LAE
Loc: Las Vegas
Sony does have a SAL-20TC 2.0x teleconverter lens, new around 550$, used around 350$.
The SAL-70400G has just been marked as discontinued by Sony, so there may be some good deals coming up.
Rob O'
Loc: Freakin' Hot Arizona
planepics wrote:
By the way, do you use the lens on a crop sensor or a full frame camera? On my A330, the 400mm would be like 600mm.
I use it on an a77, an APS-C sensor. I'd like to have an a99, but then I lose the extra reach with the 70400. Of course, sometimes we have to make sacrifices.
I use the Sigma 150-500 with my Sony A390, and the A57. Great lens.
planepics wrote:
I have a similar but much more generic thread going...with limited responses. I am going on a cruise to Alaska for my 50th birthday next June and have never rented any equipment before. After talking to my local camera store (which doesn't offer any Sony rentals) I am thinking about this lens. Does an extra 100mm (150 with my A330) really make that much of a difference? I currently have the kit lenses...18-55 and 75-300. The reviews seem to be pretty good, except for the bokeh and it's a "G" lens, which I've never used. Any pics (i.e. 300mm vs 400mm) would be appreciated.
I have a similar but much more generic thread goin... (
show quote)
I still have my Sony 70-400 lens (used twice) for sale if you would be interested. Asking $1700 which would include shipping.
there is no indication on the Sony site that this lens is discontinued only a $100.00 discount
Hi
I've had the Sony 70-400mm lens for a couple of months now and just love it. People do comment about the weight of the lens but I can go out for a few hours with no problems and all I use is handheld. If you can afford it I would buy it instead of the rental.
I have the Sony 55a.
Kev
planepics
Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs
I might be nice to own a professional lens, but I don't make my living off of photography...never even sold a single pic and don't think it would be practical given my current employment status. A new 70-400 would be 3 months of savings, if I didn't eat, pay rent, or drive. I might consider a TC, but I didn't realize even they were in the $300-500 range (would a TC be worth putting on a kit lens that cost less than the lens is worth anyways?). The 150-500 also sounds interesting, but again, something like that would have to wait for a full time job, retirement, or winning the lotto. For my 50th birthday cruise to Alaska, I was just thinking about treating myself to a nice rental with more range than my long kit lens and better optics. I might also consider taking my kit 75-300 and renting something shorter to temporarily replace my 18-55 I just can't decide if I want the W/A for the glaciers or the T/F for the whales and sea lions.
Rob O'
Loc: Freakin' Hot Arizona
I really think you would be more than disappointed in your pictures if you went with a TC. Your 75-300 is an adequate lens at best and will get you some OK pictures. But it suffers from chromatic aberration and softness. A TC will double not just the range, but also the flaws. If you want to treat yourself, but don't want to spend for a G lens (and I can totally understand that) then I vote for the rental. As for wide angle, your 18-55 is a better lens than people make it out to be. At 18mm it's pretty wide and should give you some satisfying results with the glaciers. I like it quite a bit.
More advice? Try to get your wide angle shots in the early morning or late evening when the light is soft. And consider shooting in RAW+JPG. If needed, the RAW file will let you adjust your white balance more readily than a JPG will. I envy you the Alaska cruise!
Don't think you could ask for more. Beautiful shot!
Rob O'
Loc: Freakin' Hot Arizona
Thank you very much. It is appreciated.
Love my 70-400 on my a55. But if its not in the budget Ive got some great shots with the 75-300 They just needed a little photo shop after.
planepics
Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs
I never thought about the TC magnifying the flaws as well as the distance. I think I will more than ever consider renting the long lens. Our union (which I was forced to join when I got hired this summer) just voted in a new contract and we are going to be getting some retroactive pay. It's probably not going to be much, but wouldn't if be fun to be able to rent 2 nice lenses?
Just had another thought. What about something like an 18-270? I'd lose some on the long end, but if I got something with good enough optics, I wouldn't have to worry about changing lenses and getting anything on the sensor. I've never used a "uni-lens" before.
Sorry...just had another thought after looking at rerviews of uni-lenses...Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM or Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 SSM, the 2.8 being $6 more expensive (at borrowlenses.com), with 1/2 the reach, but a larger aperture. Which is more important???
Rob O'
Loc: Freakin' Hot Arizona
On a cruise to Alaska? I'd go for the reach. You'll be shooting in daylight, right? You shouldn't need f/2.8. And I think taking a picture of a grizzly bear, you'd want to be as faaaaaar away as possible!
planepics
Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs
I just had a new thought...For a little more than the 100-400, I could rent the Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SSM and the 16-50 DT. They are each lighter than the 70-400 and the reviews seem to be pretty good as well. Does anyone have experience with these lenses?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.