What Telephoto lenses are available for the EX3. I have a Nikon telezoom, but it's a pain to keep changing between that and the stock lens. To get even more reach I would need to go to the Nikon 600mm. Is there a long 1/2 or 2/3 lens that would suit wildlife, with a built in extender. I'm just looking at options.

Thanks

You can put any 2/3" lens on the EX3 with an adapter, and being only 1/2" you'll get 1/3 more reach reach out of it. BUT, you're talking serious money!
The big guns from Canon at present are the HJ40 and the HJ18x28, costing £30k and £25k, and the similarly priced ones from Fujinon are the HA42 and HA25x16.
An HJ22x7.8 will be about £13k and will get you upto 350mm with the extender, which is OK but still a bit short for wildlife.
This is why people use stills lenses, as the cost of broadcast telephotos is so high and the fact that they're using an EX3 implies that budget is a factor.
Steve

Steve thanks for that.

I've been looking at the CANON KJ20X8.5B KRS with x2 extender built in (5K) what would the 35mm equvalent be for that lens. The range is 8.5~170mm with extender.

Dave

Actually...I just realised..that's a 2/3" lens...not sure that would work on the EX3.

2/3" lenses will work with an adapter (you get an adapter with the camera that allows mounting 1/2" lenses, then there is an adapter that goes 1/2" to 2/3", sounds complicated but it works fine).
Never used the KJ20 but heard shocking things about it (hence the price!)
Be aware that the 1/2" to 2/3" converter has glass in it, and that if you use the 2x extender that puts more glass into the equation, plus 2/3" lenses resolve less than 1/2" ones, so I get the feeling the results would look pretty sludgy even from a good lens.
My recommendation would be Nikon 200-400 f4, about £5k. Or Sigma 120-300 f2.8 £2k.
Steve

Steve

I have the 200-400...looks like I'll be sticking with that. I may invest in something longer in the future e.g. Sigma 300-800.

Thanks All

What's the 200-400 like with 1.4 and 2x converter? Maybe that'd be a better bet. I'd have though 400 is plenty long enough for most things, then with a 1.4x when neccessary. The 300-800 adds so much weight and bulk, more prone to shake, needs probably bigger tripod, doubt if it's worth it myself.
Steve

One thing to consider, when using different lenses, is the direction to turn focus. I have stopped using my Nikon lenses and now only use Sigma. I started having trouble with decent focusing on my broadcast camera and lenses because my nikon lense focus turns the other way. Only way to get rid of that problem was to have lenses with the same way to turn focus - Sigma and my Canon broadcast works the same way.

In 35mm photographic terms, what is the focal length on these lenses: HJ40 and the HJ18x28?

There are 2 HJ40s, one goes from 10-400 (800 with built in 2x), the other 14-560 (1120 with 2x), and the 18x28 goes upto 500 (1000 with 2x).
The 18x28 is becoming a favourite with many now for a couple of reasons; it's much lighter and more compact (2.8kg vs 5kg) and it's optically superior. Only thing you loose is the wider end, though even the 10-400 was never wide enough that it was a one-lens-suits-all proposition.
Steve

I use the Sigma 120-300mm tele for my ex3. Makes great pictures. What I miss is the zooming capability when looking for flying birds. You cannot find them fast enough in the sky. The same with insects in grass or similar. You can zoom a little with the sigma lens but not really enough - and the focus (Backfocus) isent the same at different zoom factors. Often you want to take 3-4 shots in different sizes of the same situation and it takes too long to change the lens. I sometimes use a canon 8x20 lens with the fujinon adaptor. Mostly it give ok pictures - but not when there is to much backlight - the backlight produces some strange magenta shadows. Guess it comes from the adaptor and the extra glass in it. The same artifacts are there with my hj22x7,6. A 1/2" tele would probably not have these problems. The HJ40's are great for sports and has a image stabilizer that could be very handy in the wind - I have not tried it. The 18x28 has no image stabilizer.

. The HJ40's are great for sports and has a image stabilizer that could be very handy in the wind - I have not tried it. The 18x28 has no image stabilizer.
The IS on the HJ40 is only any use for locked off subjects, you can't pan and tilt with it - but yes, locked off in the wind it is useful. But I don't miss it and would have an 18x28 any day of the week.
Steve

Are the sigma lenses discussed here all metal lenses? Do they focus cleanly without any wiggle of the image during focus?

I have a 70 - 300 sigma and the focus jumps around like crazy

The Sigma 120-300/2.8 is a monster of a lens, yes all metal construction, internal zooming (it doesn't change it's length when zooming). I have the 120-300/2.8 and also have the Sigma 70-300, and you cannot compare the quality btwn those two at all... one is a $200- lens, the other is $2000-.

The 300-800/5.6 mentioned is scary huge and expensive. Also internal zooming and focusing, built like a tank.

Steve

I have the 200-400...looks like I'll be sticking with that. I may invest in something longer in the future e.g. Sigma 300-800.

Thanks All

The Sigma 300-800mm AF zoom, although heavy, is quite a sharp zoom lens, especially considering the range, price and reach,

The Nikon Ai-S Zoom-Nikkor 180-600mm f/8.0 ED is very sharp if you can find one on.

I prefer prime lenses Dave, and would steer you towards the Nikkor 600mm F/4 EDIF (older MF or later AF models) or the smaller and lighter 600mmm f/5.6 EDIF - all have superb handling and very sharp optics.

