Zoom Suggestions

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by MF06D, Jul 24, 2003.

  1. MF06D

    MF06D Guest

    I was on vacation this past weekend with my Maxxum 7000i, 50mm f/1.7, and
    35-70mm f/4 Macro. For most of the weekend I traveled with my 35-70, just
    because of versatility, and because it was sunny and I used ISO 400 (c41) film.
    Yesterday, on our way home from Williamsburg, VA, we stopped in Washington DC
    (my favorite city of all) and I spent all day angry at the lack of versatility
    of my 50mm f/1.7 lens! I needed just a bit more zoom to get past those other
    tourists, or I needed a little bit of a wide angle to get all of the building
    in the same photo. I took this lens over the other because it was overcast
    outside at the time that I had to choose, and I would rather not carry an
    inventory of lenses with me while touring.

    What I need is a lens that allows fairly wide angle (28-35) performance, as
    well as a telephoto end (200-300). As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was
    looking at the Maxxum 70-210 f/4 MACRO, but it would make me carry around my
    35-70 as well, if I want any wide-angle shots. And, because most of my
    traveling doesn't support carrying a heavy camera bag around (lots of walking,
    hopping on and off busses, the desire to enjoy my trip without going home with
    a broken shoulder) I would like to be able to carry around my camera without
    another 2 or 3 lenses as well. I know that I will sacrifice image quality with
    a zoom in this range, but if I can't compose the shot that I want with what I
    have, what good is image quality? Thats my theory at least. If I can't get a
    good lens of my liking (28-200mm would be good) in my price range (100$ or
    under, used) then I will defenitely go with the 70-210 f/4 MACRO.

    BTW: I do not travel all too often, usually about 5 times a year where I must
    leave what I don't need behind, but I do go to events with friends/family where
    I would rather not carry around 4 lenses. I do not do professional work by any
    means, but, as is probably apparent from my posting here, I am a serious
    amateur.

    Thanks again.
    Matt
     
    MF06D, Jul 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. MF06D

    F100 Guest

    Buying those lenses might get you the composition you want, but you are
    sticking to the same composition you have in mind. So it doesnt really
    change
    your photography in that aspect. It's a given that any lens can take a
    great picture.

    Whats wrong with including including some tourists in the picture?

    Just my 2 cents... when I travel I tend to carry a 50mm and a 24mm.

    k.
     
    F100, Jul 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. MF06D

    parv Guest

    If you had needed just wider angle, i would have suggested 24-50mm f/4
    (10.1 oz) zoom. (My copy would be arriving sometime today-Monday.)

    If you need lighter load, 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 (14.8 oz) is well worth
    the consideration in place of/in addition to 70-210mm f/4 (24.5 oz).
    I don't have the former yet, but the latter is quite heavy to hand
    hold steady.

    I hear 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (17.3 oz) is quite good too. This lens
    paired w/ 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 avoids the 50-70mm gap if that was of any
    concern.

    Any of the suggestions won't do you any good, I suppose, as you seem
    to want a "single zoom solution" covering wide angle to telephoto.


    For completeness sake, 35-70mm f/4 zoom is 9.1 oz, 50mm f/1.7 6oz.
    The weights are rounded to 1 decimal place, listed at...

    http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent/CPG/CPG_Attachments/Maxxum_Lenses



    - parv
     
    parv, Jul 24, 2003
    #3
  4. MF06D

    Lewis Lang Guest

    If you can live w/ only one lens and the lack of 200-300mm reach I'd say get a
    24-105 Maxxum lens or the Tamron 24-135 both of which have good reports. If you
    can stand to carry another lens around get the 70-210/4 (discontinued) Maxxum
    zoom. You could get a 24-200 Tokina but this zoom, though well built, is on the
    heavy side (and you might have to stop down a bit to eliminate light falloff).
    I believe at one time Minolta made a 35-200mm xi? zoom lens (but I have no idea
    how good or bad it is). Minolta made 2? versions of their 35-105 (one w/ macro
    and one w/o?) which might be available on ebay inexpensively. On the long end
    Minolta made a 100-200/4.5 zoom which is inexpensive (used/discontinued) and
    sharp. Minolta also made the excellently sharp 28-135mm Maxxum zoom but it is
    large and (possibly) heavy and has a minimum focusing distance of around 5 or 6
    feet if I remember correctly. Minolta has made some nicely sharp 28-85mm and
    28-105mm Maxxum zooms but, obviously they don't reach out to the 200-300mm
    range. I can't comment on (almost) any of the 28-200/300 zooms as I haven't
    seen results from any of them except an older Tamron 28-200 which seemed OK at
    about 8x12" in the 105 range or so but I don't know how good it was longer or
    wider plus the shots from it were of two little girls w/ some diffusion filter
    added (not the best test of a lens ;-)). The 28-200mm lenses have been
    criticized for their less than spectacular optical performance due to their
    extra "stretch"/focal length range of 8?x or more which makes them an optical
    compromise. Your best solution would be to go to a camera store and either rent
    (doubtful) or borrow the lens (if even to only shoot it outside their front
    door, if not for the weekend). Store like B&H have a return policy in which you
    can return a lens w/i about 14 days (w/ a return authorization number you
    should probably get beforehand) if you are not satisfied w/ its quality.
    Whichever lens you decide to get should be at least capable of delivering good
    results at 8x10/12" (assuming that you want to make an occaisional blow up
    beyond standard 4x6" prints, of course) w/ the film, lighting conditions and
    subject matter you usually prefer to shoot. You might want to go to
    www.photographyreview.com and www.camerareview.com for people's opinions of
    lenses you are interested in (take them worth a grain of salt as they tend to
    be biased sometimes). Most of my work is done between 24-50 so the 24-50 and
    the 70-210/4 Maxxum zooms do me fine - I just take the shorter zoom on one
    camera when I want to knock around for most of my work and when I'm more
    "serious" I take both zooms w/ me (usually w/ the longer zoom in a camera bag
    because it is relatively big and can not be stuffed into most coat pockets, and
    I also like to have extra room for a flash and more film/etc.). Its a shame you
    are so against carrying two lenses w/ your one body or two lenses w/ two bodies
    as this would make for less lens switching and/or film changes. Its also a
    shame that you can't make due w/ a 24/28-105/135 as you would be able to get
    bye w/ just one lens and use faster film (like 800 or 1600 I.S.O.) when you
    needed it for overcast conditions. Making the "sacrifice" of carrying both the
    35-70/4 and the 50/1.7 (or just the 35-70/4 (or whatever 24/28/35-105/135
    equivalent)) w/ some faster film would have saved you some grief earlier as you
    say you only needed a bit more range in these situations. If you only need "a
    bit more" range as you say (I guess it depends on your definition of "a bit")
    you might be able to get by w/ either the 35-70/4 you have (w/ faster film for
    overcast conditions) or at worse, you might have to spend money on a new or
    used 24/28/35-105/135 I suggested earlier. Why not go to a semi-similar closer
    to you event/place/trip and just take your 35-70/4 and some 1-400 and some 800
    speed (for overcast) film and see if you can get by w/ what you've already got
    before you decide you must get another lens or lenses? A 50mm f/1.7 lens is not
    so much of a big deal/disadvantage to carry around in your zipped up jacket
    pocket, but if you were to forsake it at least you could determine by how much
    or any degree you needed a wider than 35mm or longer than 70mm range zoom to do
    the type of work/play you do w/ the faster film making up for the lack of the
    fast 50mm.

