Longest zoom lens with an auto focus option

[Dan05]

Hi all,

What is the longest zoom lens you know of that still has an auto focus feature and VR?

I have a 300mm Nikon and I wanted to get a little closer to the action at track days.

Any recommendations?


Thank you in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ameerat42]

[Although there are many others] There's the Sigma 150-600 S [/Although there are many others]
Tamron have an equivalent, as (I think) do Canon, all with AF option.

And if you're really keen (and well-heeled), look at the last one here.

[jim]

The 150-600 zooms (from both Sigma and Tamron) are a pretty good bet. Sigma makes a Sport version for north of $2000 that is supposed to be very good, their Contemporary and Tamron's SP are about $1000 less and both are good performers. All f6.3 at the long end.

[Geoff79]

Not half an hour ago I was with my brother in law and his monster 200-500mm lens, for his Nikon camera. I don't know anything more specific than that. I took a couple of shots at 500mm on autofocus.

Morale of the story, if he didn't know where we lived I'd have dashed into the bushland with it, never to return. Jeez I wish I had the money for something like that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tannin]

^ And just how much "dashing" are you going to manage with a 16 kilogram lens over your shoulder?

Well, if you are young and fit you could probably outdistance the average turtle.

Assuming that we are allowing teleconverters, you could stack a 2.0 and a 1.4 onto the Sigimonster for 1400mm at f/8, but how much use images taken at that focal length would be is another question.

I think the practical answer is either an 800/5.6 or a 600/4. Nikon make both as I recall, or for a bit less money you could buy the Canon 600 at around $14,000 and a 7D II with the change. Any 600/4 will take a 1.4 teleconverter without the slightest fuss for an effective 840/5.6, and if the light is good enough, a 2.0x for 1200/8, though I'm not convinced that you gain anything much doing that as opposed to using a 1.4 and cropping a bit.

Remember that effective reach is also determined by your camera's pixel density, and also that there is a law of diminishing returns. Assuming that you are unable to fill the frame with the desired subject using a given lens (and why else would you want a longer lens?), adding a teleconverter or using a higher-density camera achieve around about the same result overall, with the circumstances of each individual shot deciding which is the better option. Doing both at the same time tends to push things close to the limit and requires a suitable subject and excellent lighting.

Finally, bear it in mind that a simple focal length number doesn't tell the whole story. For example in the Canon world (which I am more familiar with than Nikonland), using one of the popular third-party "600mm" zooms (which are actually about 570mm) does not produce a sharper final image than using a 100-400 II or a 400/5.6 and cropping a little bit more. Quite possibly the same is true of something like the 80-400 VR, or (assuming that there is one) a Nikkor 400/5.6 prime.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, are we talking about the little 300-800? Sorry, I took it to be the big green 200-500/2.8. But even the little Sigma 800 is 6 kilograms, or about 1/3rd heavier than the Canon (and probably the Nikon one). You will find the original models (i.e., non-third-party) even easier to carry in practice because they leave you much lighter in the pocket.

[ameerat42]

He'd probably have a good chance, relatively speaking, as his B-I-L would probably be too tired after
lugging it around

[Plays With Light]

And if you're really keen (and well-heeled), look at the last one here.

Why would you go with the 300-800 when you could have the 500mm f/2.8 and use a 1.4x teleconverter to get the same reach? Much better image quality from that monster!
Unfortunately, I'd need to sell one of the twins on the blackmarket for body parts to buy one.

[Geoff79]

Haha, you guys aren't kidding about the size and weight of that lens. Using something like that for the first time ever, without a tripod, it was a genuine struggle getting it focused on where I wanted it to be. But instantly, without hesitation, I wanted to explore it more.

[ameerat42]

Why would you go with the 300-800 when you could have the 500mm f/2.8 and use a 1.4x teleconverter to get the same reach? Much better image quality from that monster!
Unfortunately, I'd need to sell one of the twins on the blackmarket for body parts to buy one.

Ah! - A lens for all reasons

[Dan05]

Food for thought. Thanks guys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro