Telephoto zooms - are they all just not very good?
- Thread starter alanbeeb
- Start date
alanbeeb
pfm Member
Yes - I use it often in Lightroom. However, I think you have to be very light touch with it as I find it pushes cloudy skies towards too much of a blue cast. And grain starts to emerge too. Here's one taken on a less than clear day with the Olympus 40-150 f2.8... see what's happening in the clouds. Best viewed in flickr (double click on it)
120mm, f7.1, 1/640, iso 200 (which is base iso on the em5)
Bridges from East Kip 4 210918 by mr.noisy, on Flickr
And by way of comparison - here is the Lumix Leica 15mm f1.7 (a tiny gem of a lens) showing what the cloudy sky really looked like that same day - taken maybe 10-15 mins later.
Day out in the Pentlands 5 210918 by mr.noisy, on Flickr
alanbeeb
pfm Member
I'm in Craiglockhart so not far for me either.... I think the Pentlands are underappreciated therefore never very busy, but very satisfying walks and great views. We got lost that day trying to find the Rullion Green battlefield memorial.... bit of an underwhelming moment when we did eventually find it!
alanbeeb
pfm Member
Ever thought of buying quality prime lenses and zooming with your feet
Doesn't really work for landscapes does it? That mountain 4km away... won't really get the same view standing 200m away. That would be a totally different view. Plus I'd probably have to have a boat or a jetpack.
Rico
Bloody Colonials
I think that's rather traditionalist thinking, and using the latest zooms challenges this view.
Perhaps there's been no great revolution in optics, but you don't see pros carrying a swag of primes when they can capture the bulk of their work with a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8.
Although I've a number of decent primes, my deviation from zoom is usually only to the 85 1.4D for it's optical qualities (particularly for portraiture), or my old 60mm f2.8 Micro-nikkor for (naturally) macro or product photography. Passport photo? the 85 doesn't get a look-in, my 70-200 2.8FL/E is better lens at 85 than the prime! Unless I need the super-creamy bokeh a 1.4/1.8/2.0 prime offers, my 24-70 2.8 is my go-to, and not because I'm lazy!
I challenge anyone to test out the 70-200 2.8 FL/E (in context of a Nikon system) and not be completely surprised.
boon
pfm Member
In that instance you would select the correct lens in the first place. My camera bag contains 24, 28, 35, 105, 200, 300, & 500mm lenses, my camera has 1.2, 1.5 & full frame crop factors, plus a few others, my feet fill in the rest of the gaps along with selective cropping in capture one or dx, works for me on my D850.
canonman
pfm Member
I will try that when I am chasing big cats in The Kruger. Hold that pose kitty whilst I find another prime in the bottom of my bagEver thought of buying quality prime lenses and zooming with your feet
alanbeeb
pfm Member
Wow, that's a big bag!
Sadly, as a lazy amatuer, I'm not going to carry more than 3 lenses including the one on the camera. I need all the space for pork pies and mars bars!
boon
pfm Member
You could always carry one zoom lens and make more space for pork pies, oops we’ve come full circle
Sorry for the late reply - just seen this.
I think a lot depends on what's important to you. Weight and size, or outright image quality? To my mind, the Z7 strikes a wonderful balance. Compared with the likes of a D850, it's positively tiny. And when you factor in lenses like the 24-70/4 and 14-30/4, it makes for a wonderfully light and capable system. If that was still too heavy, then you could just stick with the 24-200, which should cover you for 95% of situations I'd have thought. We really are very lucky these days with the kit some of these companies are putting out.
Lefty
ron
Tweaker
I've just bought a 35mm lens for my Phase One 645, which is around 24mm equivalent. No long distance shot problems for me. I'd suggest changing what you are you interested in photographing and avoid all this long distance haze/distortion problem
If I shot mainly landscape 24mm would be fine, unfortunately I mainly photograph wildlife and most of that tends to need long glass
I think this is a bit of a misconception. I shoot mainly landscapes and I would much sooner be without my wide angle lens than my telephoto. I know a lot of landscape shooters who are the same.
I don't mean this as a dig at you by the way. Just something that is said a lot by others and which I think is over-simplifying and pigeonholing landscape photography.
Lefty
ron
Tweaker
True , just I'd find 24mm much more useful for Landscape than my 200-600
ron
Tweaker
Haha - I can understand that
(Do you not have any lenses that cover focal lengths below 200mm?)
Lefty
Only for my Nikon D850, 24-70 and 70-200. To save carrying two cameras I'd like to get a shorter zoom for my Sony A1 to stick in my bag . A few times when out walking looking for wildlife there's been places that would make a nice landscape shot but 200mm is usually too long .