Telezoom : old manual or new AF?

[pompoman]

Hello,

I plan on investing some money (not a lot, otherwise the choice would be easier! ) on a telephoto zoom lens. I was lurking on a Tamron 70-300 Di LD 4.5-5.6 Macro 1:2, which seems to be nice enough for the price. But after seeing the quality of my Asahi Pentax 50mm SMC f/1.4 (manual of course!) in terms of both speed and overall quality, I was thinking that maybe a manual lens for approximately the same price range could do a much better job... I also noticed that AF lenses in that price range tend to have slow autofocus, and my kit 18-55 had me focus manually anyway in low light condition (well, that was night though..)...

I also heard there are some chips integrated devices you can adapt on the mount that would tell you if the manual focusing is right...

Any advices, both pros and against on this idea, and on lenses available? (plus info on this chip!) Thank you in advance!

[fengwei]

A tele MF zoom lens isn't easy to use. If you go w/ MF, get a couple of prime lenses like M135/3.5 and M200/4. But in the field, an AF lens is so much easier to use. And you can use an AF lens as a MF one anyway (if you feel you can focus faster than the camera).

The Tamron 70-300 Di is a very good lens, as with the Sigma 70-300 APO DG, and of course the Pentax DA50-200.

Good luck.

[southernoise]

Agreed. When I was using my Olympus OM system, manual focus on a zoom lens is not that easy to use, ended up using mostly primes. Of course during the old days it was done like that but why? And why now when theres a whole load of AF lens available?

I'd say go with the Tamron or Sigma equivalent for that matter.

[pompoman]

Thanks guys,

Sure it is hard to deal with both focusing and zoom at the same time, but I thought maybe some special devices would help... That might be a pain somehow, but acquiring a REAL telephoto zoom is REALLY expensive (I mean for f/4 and below for example)... So maybe old manual lens could do the job I thought, at the price of some practice... Any experience with those kind of lenses please?

[longko]

I have these telephoto; Vivitar series 1 70-210 f2.8-f4 MF, Sears 135mm f2.8, Sigma 70-300mm APO & DA 50-200mm.

My conclusion is if you want MF go for primes. If you are going to take moving subjects go for the DA 50-200mm.

Vivitar Series 1 70-210 is an OK lens, it's good to know you have a f2.8-f4 telephoto in those low light condition. Sharpness wise is quite similar to today's budget telephoto.
Sears 135mm is really sharp but it has CA issue like most old lenses.
Sigma 70-300 APO sharpness & AF speed not as good as DA 50-200mm, but for a longer reach & 1:2 macro it's really value for money.
DA 50-200mm is my favourite zoom. Fast AF, good sharpness and at a price of around $350, it's a must have IMHO.

[creampuff]

The big difference boils down to focusing speed.
I have a number of manual and AF lenses and being brought up with manual focusing SLRs, I can vouch that one can shoot quickly and track the subject with an AF lens much faster than MF. Heck, you can shoot without putting your eye to the viewfinder too without worrying about focusing. However there are times where AF isn't necessarily an advantage.

If your subject is off centre when you compose in the viewfinder, you're shooting wide angles (lots of DOF), low lighting or shoot macro; AF isn't always necessary. After all, a lot of great photographs were shot MF, though I do admit if one has started photography using AF cameras, using MF isn't always intuitive.

[notone]

if you go for MF, only try on primes. better result at good price. but for zoom lens and esp tele zoom, better AF. you have to ensure you will use it often to justify the cost since $$ is concerned in your case, and second, when you use it, you would like to capture something first before thinking about quality. after all, at 200-300mm end, to be steady is the first concert. even you are well practised to do it, to hold cam firmly for 20-30s every shot will quickly exhaust your interest to shot any more. if you are going to capture moving target, it's really impossible unless you set focus-trap. To me, MF at tele end fails most of time due to narrow depth of view.
good news is all pentax DSLR bodies save our money on electronic-adaptor for focus assistant.

[pompoman]

Originally Posted by notone if you go for MF, only try on primes. better result at good price.

Yeah, I heard early zooms are not so flash as latest technologies brought lots of significant improvements, like the APO (saw some statements on an old website called Medium Format or so). But how useful prime lenses are, that I don't know... I have one, but it can be quite annoying not to be able to take a shot because it is too far or too close...

Originally Posted by notone you have to ensure you will use it often to justify the cost since $$ is concerned in your case, and second, when you use it, you would like to capture something first before thinking about quality

The 70-300 from Tamron is not so expensive I think? But it is not so fast... And I'd like to have a wide range zoom to make sure I can use the lens. I was even tempted by 18-200, but quality loss. I also don't know if 200mm is enough, so I thought I'd take a 300 as it is not so long nor heavy. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't want to have too many lenses, just beginning...

Originally Posted by notone if you are going to capture moving target, it's really impossible unless you set focus-trap.

??? What is a focus trap sorry?

Originally Posted by notone good news is all pentax DSLR bodies save our money on electronic-adaptor for focus assistant.

I don't understand this either... Could you slightly detail?

[creampuff]

I dare say there are many MF zooms that are just as good if not better than some of the current crop of AF zooms in terms of sharpness, resolution, contrast and build quality. Anyway if you're a Pentax user, you have the option to use both manual and autofocus lenses from screw mount, K mount to even Pentax 645 and Pentax 67 lenses. To me that's a big plus.

