Is there an optimum range for a Tele-Zoom? (Page 4): It is more difficult to design a zoom lens high image quality and fast autofocus if the zoom range is large. If you need a...

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Chris T wrote:

There are many reminders, here, of how good the Canon EOS 100-400 II is … but, there are not many mentions of other lenses which achieve similar (or better) zoom ratios. The ones which come immediately to mind are the Tamron 150-600 G2, and the Nikkor 200-500, and the Sigma 50-500 - all quite capable lenses.

Is there a clear winner in this category considering all of the factors which go into making a great tele-zoom?

It is more difficult to design a zoom lens high image quality and fast autofocus if the zoom range is large. If you need a telephoto zoom lens with a large zoom range, you have to accept that.

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

Your not saying what camera you have if you have a Nikon why are you coinsured about a canon you won't be buying a canon the Nikon 200 to500 is your best bet.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

rmorrison1116 wrote:

I didn't have 13 Canon bodies at the time. If I re... (show quote)

Oh, I see - so you WERE prepared, with two - but NOT in the right way, for a UWA shot … oh, well. Glad you found success with the Tamron replacement, and are happy with it - always good to know, R.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

rmorrison1116 wrote:

That makes sense. I don't have a 5D3, I have a 5DS... (show quote)

I agree, a damp cloth and all my cameras look new, the only piece of equipment I own that looks a little beat is that 500mm and it came to me that way.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

jackpinoh wrote:

It is more difficult to design a zoom lens high image quality and fast autofocus if the zoom range is large. If you need a telephoto zoom lens with a large zoom range, you have to accept that.

Yes, Jack - I know that. And, of course - the 1:4 ratio achieved in the Canon 100-400L II (and others) and the various 150-600 lenses - is overshadowed by Sigma's 10:1 ratio in their 50-500 - which is supposed to be quite a good lens. But, if you take the 1:4 ratio as the established norm - then - Nikon comes along with their 2.5:1 ratio 200-500 - which SHOULD outshine the Canon 100-400L II and DOESN'T - one has to wonder just what is going on here ….

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

carl hervol wrote:

Your not saying what camera you have if you have a Nikon why are you coinsured about a canon you won't be buying a canon the Nikon 200 to500 is your best bet.

Who is this message to, Carl? …

If you click on Quote Reply - before you answer - a portion of the message to whom you're replying - goes up … and then nobody has any doubt to whom your message is addressed …

BTW - many of us (me, included) list all our cameras in the Signature - which is attached automatically, at the bottom of every comment we make. (I have also included a pic of two of my best, in the Avatar.) It's a good idea to look at that, before making enquiries as to which camera … as this will tend to answer all ….

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Chris T wrote:

There are many reminders, here, of how good the Canon EOS 100-400 II is … but, there are not many mentions of other lenses which achieve similar (or better) zoom ratios. The ones which come immediately to mind are the Tamron 150-600 G2, and the Nikkor 200-500, and the Sigma 50-500 - all quite capable lenses.

Is there a clear winner in this category considering all of the factors which go into making a great tele-zoom?

For me its a balance of FL, sharpness, weight, cost. Also how the camera/lens will be used, i.e., stationary or carried.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Blurryeyed wrote:

I agree, a damp cloth and all my cameras look new, the only piece of equipment I own that looks a little beat is that 500mm and it came to me that way.

Yes, that does seem to work well, although I'm more inclined to use Windex Electronic Wipes - which are pre-moistened, and come out of the package, already damp. Much simpler, and safer - than using water. But, these kinds of treatments are not going to do much to remove scratches, though, Blurry …

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Chris T wrote:

- then - Nikon comes along with their 2.5:1 ratio 200-500 - which SHOULD outshine the Canon 100-400L II and DOESN'T - one has to wonder just what is going on here ….

Mostly, Fluorite.... not sure about the outshine part tho ....
.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Chris T wrote:

Yes, that does seem to work well, although I'm more inclined to use Windex Electronic Wipes - which are pre-moistened, and come out of the package, already damp. Much simpler, and safer - than using water. But, these kinds of treatments are not going to do much to remove scratches, though, Blurry …

I do camera "refurbishing" at a reuse-recycle business, selling lots of cameras. I use 90% Isopropyl Alcohol wherever it works for cleaning cameras, filters and etc. Also computer keyboards and more. Cleans where water won't, and less destructive than other solvents. Some lens cleaning fluids are nothing more than alcohol. It's a disinfectant, too!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

joer wrote:

For me its a balance of FL, sharpness, weight, cost. Also how the camera/lens will be used, i.e., stationary or carried.

So, then, Joe … you are a firm believer in the value of the 100-400 L II then - are you?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

nadelewitz wrote:

I do camera "refurbishing" at a reuse-recycle business, selling lots of cameras. I use 90% Isopropyl Alcohol wherever it works for cleaning cameras, filters and etc. Also computer keyboards and more. Cleans where water won't, and less destructive than other solvents. Some lens cleaning fluids are nothing more than alcohol. It's a disinfectant, too!

Yes, I used to use that, too - works well on tape heads, keyboards, mice, and on telephones. But, I'm a bit wary of using alcohol on ANY camera surface. I only use dry wipes on lens optics. But, on camera surfaces, and on lens barrels - those damp Windex Electronics Wipes - seem to be just the ticket, Nadelewitz

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Chris T wrote:

There are many reminders, here, of how good the Canon EOS 100-400 II is … but, there are not many mentions of other lenses which achieve similar (or better) zoom ratios. The ones which come immediately to mind are the Tamron 150-600 G2, and the Nikkor 200-500, and the Sigma 50-500 - all quite capable lenses.

Is there a clear winner in this category considering all of the factors which go into making a great tele-zoom?

Optimum is a 8mm-600mm f/1.4 in a universal mount weighing in at just 600g. Oh, and it's fisheye on the wide end, magically becoming rectilinear at 12mm.

Used to be a zoom couldn't manage more than 3x and still maintain decent quality at both ends. Seems manufacturers are chipping away at that. Various 100-400mm zooms do well, and Sony's 24-105mm with a 4.4x range is a prime example. And yes, pun intended.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Desert Gecko wrote:

Optimum is a 8mm-600mm f/1.4 in a universal mount weighing in at just 600g. Oh, and it's fisheye on the wide end, magically becoming rectilinear at 12mm.

Used to be a zoom couldn't manage more than 3x and still maintain decent quality at both ends. Seems manufacturers are chipping away at that. Various 100-400mm zooms do well, and Sony's 24-105mm with a 4.4x range is a prime example. And yes, pun intended.

As does the Sigma 50-500 … and that's a 10:1 Tele-Zoom. And on the wide end - the 8-16 does quite well - ALSO - made by Sigma, as a matter of fact, DG …

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

imagemeister wrote:

Mostly, Fluorite.... not sure about the outshine part tho ....
.

Larry … it would seem to me - a tele-zoom - with a 2.5:1 ratio, as opposed to one with a 4:1 ratio - would surpass the other, fluorite, or no fluorite … would / should - it not?