is much faster but less precise and my keeper ratio is actually much higher with MF than autofocus - probably larger because i take fewer shots. i find autofocus very frustrating because i can't keep the focus point exactly where i want on a small moving bird and get a ton of shots that are focused on the body rather than the eye. This would obviously be less of a problem if i shot larger raptors in flight during the day rather than primarily tiny warblers and other small birds near sunset. also, i get much more upset with a computer for missing focus than with myself.
with regard to the lens, the leica 350mm f/4.8 is noticeably sharper than the nikkor 80-400mm VR that i have used quite a bit (don't know about the sigma). the leica also has better color separation and vibrance. the nikkor has better control of both laCA and loCA. CA is not normally objectionable (or really noticeable) from the leica, but in extreme high contrast (tree branches against bright overcast sky) it can show substantial purple fringing. the leica is also substantially longer and heavier than the nikkor (unextended), but i feel like i could fend of a mugger with the leica. the leica build quality and tripod mount are superb. even for a MF lens the leica is slow focusing - it has 360 degrees of rotation and a fair amount of focus ring damping.
telyt wrote:
The 280mm f/4 APO with the Leica 1.4x APO extender is outstanding. With the Leica 2x APO extender it loses a bit of its edge but in my experience still better than the 350mm f/4.8 except for bokeh and flare resistance.
Without modification the 350mm f/4.8 can't use the Leica 1.4x APO extender because the extender's front element protrudes into the back of the lens and the 350's rear-most light baffle would interfere with it. I was able to fabricate a replacement baffle so the 1.4 APO extender would fit, was not impressed with the image quality of the combination though. IDK about other-brand extenders on a modified lens.
Douglas, your images are adorable and simply outstanding. But they rather make me weep, since I doubt I will ever get where your are...
thanks for the info on extenders. But you are using it on a digital Leica. It might be a different thing on an a55 with a 2x extender?
To bad the 350 doesn't take extenders.
sebboh wrote:
autofocus is much faster but less precise and my keeper ratio is actually much higher with MF than autofocus
really? I find it very hard with moving objects starting with humans. I tried some seagulls from the boat recently with my Zeiss 100 and the keeper rate was very very low. (posted a few keepers in the Zeiss thread)
I get a ton of shots that are focused on the body rather than the eye.
I know that effect. What other AF lenses have you tried except for the 80-400? (Not difficult to beat that lens!)
thanks very much for the detailed info on the lens. I 'll wait for more pictures from you with the e55, since this is more in my reach considering the price.
cyra wrote:
really? I find it very hard with moving objects starting with humans. I tried some seagulls from the boat recently with my Zeiss 100 and the keeper rate was very very low. (posted a few keepers in the Zeiss thread)
I know that effect. What other AF lenses have you tried except for the 80-400? (Not difficult to beat that lens!)
thanks very much for the detailed info on the lens. I 'll wait for more pictures from you with the e55, since this is more in my reach considering the price.
an f2 lens will be much harder to manual focus than a slower telephoto because you can't see actual dof with the f/2 lens. i seem to remember a number of discussions about the zeiss 100/2 being particularly hard. the evf helps a lot for this type of lens i can't manual focus a 50/1.4 wide open through a dslr viewfinder to save my life, but it is quite easy with the evf. i find slow moving or steady moving objects to be quite easy to manual focus (e.g. adult ducks, large BIFs, or adult people), while with fast or erratic moving objects are very difficult and i often need to focus bracket (e.g. ducklings, warblers, or children).
i don't find that autofocus improves performance much with the fast and erratic movers either, just makes the misses a bit closer and gives me lots of shots that i think are good but on closer examination aren't. i haven't tried any autofocus telephotos on nikon other than the 80-400mm, and that was on a older body (D1x). i did recently try out a canon 7D with 70-200/2.8 though. my results were the same - frustration with not being able to put the focus point right where i wanted it. also, i was trying to shoot kinglets with it, which i view as the ultimate test and the fast autofocus actually hurt more than helped. it was impossible hold a focus point on the tiny hyperactive birds and as soon as they escaped the focus point the lens would rack out to infinity and i would lose the bird. obviously this is never a problem with manual focus. i actually did not get a single keeper of kinglet with the 7D, but went out an hour later with the leica on my 4/3 camera and got the second shot in this post as well as a number of other keepers in 10 minutes: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/895186/22#8996194
i probably won't get to do much shooting in the next couple weeks, as i'm moving across the country and am quite busy with that. i posted a number of pictures of the lenses performance on a 4/3 camera at the beginning of this thread in two posts: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/895186/0#8427997
thanks for the links and more insights, they are much appreciated. I'll be out for 2 weeks as well, no hurry. The images do look good, especially stopped down. I will investigate the lens further and other Leica alternatives. The 280 sure would be sweet. Also need to look into the alpha bodies. Any reason you were picking the a55?
thanks for your time answering all my questions!
cyra wrote:
thanks for the links and more insights, they are much appreciated. I'll be out for 2 weeks as well, no hurry. The images do look good, especially stopped down. I will investigate the lens further and other Leica alternatives. The 280 sure would be sweet. Also need to look into the alpha bodies. Any reason you were picking the a55?
thanks for your time answering all my questions!
only the a33 and a55 have an evf and the a55 has a better sensor/buffer.
Thanks, Jim. I've been alternating between the second shot in your original post and now the first shot in your second post for the past twenty minutes. All of them are good, but those two are perfect.
freaklikeme wrote:
Thanks, Jim. I've been alternating between the second shot in your original post and now the first shot in your second post for the past twenty minutes. All of them are good, but those two are perfect.
is that about the right price for this lens in good shape? 
