stevehollx Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 Currently converting from a Canon 7d over to the a7rii platform and will be getting the 24-70/2.8 to handle most tasks. I use to hang on to a Canon EF-S 55-250 to take backpacking, since it was light and was useful for the occasional long reach shot (wildlife, etc.). At a glance I don't see any good options for light long reach lenses for FE mounts. What are people taking into the backcountry when they want long reach? The 24-70/2.8 which is on the heavy side to pack with, but manageable. In theory, I could keep the canon 55-250 and adapt it for this purpose, but seems silly to have the MB adapter for a single cheap lens. The 24-240 doesn't seem to have great reviews, but in theory would be a nice approach of only packing one lens for this purpose. Any thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 24, 2016 Posted September 24, 2016 Hi stevehollx, Take a look here Long reach backpacking lens?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Golem Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 Maybe a mirror lens ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Paul Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 The FE 70-300 G lens (f4.5-5.6) is probably OK for backpacking. I have one and I'm very pleased with it in all respects. It's a bit shorter then the FE 70-200 G f4, not as fast (f4 vs f4.5-5.6) but does have an extra 100mm reach. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest all8 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 There is nothing comparable from Sony (size weight). Best bet is an adapter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Paul Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 The 24-240 doesn't seem to have great reviews, but in theory would be a nice approach of only packing one lens for this purpose. Any thoughts? The 24-240 has had very good reviews and is regarded as a very good lens, particularly considering it's a 10:1 zoom. My friend has one and he loves it, there is certainly nothing wrong with the images he takes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedge Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 The 24-240 has had very good reviews and is regarded as a very good lens, particularly considering it's a 10:1 zoom. It's important to set expectations: it is a superzoom, and as such it will not have the world's greatest image quality. I've never used that lens, but most/all reviewers seem surprised by it's quality. So my interpretation is that it is among best superzooms out there, and is therefore worthy of consideration if long reach and convenience are a priority for you. Note: The only superzoom I've ever used is the Sigma 18-250, and I was grossly disappointed in that one. That lens gave me such a bad impression of superzooms, that I've never had an interest to try another one ever again. But having said that, based on the reviews of the 24-240, I would be willing to give that one a try if I had a need for it. However, if image quality is a bigger concern, and you're not afraid of swapping lenses out in the bush, I would pick the 70-300 without a second thought. It's noticeably longer and and faster at the long end, and it's not significantly more expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest all8 Posted September 27, 2016 Share Posted September 27, 2016 The 24-240 has had very good reviews and is regarded as a very good lens, particularly considering it's a 10:1 zoom. My friend has one and he loves it, there is certainly nothing wrong with the images he takes. Problem is the weight, if your doing _real_ backpacking, which for this lens is twice that of the Canon lens. RX10 mk3 goes to "600" ... and does it all ... otherwise FF = Heavy, best bet could be a Batis 85 + cropping, which I'm told is quite possible with the A7rii. I'm waiting/hoping for a Batis 135mm for more or less the same reason. I guess it will be quite a bit lighter than the 70-200G I currently schlep around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golem Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Consider an a6000 plus 55-210/4.5-6.3 as your long reach device. You pack 24mp behind a rather good zoom lensof modest weight and reasonable size. It's better than packing atiny-sensor bridge camera with a "600mm equivalent" lens. Yes, it's a bit bigger than any bridge camera but you can also find other good uses for the a6000 when not hiking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Malky Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Would agree with Golam have just returned a 24-2400mm lens to the supplier. Read all the reviews looked on you tube so many variables looks good in theory in MHO the worst lens Sony has made IQ terrible Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Use the APS-C 55-210, still gives you 18mp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golem Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Use the APS-C 55-210, still gives you 18mp. No need to lose half of your MP count. Use Clear Image Zoom. This will maintain your full MP count for smoothness of tones and helps reduce pixelating of contrast edges. Acoarst it can't restore any lost detail, but it sorta disguises the loss. Also, since CIZ is incremental, any parts of the zoom range that might provide a larger than APS-C sized image circle will benefit from reducing the magnification of the CIZ. ------------------------------------------------------ Using the LA-EA2 which was designed for APS-C bodies, but using it with FF lenses on a FF body, I find many lens-plus-adapter combinations have an image circle larger than APS-C but smaller than FF. The CIZ is very quick and easy to fine tune to whatever magnification includes the maximum use of the available.image circle. You can do this same thing with APS-C zooms, cuz some included FL will often have image coverage larger than needed for strictly just APS-C. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Forester Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 The FE 70-300 G lens (f4.5-5.6) is probably OK for backpacking. I have one and I'm very pleased with it in all respects. It's a bit shorter then the FE 70-200 G f4, not as fast (f4 vs f4.5-5.6) but does have an extra 100mm reach. Paul I made some test-shots with the FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. Result: On longer distances you have to stop it down to f/8.0 for getting sharp images - so in reality it's only a f/8.0-lens: too slow for me, even for landscape photography! So for backpacking I would rather recommend the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS - relatively light and handy, delivering goog image quality even wide open (f/4.0), excellent around 135mm, and still good enough at 200mm. If weight and money do not matter: Take the new Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS - in this range probably the best zoom on the market!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest all8 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Oh, Leica make a 90mm lens which is apparently very good. Its f4, does macro (with an adapter) and weighs a few hundred grams. Yes its expensive, too expensive, but its also very good and very small. There is some discussion here : http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453848/0#lastmessage Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alastc Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I've heard the is a good contax 100-300 if you don't mind using manual focus? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now