Best cheap Sony telephoto lens?

[Gershy13]

Probably not the best place to post this, but I was wondering if anyone could suggest me a Sony lens (e mount for the a6300) that has a really far zoom range (300+ mm) ideally somewhere around 400-600mm... I have the 55-210, but 210 sometimes just isn't enough, and it's not very sharp so you can't really crop in very well... It's also pretty dark at f6.3 and I can't get much bokeh with it...

 

I can't spend too much money... And have a budget of about £400... Even used is fine.

 

I don't mind non sony lenses, as long as it had decent focusing for video and photo tracking af-c... I've heard the new update for the sigma MC 11 improves the focusing and it's nearly like a native lens now?

 

I also would like it to be fairly compact, not like massive compared to the small body of the a6300... And be able to fit it in a camera bag...

 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks

Gershy13

[thekillergazebo]

I’m not sure you will find any lens to fit into your wish list. Most people I see with a zoom lens on Sony is the sigma 150-600 and use the mc 11. Your looking at about $900 to $1,200 new. Not sure the price used. Sigma did release the 100-400 but I think that’s about $700-$800 New. And because it’s new I don’t think your going to get a deal on a used one. Really only thing you can do is find something like a teleconverter that goes on the front of your 55-210. A guy I know got one and did the same thing for $100. It about the same sharpness if not worse and you get some bad vinetting. Also it doesn’t really compress the background like you will get with a proper lens. I think his was a x1.7

 

id say save your money till you can buy something decent. No point in buying something which doesn’t meet all your needs and your going to have to buy again. Also consider renting a lens that meets your needs when you have to have it. I just rent macro lenses when I know I’m shooting macro.

[Gershy13]

9 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

I’m not sure you will find any lens to fit into your wish list. Most people I see with a zoom lens on Sony is the sigma 150-600 and use the mc 11. Your looking at about $900 to $1,200 new. Not sure the price used. Sigma did release the 100-400 but I think that’s about $700-$800 New. And because it’s new I don’t think your going to get a deal on a used one. Really only thing you can do is find something like a teleconverter that goes on the front of your 55-210. A guy I know got one and did the same thing for $100. It about the same sharpness if not worse and you get some bad vinetting. Also it doesn’t really compress the background like you will get with a proper lens. I think his was a x1.7

 

id say save your money till you can buy something decent. No point in buying something which doesn’t meet all your needs and your going to have to buy again. Also consider renting a lens that meets your needs when you have to have it. I just rent macro lenses when I know I’m shooting macro.

ahh right thanks for the tip... How would the focusing be using an adapted lens? I dont really want to use a teleconverter or anything like that, as the quality of the 55-210 is already pretty bad...

[cc143]

What exactly are you photographing? 

 

Now, looking at your list of requirements, I doubt anything like that exists or is even possible. Most pro glass, even for mirrorless cameras is still quite huge and heavy, I have even seen sony FE glass that is larger than Canon L equivalent, so I would accept if I were you that, if I want good optical quality, as fast a lens as possible, AF performance etc. its going to be expensive and big and heavy. 

 

There may be some used manual primes you can adapt fairly cheap at 400mm, but again, they would be manual focus. The 150-600 and 200-500 would be good enough optically but you would still need to adapt, at cost of AF performance mind you, because it still isn't native glass and would cost at least 3 times your budget. 

[Gershy13]

16 minutes ago, cc143 said:

What exactly are you photographing? 

 

Now, looking at your list of requirements, I doubt anything like that exists or is even possible. Most pro glass, even for mirrorless cameras is still quite huge and heavy, I have even seen sony FE glass that is larger than Canon L equivalent, so I would accept if I were you that, if I want good optical quality, as fast a lens as possible, AF performance etc. its going to be expensive and big and heavy. 

 

There may be some used manual primes you can adapt fairly cheap at 400mm, but again, they would be manual focus. The 150-600 and 200-500 would be good enough optically but you would still need to adapt, at cost of AF performance mind you, because it still isn't native glass and would cost at least 3 times your budget. 

ahh right... thanks anyway... are there any lenses at 300mm that would be pretty good?

[cc143]

1 minute ago, Gershy13 said:

ahh right... thanks anyway... are there any lenses at 300mm that would be pretty good?

