/ A good second tele lens?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Lemming - on 12 Jan 2017

I know its all subjective and suchlike, but what focal length would people suggest to supplement a lens with a 24-70mm range on a full-frame camera?

I know that other cameras have different focal lengths and crop-factors, but if you could keep things simple and suggest focal lengths that would work on a full-frame camera, then I could do the maths and work out the focal length for my own camera.

I'm more inclined to think about a 70-200mm lens but these decisions are not cheap and I don't want to buy a lemon.

Or if I was to buy a prime, what would be the best bet to complement my one and only lens of 24-70mm?
Post edited at 15:34
1
thlcr1 on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to The Lemming:

Depends what you want a Tele lens for. I'd say 200mm FF equivalent is a bit short and you might be better with 300 or even 400mm. I assume your looking for something for your micro 4/3 in which case I can recommend the Panasonic 45-150mm (90-300 FF equivalent). Its smallish, light, cheap, fast to focus and surprisingly sharp. Of course if you want something with a bigger max aperture it all starts to get much more expensive.

Lee
johnhenderson - on 12 Jan 2017
In reply to The Lemming:

When you factor in the crop values for a none full frame lens , you will find they cover the same range anyway. so you would be after a 12-24mm wide angle 70-200mm short telephoto 200-400 mm telephoto as examples.
This all depends on what you want to shoot.
garycrocker - on 13 Jan 2017
In reply to The Lemming:
I have a 70-200 F4 L and it is an amazing lens with a really useful range. I also have a 1.4x extender to stretch it out a bit.
Tom Last - on 14 Jan 2017
In reply to The Lemming:

70-200 f2.8 is probably about the lens most used by pros that's out there. Gotta say something.
If you can stretch to 2.8 then that'd be best, obviously. If you're shooting Canon their 70-200 L USM 2.8 (or whatever it's called is tremendous - expect to pay about a grand. The 70-200 Canon f4 is excellent too and a good bit cheaper. Much more versatile than a 400mm. I've only ever wanted a 400mm at the cricket (never felt I needed it at the football really - a lot of sport action is actually too close of a 400, but using the football example again a 400mm would put you on top of all midfield action which obviously accounts for a lot in those circumstances) - but I don't shoot wildlife which may be your thing.
Toerag - on 16 Jan 2017
In reply to The Lemming:

If this is for your GH4, the Oly 40-150 is so cheap its a no-brainer. It's not the best lens (aperture means low light is tricky for stills at 150mm, and lacks contrast generally), but it is very good value for money. It's not weathersealed and extends.
The Lemming - on 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Toerag:

> the Oly 40-150 is so cheap its a no-brainer.

I am seriously giving some thought to a long zoom for a bit of wildlife photography. The only problem with Olympus lenses, and its not the fault of the lens, is that my camera does not have image stabilisation. I have to choose lenses that have stabilisation built in, especially more so with long zooms.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Toerag - on 16 Jan 2017
In reply to The Lemming:

Ah OK. Can't help I'm afraid other than say that most reviews tend to agree with each other on the m43 lenses. I like the Admiringlight reviews.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.