[born_slippy]

I have an older Pentax-A 70-210mm F/4 which is a manual focus lense. It uses push/pull for the zoom while turning adjusts the focus...seems to work for me. I got it for cheap so I can't complain

[pompoman]

Yeah f/4 is interesting and can justify the lack of AF... I wonder how much you can get one of these..? Which model is yours?

Another interesting things is what kind of shots do you take, and how often do you miss shots because of manual (or get them blurry with wrong focusing)??

[born_slippy]

Originally Posted by pompoman Yeah f/4 is interesting and can justify the lack of AF... I wonder how much you can get one of these..? Which model is yours?

This is the one I have...bought it off someone I found in the classifieds last year

Originally Posted by pompoman Another interesting things is what kind of shots do you take, and how often do you miss shots because of manual (or get them blurry with wrong focusing)??

Rarely do I go to the extreme end of 210mm indoors, initially it's a hit or miss but after you get used to the zoom/focus collar being the same thing it's not too bad, especially now with the SR of the K10D....only thing you have to watch for is zoom creep if you mount it on a tripod.

[pompoman]

So finally I guess a new AF when it comes to zoom is preferable ... I was just thinking of catching some wildlife with average (not so good, dim) light conditions: in this case, if you are far away, having a fast lens helps, and if far enough, the beasties won't walk away from you very fast... And in these conditions if they are moving Shake Reduction doesn't help. I never use it anyway.

So the only remaining question probably is the choice between Pentax 50-200 and Tamron 70-300 Di LD Macro 1:2 (difficult to get Sigma where I am)... Is the Pentax really better than Tamron in its range, cause the price is really different (30% more I think) ! I still don't know whether I need 300mm (450 with crop ratio), waiting to try a friend's lens to see if 200 is enough... Macro could be nice addition as well.

[yarland]

I am also looking around for a good zoom. Have anyone used the Tokina AT-x 80-200/f2.8(used and about same price as a new Pentax 50-200)?
This is a manual focus with A setting. Is it advisable to get this or the Pentax 50-200?
Thks

[creampuff]

Originally Posted by yarland I am also looking around for a good zoom. Have anyone used the Tokina AT-x 80-200/f2.8(used and about same price as a new Pentax 50-200)? This is a manual focus with A setting. Is it advisable to get this or the Pentax 50-200? Thks

The Tokina is a superb lens. To me the MF version is better than the AF version. Can't really compare between the 2 lenses because one is a fast fixed aperture tele zoom while the other is a compact, budget, digital only variable aperture tele zoom. As much as the Pentax 50-200 is good, I would opt for the Tokina, but then again I'm partial towards Tokina. F2.8 is a BIG deal.

[fengwei]

Originally Posted by yarland I am also looking around for a good zoom. Have anyone used the Tokina AT-x 80-200/f2.8(used and about same price as a new Pentax 50-200)? This is a manual focus with A setting. Is it advisable to get this or the Pentax 50-200? Thks

If you need the speed, go w/ the Tokina. Otherwise go w/ the Pentax 50-200. When stopped down to F8, the DA50-200 is really hard to be surpassed by any zoom lens.

[creampuff]

Originally Posted by pompoman So finally I guess a new AF when it comes to zoom is preferable ... I was just thinking of catching some wildlife with average (not so good, dim) light conditions: in this case, if you are far away, having a fast lens helps, and if far enough, the beasties won't walk away from you very fast... And in these conditions if they are moving Shake Reduction doesn't help. I never use it anyway. So the only remaining question probably is the choice between Pentax 50-200 and Tamron 70-300 Di LD Macro 1:2 (difficult to get Sigma where I am)... Is the Pentax really better than Tamron in its range, cause the price is really different (30% more I think) ! I still don't know whether I need 300mm (450 with crop ratio), waiting to try a friend's lens to see if 200 is enough... Macro could be nice addition as well.

If you want to shoot wildlife from a distance, a longer focal length will help. However it will also mean more of a challenge to shoot handheld. If you're gonna shoot in dim/fading light condition, you'll definitely need Shake Reduction if you're shooting without a tripod. You've got the wrong idea of SR. It's there to reduce camera shake, not about subject movement. For the kind of shooting you have in mind, both the Pentax and Tamron budget zooms will fall short in my opinion. Being variable aperture zooms, at max zoom range, max aperture for both lenses is a slow f5.6. In low light, AF performance is going to be so-so. You'll be better off with a fast telephoto anytime.

[yarland]

Thank you for all your good advice. I like the Tokina but weight is a problem. I will try out the 50-200 this weekend before making my decision.

[pompoman]

Originally Posted by creampuff If you want to shoot wildlife from a distance, a longer focal length will help. However it will also mean more of a challenge to shoot handheld. If you're gonna shoot in dim/fading light condition, you'll definitely need Shake Reduction if you're shooting without a tripod.

I got a tripod and I'm going to use it if possible.

Originally Posted by creampuff You've got the wrong idea of SR. It's there to reduce camera shake, not about subject movement.

Thanks bro, but I know what SR is, even though I miss to understand some other figures! I was just saying that even if I have my camera on a sturdy with SR enabled, if these subjects move, it is going to be blurry anyway in low light (unless I significantly increase ISO and get a f/2.8)!

The Tokina seems interesting for the price...

[yarland]

This the the Tokina I am talking about.
http://auction1.taobao.com/auction/1...bd986896.jhtml