    Lots of suggestions to consider but I am lenaing more towards the last one,
    only you can find out/determine what will meet your needs by testing your needs
    in reality w/ real equipment....

    Best wishes,

    Lewis

    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

    http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

    Remove "nospam" to reply
     
    Lewis Lang, Jul 24, 2003
    #4
  5. MF06D

    MF06D Guest

    Lots of suggestions to consider but I am lenaing more towards the last one,
    Thanks for the insight. I have decided that I will probably purchase some kind
    of telephoto lens, either the 70-210 f/4 or the 100-200 f/4.5 that you and a
    few others that I have talked to have mentioned. The 100-200 seems to be much
    lighter and shorter than the 70-210, and would allow me to carry that in a
    pocket, or on the camera and carry the 35-70 in my pocket.
    It is, only about 50$ around me. I have heard so much of the infamous 70-210,
    am I looking at the similar quality characteristics? (metal mount mostly)

    Thanks again. You are my #1 source for NG info on Maxxum equipment.

    Matt
     
    MF06D, Jul 24, 2003
    #5
  6. MF06D

    Paul W. Ross Guest

    Well, an inexpensive Vivitar or Phoenix 28mm will set you back around
    $65, and a little more for a 24mm fixed focal length.

    I hate to suggest it <please, no flames!> but a 2x telextender might
    do the trick for the extra focal length. You will take a couple of
    stops of a hit in speed, but if you are out-of-doors, and have plenty
    of light, and use fast film, that might work. The foregoing will give
    you mininal weight and space.

    I used to carry just the 28mm and 50mm before I got the zoom (30-85mm)
    for my Pentax ZX-M.

    Simple and light weight is good...

    /paul
     
    Paul W. Ross, Jul 25, 2003
    #6
  7. MF06D

    Paul W. Ross Guest

    Well, an inexpensive Vivitar or Phoenix 28mm will set you back around
    $65, and a little more for a 24mm fixed focal length.

    I hate to suggest it <please, no flames!> but a 2x telextender might
    do the trick for the extra focal length. You will take a couple of
    stops of a hit in speed, but if you are out-of-doors, and have plenty
    of light, and use fast film, that might work. The foregoing will give
    you mininal weight and space.

    I used to carry just the 28mm and 50mm before I got the zoom (30-85mm)
    for my Pentax ZX-M.

    Simple and light weight is good...

    /paul
     
    Paul W. Ross, Jul 25, 2003
    #7
  8. MF06D

    Tom Guest

    I have the 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 lens parv mentions. Besides being lighter
    it is also shorter when set to 70mm. The f/4 lens doesn't change
    length as it zooms, the f/3.5-4.5 does. I have carried it in my
    pocket when necessary, and it fits nicely in a small camera case. I
    also have the f/4 in manual mount. Both lenses are very sharp,
    although the f/3.5-4.5 is a little sharper at the long end.

    I also have the 24-105. It is also small and light. Both have a
    metal mount, but the barrels are polycarbonate.

    I also had the same problem that you mention. I was in Italy on
    vacation a couple of years ago. I only had a couple of lenses then
    and chose to take a 28-105 as my main lens and the 50 f/1.7 for dark &
    just in case my other lens broke. One evening we went to the Treve
    (sp?) fountain. I decided to take only my 50mm. When we got there
    the crowds were very thick. I saw a lot of shots I wanted to take,
    but because of the crowd and the size of the fountain, the 50 was a
    very poor choice. When I moved up to the edge of the pond surrounding
    the fountain, I didn't have the crowd blocking me, but I needed a
    wider angle lens to get the field of view I wanted. When I moved back
    far enough to get the view, it was blocked by the crowd (since it was
    night, there were no good crowd shots). If I had brought my 28-105, I
    could have taken both the close up shots and the distant ones.

    Tom
     
    Tom, Jul 26, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.