Now that the topic of "big glass" is out in the open, I have a question
for those using these types of lens. What tripod heads do you hang them on?
I've recently acquired a Tamron 300/2.8 and, while I do have a monopod,
I now have to get a tripod and head, and I am looking for a reasonable
solution to the stability/weight/price equation. Too heavy and the
tripod will never leave home; too expensive and there will be questions
from my better half (who's eyes popped when she saw the size of the
lens!); and too flimsy and unwowrkable etc. And, yes, I've seen the
many threads on tripods on Photo-net.
I've more or less decided on the legs; however, the real challenge (from
price perspective particularly) is an adequate ball head. The easy (and
expensive) choices are Arca-Swiss, Kirk BH-1, Wimberley, and Acratech
(is it sturdy enough?). I expect that I will likely not be straying far
with this lens/tripod, and would likely hang some smaller lenses (Tamron
180 and shorter) on it too. Camera will be an OM+winder. Also, is it
realistic to consider getting something relatively cheap and then
upgrade, though this would no doubt be more expensive. So,are there
others that I might get away with (e.g., Giottos 1000)? Grateful for
your views.
Martin
Moose wrote:
>Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>
>
>>Jeff mentions a 400/4 Tamron, a lens I'm not familiar with. What's the
>>best deal in an OM mount 300 or 400mm f/4 or similar fast glass? 2.8 is
>>probably too fast meaning expensive and heavy.
>>
>>
>>
>You've already heard about some of the big, fast, heavy and relatively
>expensive options.
>
>The Zuiko 300/ 4.5 is an excellent lens. Only 1 stop slower than the big
>guns and significantly smaller, lighter and cheaper.
>
>One of my favorite lenses is the Tamron SP (adaptall) 60-300/3.8-5.6. It
>is smaller and lighter than any of the primes mentioned so far and nice
>and sharp even at 300mm. The best example I have on the web is soemthing
>I've posted before for other reasons
><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/PrintvsScan/ScanvsPrint.htm>.
>Wide open at 1/60, resting on a car window (engine off!) on Kodak Royal
>Gold 400. This was scanned on the FS2710 at 2720 dpi. I don't know if
>there is any more detail to be pulled out, but I'm impressed as it is.
>
>Downsides are speed, 2 stops down from the big gun f2/8s and one down
>from the Zuiko, and the lack of a tripod mount. It's not heavy enough to
>challange an OM lens mount, but can make the lens/body combo unwieldy
>for really small, light tripods. But even there, I've had good results
>with care. Great for use with a monopod.
>
>Upsides besides size, weight and cost? It's sharp wide open, which is an
>advantage over some other long lenses. Sure, it's a little better at f8,
>but awfully good wide open. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's
>better than some of the slow 300mm lenses many folks made back in those
>days.
>
>Although all 300mm and up lenses take real care to get good hand held
>results, it's relative light weight helps. I think it's as easy to hand
>hold at 300mm as the 80-200/2.8 at 200mm, but others with stronger arms
>and more stamina may feel differently. Pair it with a nice wide to mid
>zoom and cover pretty much everything. With the 19-35 and a 50/1.4, you
>really cover everything.
>
>It does killer macro. And as a mid to long zoom, it means I have the
>longer reach available more often. I don't have to decide to take the
>big gun along and then have the time and patience to take it out and
>mount it. I just push the zoom ring, find something to lean myself
>and/or the lens against, if possible, and shoot away. Here are some more
>shots with it.
>http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite/pages/02043031.htm
>http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite/pages/02043A21.htm and the one
>following
>http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite/pages/02050102.htm and the one
>following
>
>The other thing for me about long lenses is that about all extra speed
>buys in many circumstances is a brighter viewfinder. DOF gets so shallow
>at long fls that shooting above f8 or so often doesn't give enough DOF
>anyway. I found myself wanting the stop down ring on the Sigma 600/8 for
>just that reason recently. It was nice and bright, and f16 would have
>been better for the shot.
>
>Moose
>
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
>
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|