You can possibly get a 150-400 or 150-600 APO by sigma used for around £400, but I doubt it is fully supported by the MC11, whose cost I'm not including here. 

 

I doubt there is anything by sony, there are pretty cheap 70-300mms by sigma, canon and tamron, but I would personally prefer cropping from 24mm than use one, they are that bad resolution wise. 

There is also the 18-400 tamron hyperzoom, but, I wouldn't personally touch that with a 10 foot pole. 

 

The focal lengths you are talking about are much longer than any beginner or amateur would normally need and thus no one would expect makers to manufacture them, they even limited their kit telephoto lenses to 250-210mm from the ~300mm it used to be in the past, because no amateur would really need that sort of magnification. These focal lengths are usually for sports and wildlife shooters, who are willing to spend much more than that, and Sony in particular has no glass in those areas, I'm sure some will come given the a9, but, it will still be priced for professionals, and I would bet won't sell that much. 

 

Double your budget, maybe that is reasonable for the sort of lens you are looking for+ and adapter, and still, that would depend on what you want to do, a 400mm, even given the 1.5 crop of your camera may be too short for some uses, and will certainly cost a lot for quality and a wide enough aperture (If such a thing exist, I believe Canon's 400mm L lens is an f/2.8 and costs 10 grand, the cheapest 300mm I can actually think of is an f/4 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-300mm-4-0L-Image-Stabilising/dp/B00005QF6R so you get the sort of money people spend on this stuff. 

 

 

[Gershy13]

3 minutes ago, cc143 said:

You can possibly get a 150-400 or 150-600 APO by sigma used for around £400, but I doubt it is fully supported by the MC11, whose cost I'm not including here. 

 

I doubt there is anything by sony, there are pretty cheap 70-300mms by sigma, canon and tamron, but I would personally prefer cropping from 24mm than use one, they are that bad resolution wise. 

There is also the 18-400 tamron hyperzoom, but, I wouldn't personally touch that with a 10 foot pole. 

 

The focal lengths you are talking about are much longer than any beginner or amateur would normally need and thus no one would expect makers to manufacture them, they even limited their kit telephoto lenses to 250-210mm from the ~300mm it used to be in the past, because no amateur would really need that sort of magnification. These focal lengths are usually for sports and wildlife shooters, who are willing to spend much more than that, and Sony in particular has no glass in those areas, I'm sure some will come given the a9, but, it will still be priced for professionals, and I would bet won't sell that much. 

 

Double your budget, maybe that is reasonable for the sort of lens you are looking for+ and adapter, and still, that would depend on what you want to do, a 400mm, even given the 1.5 crop of your camera may be too short for some uses, and will certainly cost a lot for quality and a wide enough aperture (If such a thing exist, I believe Canon's 400mm L lens is an f/2.8 and costs 10 grand, the cheapest 300mm I can actually think of is an f/4 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-300mm-4-0L-Image-Stabilising/dp/B00005QF6R so you get the sort of money people spend on this stuff. 

 

 

ahh right thanks anyway... i was looking for something to replace my 55-210, which isnt too great for sports or wildlife, which i do quite often (not professionally or anything, just as a hobby...) But it looks like ill just have to stick with it. i cant really spend above £400, as thats nearly what i payed for the body and kit lens...

[xQubeZx]

Dude, you are just dreaming. Nothing fits those requirements. Firstly a 200+mm in a compact format? Physics doesn’t really allow that unless you seriusly drop image quality and f-stops. 

 

Secondly, for 400 you will only get the 55-210 if you want native Sony E mount. And any lens worth adapting would run you 400+ plus an 200-500 af adapter. 

 

The best way to go is to get the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 and a teleconverter for those times you would need the extra reach. But that would run you about 1000USD used, at best

[Gershy13]

17 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

Dude, you are just dreaming. Nothing fits those requirements. Firstly a 200+mm in a compact format? Physics doesn’t really allow that unless you seriusly drop image quality and f-stops. 

 

Secondly, for 400 you will only get the 55-210 if you want native Sony E mount. And any lens worth adapting would run you 400+ plus an 200-500 af adapter. 

