advertisement


Telephoto zooms - are they all just not very good?

alanbeeb

alanbeeb

pfm Member
Hello... I'm struggling with Telephoto zooms.

On my Z6 I had a very highly regarded AF-P 70-300 E ED (on the ftz adapter) and tbh the results were always a bit greyish and grainy. Native telephoto options for Z are still oncoming from Nikon.

On my micro 4/3 Oly Em5 iii I've had more problems. - the ultra cheap & small (about the size of a small tea mug) 40-150 f5.6-7.1. It is just about Ok if the light is perfect. But otherwise its just not very good. Given its price of £150 new that is maybe not surprising.

I have also had (and sold on) the much more expensive Olympus 40-150 f2.8 . By M43 standards this is a big heavy lens and it overbalanced the camera, and frankly, wasn't a heck of a lot better than its ultra cheap brother above.

Now I have obtained from eBay a Lumix Leica 100-400 F4-6.3 - also big for m43 but somehow better balanced than the oly f2.8..... in general I am finding that the Lumix lenses, especially the Leica badged ones, are better than their Olympus equivalents. However while this one is much better than the Olympus 40-150 f2.8, its still lacking sharpness especially at infinity focus. The image quality might be Ok for small to medium size prints but I think anything much bigger than A4 is going to show up problems.

Am I just expecting too much from tele zooms? Should I give up and try a prime instead?
 
Probably not much help to you, but in traditional photography it was always the case that zoom lenses were not as good as fixed-length lenses. Since there has been no great revolution in optics in the past 30 years, I suspect that is still the case.
 
PaulMB said:
Probably not much help to you, but in traditional photography it was always the case that zoom lenses were not as good as fixed-length lenses. Since there has been no great revolution in optics in the past 30 years, I suspect that is still the case.
Click to expand...

Actually, there has been a massive change in how lenses are designed, and the quality of lens coatings. Modern 24-70/2.8 zooms out-perform older primes, and modern primes have been redesigned to keep up. The number of elements used to be limited to around 6 before computer aided ray tracing changed what was computable.

Out of interest, how much reach are you looking for? The sweet spot for designs is 70-200/2.8 with the 100-400 lenses being somewhat compromised as they would become too bulky and expensive. Beyond 300mm or so, primes are almost always the only option for /2.8 and the price quickly rises into to the £10k region but telephotos are more limited by weight and so the options stop. I think comparing £150 zooms and these might lead you to think that there are no good quality telephoto zooms...
 
Neil P said:
I had a canon l-series 70-200 ... very good but £1200 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

And the current one is closer to £2200 and is significantly sharper with less chromatic problems. I still have a 70-200 F4 IS which is a great lens and cheaper and lighter, and was better performing than the F2.8 version at the same aperture, prior to the version 2 refresh (now on version 3).
 
I've had a mixed bag with telephoto zooms. The variable aperture ones have generally been a bit crap (although the Sigma APO 70-300 F4-5.6 is decent), but the fixed aperture ones have been good. I've got a 80-200 F2.8 Tokina ATX Pro (with a decent 2x converter) I've had for 25 years or so and is very good, and I've also got a Sigma 100-300 F4 (along with a matched 1.4x teleconverter) which is also good. The only downside is of course than both are pretty heavy - so the 70-300 Sigma still gets some use.
 
Last edited:
A good rule of thumb is that the more multipliers of base focal length that maximumim zoom is at - the more compromised the optics are

Generally numbers less than 3 are good

eg 70-200 (200/70 < 3)

but

18-200 (200/18 = 11)

Usually these longer multiplier lenses have compromises in sharpness (especially towards the ends of the focal range)
 
Cesare said:
Actually, there has been a massive change in how lenses are designed, and the quality of lens coatings. Modern 24-70/2.8 zooms out-perform older primes, and modern primes have been redesigned to keep up. The number of elements used to be limited to around 6 before computer aided ray tracing changed what was computable.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I had no idea. I was convinced the last jump forward had been in the 1970s when computers began to be used for lens design, and in the 1980s when coatings went from bluish to brownish. And with the improvement concerning more the cheaper mass produced lenses, which became pretty good, than the top quality lenses which were already pretty good. I shall look up "ray tracing." I suppose things got more critical when lenses had to put an image on a digital sensor, much smaller than a negative for equivalent classes of camera.
 
I had the Nikon 24-70 f2.8G. It was good, but also freaking enormous and heavy. It also encourages laziness in composition. I find it more fun to limit myself to one compact prime on a particular outing.

I have had 70-200mm f2.8 zooms from Canon and Nikon and these are superb, but you need to be committed to lugging around a massive rig.
 
Cesare said:
And the current one is closer to £2200 and is significantly sharper with less chromatic problems. I still have a 70-200 F4 IS which is a great lens and cheaper and lighter, and was better performing than the F2.8 version at the same aperture, prior to the version 2 refresh (now on version 3).
Click to expand...