The Nikon 600mm f4 manual focus lens I had was not very sharp at all, and I've heard other people say the same.
Major problem with these big primes is being able to find the subject, especially with the big magnifications afforded by the small sensors. A zoom is a massive help here, even the Canon 150-600 is a lot easier even though it's only 4x.
Problem with the 180-600 is that it's not internal focus so would need a heavy (and therefore shaky) hand on it to focus it. Same goes for the old MF 200-400.
Steve

Personally I'd be thinking of how to improve your field skill/position to get closer and improve your knowledge of your subject. At those focal lengths so many other factors come into play to degrade the your image. I make that 2100mm 35mm equiv! / thats some powerful tele as it stands!

...The Nikon 600mm f4 manual focus lens I had was not very sharp at all, and I've heard other people say the same.
Steve

I would have to disagree with that statement completely, as all the Nikkor 600mm lenses, both manual and AF are superb and knife-sharp (possibly the one that you tried had a fault). The latest AF version is maybe a touch sharper wide open, but you would be hard-done to spot the difference in even a large-scale print, and certainly not in video footage.

So in my view you cannot buy better than any of the Nikkor 600mm lenses if you need to stretch to that range.

Mat has hit the nail on the head when he mentions field skills and handling. At extreme magnifications many extra problems come into play, such as tripod vibration, distance from subject, atmospheric conditions, side-winds etc., and these cause a negative impact on any shoots with super-telephoto lenses.

There is no doubt that you will obtain better footage with a 300mm or 200mm lens if you can get close enough, but at times when the 600mm lens magnification is the closest you can get, then it can provide outstanding footage - as long as you keep vibrations at bay and shoot during the best weather conditions. Most of your best footage will be on a locked-down tripod, or with extra brace.

If you need to do a lot of follow footage or pans, then I'd keep to 300mm or shorter if at all possible.

I would adivse anyone to be careful with the 600 f4 MF. Don't know if you've ever owned one Tony, but I have read several other people's tests showing that it was pretty poor, certainly when compared to modern Canon 600 f4 for example, and not even close - can't remember the figures but if the Canon was resolving something like 90 lp/mm the Nikon was down at about 40, it was that big a difference, and that was with several samples. I tried mine against my equally old Canon FD 500mm f4.5 and the difference was immediately very obvious, flat and not that sharp. Maybe they just don't age well.
Try before you buy I'd say.
Steve

At wide open aperture the Nikkor 600mm Ais matches very closely the performance of the 600mm VR. The older lens also has a better and more stable tripod mount.

Performance of both the 600mm Ais f4 & f/5.6 lenses are at thier peak wide open and sharpness actually softens very slightly on the F/4 model when you stop down the aperture ring only half or one stop. The latest Af version holds sharpness a bit better down to F/8, but we are talking about minute differences at huge photo enlargements.

One thing that was common with used versions of the heavyweight 600mm F/4 is that slight knocks often moves focus alignment, so I would test the lens before buying if you can. The f5.6 version seems to handle heavy-duty a bit better, in fact I've owned four different Ai and Ais versions and all were sharp as a knife (as long as on a sturdy tripod of course).

My favourite of the Nikon 600's is the f/5.6 AIS ED-IF version (there were several 5.6 versions) - lightweight, sturdy, smooth focus ring and ultra-sharp. The 800mm f/5.6 ED-IF is also a wonderful built lens with biting sharpness when used correctly.

One of the sharpest of the latest rack of AF lenses is the 500mm AFS f/4 ED-IF, although the earlier MF 500mm f/4 Nikkor-P ED-IF almost matches it for sharpness.

Have you actually tested this? I'd be surprised if the old 600 was even close to the latest one. This is a thread I saw before I bought mine Optical Performance of Nikon 600mm f/4 AI versus AIS lenses? - Photo.net Nikon Forum (http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/004g0e) and I was a little surprised, but mine seemed relatively poor too.
I think there is a bit a difference when some of these lenses are used on film vs digital bodies, as I too had an MF Nikon MF 500 f4P which was amazing on my F5, but had terrible chromatic aberration and less than perfect sharpness on a D200.
Steve

Yes, I have owned and tested the mentioned lenses; as have Bjørn Rørslett and others who have given similar results. William's lens was, as he mentioned, well used and out of alignment so cannot really be taken into consideration.

It is true that the MF 500mm f/4 performs very slightly better on the F5 or F6 than it does on the D70, D200, D2X etc., with slight CA creeping in - some of this is of course due to increased magnification factor on a smaller DX sensor, but it is certainly still very sharp and providing high levels of detail...more than enough for both stills and video at professional level (any slight CA in still photos can be easily rectified in post, so not a problem).

The AFS version is better, but obviously at a premium price compared to a mint MF version, and I'd doubt if many people could spot the difference between video footage shot on both.

Regarding lenses performing differently on film cameras and digital cameras. This is a well known fact. Some lenses perform equally on digital and film, some perform better on film, and some perform better on digital. The 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/5.6 perform very well on the F5 SLR and the FX Nikon D3 DSLR for example.

A lot of these SLR & DSLR matched lens tests can of couse be taken with a pinch of salt after you bayonet them instead to a camcorder, especially with tiny sensors like on a Canon XL-H1s for example. Then the huge lens magnification factor can greatly increase CA and colour fringing on most lenses, so it is better to test each lens with your chosen camcorders and also work as closely as possible to your subjects to cut down on heatwaving etc.