 

The best way to go is to get the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 and a teleconverter for those times you would need the extra reach. But that would run you about 1000USD used, at best

thanks... it didnt have to be ultra small... ive seen some lenses that are 300/400mm and arent too big... i just dont want it to absolutely massive... Looks like ill just have to stick to the 55-210...

[thekillergazebo]

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

Dude, you are just dreaming. Nothing fits those requirements. Firstly a 200+mm in a compact format? Physics doesn’t really allow that unless you seriusly drop image quality and f-stops. 

 

Secondly, for 400 you will only get the 55-210 if you want native Sony E mount. And any lens worth adapting would run you 400+ plus an 200-500 af adapter. 

 

The best way to go is to get the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 and a teleconverter for those times you would need the extra reach. But that would run you about 1000USD used, at best

You can not use the teleconverter on the FE 70-200 f/4 and the ones Sony makes that go in before the lens sonys limited so they only work with the f2.8.

 

48 minutes ago, Gershy13 said:

thanks... it didnt have to be ultra small... ive seen some lenses that are 300/400mm and arent too big... i just dont want it to absolutely massive... Looks like ill just have to stick to the 55-210...

Sony does make a 70-300 and I believe that goes for like 1k or something and will be the best you can do. Sony makes a 100-400 but that sells for $2100 or so. I’ve gotten to use it and it’s simple amazing. It’s the sharpest lens I’ve ever used. Way sharper then any prime I own. But for quality equipment you got to pay. And your statement about you paid 400 for the camera so you don’t want to own a lens thag cost more is BS. Your money should go more into the lens then the body. 

[Gershy13]

9 minutes ago, thekillergazebo said:

You can not use the teleconverter on the FE 70-200 f/4 and the ones Sony makes that go in before the lens sonys limited so they only work with the f2.8.

 

Sony does make a 70-300 and I believe that goes for like 1k or something and will be the best you can do. Sony makes a 100-400 but that sells for $2100 or so. I’ve gotten to use it and it’s simple amazing. It’s the sharpest lens I’ve ever used. Way sharper then any prime I own. But for quality equipment you got to pay. And your statement about you paid 400 for the camera so you don’t want to own a lens thag cost more is BS. Your money should go more into the lens then the body. 

yeah im just going to have to stick to the 55-210... Im 15 and cant afford anything better to be honest... i paid £630 for the body and 16-50 kit lens. I also have the 55-210, and the 35 1.8 oss... The 10-18 was too expensive, but i had my canon 10-18 lying around so i got a fotodiox adapter, and that works fairly well in af-s.

[historicalpoultry]

There is maybe one thing that would fit your need. Sigma made a 400mm f 5.6 for the Minolta AF line of cameras which used the a-mount, which is identical to Sony's a-mount. I happen to have one atm, borrowed it from a friend who had several Minolta cameras... Anyways, it works with the LA-EA4 Adapter from Sony. Tbh, I haven't had any chance to fully test the thing yet, but from what I read online it is not bad. Not fantastic but also not terrible. You might be able to get the lens and adapter for under 400£ on ebay. Mind you, Sigma coated the thing in some rubber and it degrades badly over time. I had to clean the one I have with isopropyl before I could use it.

I just now took this sample snap for you to have a slight reference (overcast weather, on an a6500 at f 5.6). You'll see that the image is quite soft at 5.6, so you'd most likely need to stop down a bit...

 

[Gershy13]

1 minute ago, historicalpoultry said:

There is maybe one thing that would fit your need. Sigma made a 400mm f 5.6 for the Minolta AF line of cameras which used the a-mount, which is identical to Sony's a-mount. I happen to have one atm, borrowed it from a friend who had several Minolta cameras... Anyways, it works with the LA-EA4 Adapter from Sony. Tbh, I haven't had any chance to fully test the thing yet, but from what I read online it is not bad. Not fantastic but also not terrible. You might be able to get the lens and adapter for under 400£ on ebay. Mind you, Sigma coated the thing in some rubber and it degrades badly over time. I had to clean the one I have with isopropyl before I could use it.

I just now took this sample snap for you to have a slight reference (overcast weather, on an a6500 at f 5.6). You'll see that the image is quite soft at 5.6, so you'd most likely need to stop down a bit...

 

thanks but even then, the af wouldnt be the quickest... i think ill just have to work with my 55-210