Mine was the 2.8 version bought in 2006 ... not sure how many times it has been revsied since then. I fell for the trap of fast glass being superior, but now I'm far more likely to shoot in the lens' sweet spot say f8
 
Cesare said:
Out of interest, how much reach are you looking for? The sweet spot for designs is 70-200/2.8 with the 100-400 lenses being somewhat compromised as they would become too bulky and expensive. Beyond 300mm or so, primes are almost always the only option for /2.8 and the price quickly rises into to the £10k region but telephotos are more limited by weight and so the options stop. I think comparing £150 zooms and these might lead you to think that there are no good quality telephoto zooms...
Click to expand...

The Olympus 40-150 f2.8 is not cheap, neither is the lumix 100-400, both are over the £1k mark. But £1k ish is probs my limit. Seems primes are even more dear. - the Lumix 200 f2.8 or Olympus 300 f4 are eye-wateringly expensive.
I've enjoyed having the longer reach of that Lumix 100-400 (200-800 in full frame equivalence) now that I've discovered the sparrowhawk that hunts on the top of the hill just a few mins from my house, and there is a wealth of wildlife near my garden - owls, jackdaws, deer. But my main interest is landscape and 200 mm on a m43 camera should be plenty for that.

andrewd said:
I had the Nikon 24-70 f2.8G. It was good, but also freaking enormous and heavy. It also encourages laziness in composition. I find it more fun to limit myself to one compact prime on a particular outing.

I have had 70-200mm f2.8 zooms from Canon and Nikon and these are superb, but you need to be committed to lugging around a massive rig.
Click to expand...

Hence why I'm considering something for olympus m43 em5.... should be significantly smaller than lenses for full frame. The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 (70-200 equiv) gets very good reviews @ £800ish. But I'd really want more reach than that.

Mr Perceptive said:
A good rule of thumb is that the more multipliers of base focal length that maximumim zoom is at - the more compromised the optics are

Generally numbers less than 3 are good

eg 70-200 (200/70 < 3)

but

18-200 (200/18 = 11)

Usually these longer multiplier lenses have compromises in sharpness (especially towards the ends of the focal range)
Click to expand...

...and meantime I am getting superb results from the Nikon z 24-200 zoom on the z7 full frame. Maybe I should forget the m43 olympus and concentrate on the Z7?
 
Regarding zooms, with digital I've always stuck to standard zooms. I thought the Nikon 18-105mm was a fair all-rounder on the D90.

Zooms that compete with primes are very expensive, heavy, and bulky. They need so much correction that their "bokeh" is weird. I miss the film days when lens kits were mostly chosen from 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85/90mm, 135mm, 200mm, and 400mm primes. I was happy to walk around with a 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm; or even just the 35mm much of the time.
 
Alan,

Can you post an example of a photo you took with the Z6 and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR AF-P?

The Z6 takes clean photos even if the ISO is bumped into four digits, and the 70-300 is exceptional for the cabbage.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Alan,

Can you post an example of a photo you took with the Z6 and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR AF-P?

The Z6 takes clean photos even if the ISO is bumped into four digits, and the 70-300 is exceptional for the cabbage.

Joe
Click to expand...

That's been a good question to ask because I can see straightaway that the results from the z6 + 70-300 Nikkor were hugely superior to anything I've got from the Olympus em5 + either of the more expensive Olympus or Lumix lenses. And also you are completely correct that you can put the ISO of the Nikon z into the several thousands before it gets unacceptably grainy, while the olympus m43 sensor can't go much above 400 or so without becoming noticeable.

Z6 + 70-300 AF-P - 300mm, f5.6, ISO 400 1/2500

Trotternish &amp; the Old Man 3 200916 by mr.noisy, on Flickr

300mm f5.6 iso 800 1/320

Edinburgh Castle &amp; Fife 3 - August 30, 2020 by mr.noisy, on Flickr

300mm f5.6. iso 400 1/320

Edinburgh Castle &amp; Fife 2 - August 29, 2020 by mr.noisy, on Flickr
 
Could it be atmospheric haze that's giving the impression of the lenses not being very good? At longer focal lengths this is always a consideration.

Lefty
 
Lefty said:
Could it be atmospheric haze that's giving the impression of the lenses not being very good? At longer focal lengths this is always a consideration.

Lefty
Click to expand...

I have been using polarising filters more recently to deal with haze - helps a little bit, but much more so dealing with reflected light off water.

but..... thinking now I was premature selling the 70-300 AF-P. Start saving my pennies for the 70-200 or 100-400 for Nikon Z I reckon.

My hope was to use the z7 for wide-angle to short-telephoto ranges, and also have in my bag the olympus em5 with a longer telephoto zoom on the basis that together they would probably be smaller and lighter than a full-frame long telephoto zoom on its own. But thinking now I should concentrate resources on the full frame Z.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top